>>14315 TRAC notes child sex trafficking prosecutions plummeted under Trump
Baker Notable
Baseless speculation without sauce.
You're literally saying their methodology ignored data but it's not a methodology problem.
Why are they not counting those? How did they get to ignore them?
Your counter argument is their methodology is flawed because they missed those arrests. Now ask why and how. Once you answer that, then we can explain it to normies.
Almost certainly it's going to be this line:
So far during the first eight months of FY 2019, case-by-case government files record a total of 108 prosecutions under this statute. If the same pace continues for the rest of the fiscal year, the annual estimate for FY 2019 prosecutions of this type will have fallen 32.2 percent, from 239 prosecutions that took place five years ago.
Well it shouldn't/won't because of the 3,000 plus arrests that have happened.
Yes I know. I already explained the most likely methodological flaw here: >>14368
We're a research board. Do some research and give the counter argument. Don't just cry that the data is against what your preconceived notions of reality are. Understand how they got their numbers, why those numbers are correct/incorrect, and counter narrative.
"nu-uh" isn't a good counter argument. "The 3000+ arrests in these two operations have not reached trial yet, which is why the numbers seem down" is.
Where are the autists?
I never said anything about logic. Please reread this conversation.
I said METHODOLOGICAL flaw. As in, what methodology did they use to come to their conclusion?
Obviously they're using prosecutions, and extrapolating future trends from past trends.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE IF 3,000 PEOPLE WERE JUST ARRESTED
So that's how you attack the piece. On their shitty counting and extrapolation into the future.
Saying "but muh arrests" is meaningless without the context of why those arrests are an important counter argument to the piece.
Why is this hard to understand?
It's crying because everyone knows they're biased, and it's trivially easy to rebut. I mean I've done it just by reading shit here. See this post: >>14386
Do you not see how that's a better argument against the piece than saying "but they're biased and obviously wrong because I don't like them!"
If we have data that counters our position, we need to find the countering data. Not whine that there is data against us. That's what the other side does. We need to be better. Otherwise we're just shilling for our position rather than theirs.
I didn't attack you at all. I merely said that we can't dismiss an article because we don't like it's conclusions, and we need to find a counter argument. I then used your data to fashion said counter argument and gave it to you.
I'm literally here helping you and you think I'm attacking you.
The state of this movement is depressing me.
Yeah but if 3,000 people were just arrested and their prosecutions haven't started yet, the piece is just flat out wrong for extrapolating 100 cases for the rest of the year since there have been 100 cases in the first 6 months.
No need to even go much deeper than that. Just have to point that out and wait for those 3000 cases to appear and then presto-chango the article looks ridiculous.
So better would be to see how the prosecutions of those 3000 people are going to be handled. That will give more insight into what's going to make them look stupid.