OAP home allows residents to book sex workers

[Charlezee]

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4767106/investigation-into-nursing-home-for-allowing-prostitutes.html

What do you think?

[badinage]

Yes I'm a very quick reader and familiar with academic texts. But if you're interested in helping the discussion along, do say where it discusses the ratios of brothel workers/street prostitutes and independents. It just doesn't seem to be there. Am I wasting my time looking for it? A cut and paste or a Page No. would really help.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

It was, after all, written after much research, actually meeting with and talking to sex workers, been more than peer-reviewed (since it gained her her pHD) and published... But of course your opinion that it's "badly-written" matters more.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Leaving aside the stats on what % of sex workers are streetworkers (I'llhave another look tomorrow) how do you feel about her general thesis, now you've read it so thoroughly?

[FloraFox]

Oh a PhD paper written by someone somewhere... that changes everything. Or not.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

It doesn't change everthing. It sheds new light.

Have you read it?

[FloraFox]

Doubt it. I've read enough pomo / third wave bullshit for one lifetime. You can't even be bothered to or you're not capable of summarising the salient points. Why should I bother to read it?

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

(Given that the much-quoted Melissa Farley is self-funded and self-published, according to Dr Magnanti.)

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Flora, if you were actually interested in the facts, you'd read it. What is it that disturbs you so?

[FloraFox]

What facts are in there?

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Erm, try actually reading it, then you'd know.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

It can't be that hard, badinage managed it in a short time.

[FloraFox]

You're not selling this very well. 300+ pages written by someone somewhere - why should I read it? Because you think it's Very Weighty. And Sheds New Light. Whereas I have a strong suspicion I'll waste my time reading pomo / third wave bullshit. Saying Nothing New.

[badinage]

Still reading, but it's irredeemably dull and full of personal bias. Still no sign of the data you claimed was in it either....

I think supplying a link which is 132 pages long as an answer to a question about the stats to support your claim about ratios, is a silencing technique in that it diverts attention from what I was asking you and Jaans about what your objections were, beyond the philosophical 'rights' issue, to these proposals.

Jaan mentioned safety but has failed to follow that up and OLKN you haven't answered those questions at all.

I'm really not interested in pausing a discussion to read a thesis. I only looked at it because you linked it as an answer to my question. So I'll look tomorrow to see whether you and Jaan11 are more forthcoming and whether you've found those stats. For now, I'm grateful to Jenkins for a sudden onset of drowsiness.....

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

So you'd be happy enacting new legislation on the basis of one person's "feelings"?

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Badinage, you said you'd already read it! You big fibber!

Going to sleep now, will reconnect, with more references, later.

[badinage]

Hah! Even worse to expect someone to break off and wade through 312 pages just to get some stats! Not 132 as I stated. Nighty night.

[FloraFox]

And again, what are the facts? It's a thesis. It's someone's opinion.

This might be the only issue you have a vested interest in engage with so you might not know that when people are debating Clever Stuff, the done thing is to say: "here is an interesting paper by W who has X credentials. In it she says (summary of Y). I think that's relevant here because of Z."

Not, "I believe A. A PhD somewhere wrote something. Read it."

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

And neither of you have actually read the paper fully (total credit to badinage who is at least giving it a go) and Flora, have you any idea what getting a pHd means? It is not just "someone's opinion"!

Read the paper.

[FloraFox]

If you can summarise the salient points and they do actually seem like they're shedding new light, I will read it. If you can't or they don't, I won't.

[badinage]

I didn't fib. I said 'yes I was a quick reader' in response to your compliment about my speed-reading skills. I never claimed to have read the whole thing and I don't intend to. I'm only interested in finding the answer you wouldn't supply in a post. If it doesn't support your claim, then just say so. If it does, please direct me to it and I've been politely asking you to do that, but you either can't or won't.

So I'll just wait for you to back up your claims and answer the questions - and as is my right, draw my own conclusions if that's not forthcoming.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Ok, which points would you like me to summarise? I'll do my best.

[FloraFox]

have you any idea what getting a pHd means?

In what discipline? At which institution? Have you not even gleaned from my posts that it is PhD, not pHd or pHD? You're not covering yourself in glory here.

[FloraFox]

How about the points you're trying to make? Signing off now.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Oh, those comments really work, i make a typo and that's your argument? Well done.

[FloraFox]

Still not sleeping...

No, my argument is that I do know what it takes to get a PhD from some disciplines and some institutions. Some are rigorous and significant and some are not.

My point is that I think you are placing too much emphasis on the significance of a paper from someone who happens to be have a PhD. Some are meaningful and some are not. I assumed that since you wrote it incorrectly twice, you don't know much about it and I do accept that may be unfair.

People write stuff all the time about prostitution. There's more stuff out there than you can read in two lifetimes. Unless you can make a case for why this paper is important, it's not really on to ask everyone to read it as a precondition to engaging in a discussion.