>

But if the data is hard to interpret, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?
I understand this might be going beyond your CMV.
... where it's not illegal most people who do sex work obviously want to keep a low profile. ...

I'm not so sure that's true.  Sex workers tend to be a vulnerable population, which means that they can get a lot of benefit from the protections that the state provides.   I remember a story about street walkers seeking out CCTV cameras for the extra safety they provided.  (Of course that could just be more of the "warped as hell" that you're talking about.)
That said, we do have some pretty good statistical techniques for tracking stuff, even if it is mostly hidden, and prostitution is certainly common enough for those techniques to be effective.  So I think that issues with the availability and credibility of statistics about sex work is going to have more to do with politics or indifference than with people's ability to hide what they're doing.

... And that's why we can hardly have a conversation about the topic without it turning into a shitfest.  ...

How much of the "shitfest" is people disagreeing about facts, and how much of it is people being emotionally involved in the topic at hand? >


How much of the "shitfest" is people disagreeing about facts, and how much of it is people being emotionally involved in the topic at hand?

I don't know but the last time i posted something similar i basically got called a disgusting monster and a rapist by multiple users. I really didn't know if to laugh or to get pissed.  Some people are just incredibly... clueless. >

We know for certain that some sex workers are trafficked, and that some others have no other means of survival. 
We also know that trafficking will continue as long as it is profitable. 
Unless one knows a particular sex worker well enough to ascertain their wellbeing, it is difficult or impossible to know that they are not being coerced.
At what degree of probability that a sex worker is being trafficked would you consider it immoral to pay for their services, potentially contributing to the profitability of trafficking? >


At what degree of probability that a sex worker is being trafficked would you consider it immoral to pay for their services, potentially contributing to the profitability of trafficking?

A good question. I really couldn't say. 10-20%? >

So you're fine if 1 in 20 sex workers you visit has been trafficked, but not 2 in 20? Could you explain how and why you're drawing the line where you're drawing it? >

"They have no real basis to their way if thinking either, but it fits their world view, and they have no real motivation to change their thinking either, because the data is all bullshit anyways."
Just wanted to clarify all this would be the same for you, right? In fact, moreso because then you don't get what you want >

Yes exactly the same. Unless someone comes up with some convincing data