Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

us5.campaign-archive1.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#31

Post by a_bonobo »

aetherson wrote: post #22
aalpbalkan wrote: post #10

> (underlined) Today it's a prostitution ring, tomorrow it could be an illegal gambling ring, and maybe next week it could be a drug operation. This is textbook 'slippery slope' fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

Slippery slope is not a logical fallacy. Like any argument, it might be right or it might be wrong, and if your entire argument is, "X and Y are in some way vaguely similar, so if we allow X, then Y," then your point is certainly under-argued. But it is, in fact, the case that in at least some circumstances, people change the status quo by taking a small step outside the status quo, normalizing it as the new status q…

Would this be an example for Tragedy Of The Commons?

A small group of users act rational and in self-interest (by offering prostitution, illegal gambling etc.) and therefore make it worse for the other 'legitimate' users. In the long run, the 'illegal' users destroy AirBnB (by causing stricter laws etc.) and therefore destroy their own business.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#32

Post by schrodinger »

moron4hire wrote: post #16
rch wrote: post #4

> we need to protect the limited housing stock we have from being arbitraged into other uses This seems like a more compelling point than the title topic.

So basically, she's admitting that the property is more valuable than its current use, and the city is actively denying itself tax revenue because of it.

Sometimes a short term gain in capital doesn't result in a long term social benefit. Of course people on vacation will spend more for a few days than a resident will for rent. But if that grows unchecked, the city will begin to lose its residents. Which additionally will result in a decline in income taxes, so it may even result in a decline in tax revene.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#33

Post by maldeh »

aalpbalkan wrote: post #10

> (underlined) Today it's a prostitution ring, tomorrow it could be an illegal gambling ring, and maybe next week it could be a drug operation. This is textbook 'slippery slope' fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

this only bears a very superficial resemblance to the slippery slope argument. We're not leaping from a dubious, frowned upon activity to an extreme hypothetical.

All of the aforementioned activities are (a) unambiguously illegal, and (b) within the same class of illegality, in that they are all based off social norms of morality and thrive on the same drives of moral ambiguity.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#34

Post by 001sky »

darklajid wrote: post #18
001sky wrote: post #9

This is the NY Post'a article which the kreuger text references, it's in the headline article but for those skimming the comments or who missed the hyperlink: http://nypost.com/2014/04/14/hookers-using-airbnb-to-use-apa...

That article is .. not helpful. So baby swipes and 'at least ten condoms' is a proof of prostitution? That .. doesn't quite add up. I mean, you actually buy condoms in packs of 10-12 here and the baby swipe thing is inconclusive. Maybe the claim in the headline is right, probably the story is backed by real facts. That article though? That's really useless.

"Says a 21-year-old call girl who works for the illicit business.[...]

“It’s more discreet and much cheaper than The Waldorf,”

--> Apparently, this is from an interview. But, YMMV.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#35

Post by stormbrew »

aetherson wrote: post #22
aalpbalkan wrote: post #10

> (underlined) Today it's a prostitution ring, tomorrow it could be an illegal gambling ring, and maybe next week it could be a drug operation. This is textbook 'slippery slope' fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

Slippery slope is not a logical fallacy. Like any argument, it might be right or it might be wrong, and if your entire argument is, "X and Y are in some way vaguely similar, so if we allow X, then Y," then your point is certainly under-argued. But it is, in fact, the case that in at least some circumstances, people change the status quo by taking a small step outside the status quo, normalizing it as the new status q…

It is absolutely an informal fallacy[1]. The onus is on the person making the claim of similarity to demonstrate why that similarity is valid, so on its own it lacks any argumentative weight.

Something being an informal fallacy doesn't mean that it can't be a component of a good argument (ie. correlation not implying causation doesn't mean there are no cases where something can be demonstrated to be causitive), it means that it is not an argument in and of itself.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#36

Post by schrodinger »

PeterisP wrote: post #28
sjtgraham wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't get much worse than one's apartment being used as a brothel, there's really nowhere to slide to at that point.

If my neighbour chooses to work as a prostitute in their apartment, or rent their apartment to someone who happens to be a prostitute - that's not nearly the end of the world, you know, they're people too, just with a comparably hard/unpleasant profession. An active neighbour can easily be bringing some stranger they picked up at a bar twice each night; if that stranger pays afterwards then that doesn't change anythi…

In this case it's a prostitution ring, which isn't really the same as a long term neighbor who happens to sleep around a lot. I think someone who calls an apartment home rather then stopping there once and never coming back will be more respectful.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#37

Post by balls187 »

aalpbalkan wrote: post #10

> (underlined) Today it's a prostitution ring, tomorrow it could be an illegal gambling ring, and maybe next week it could be a drug operation. This is textbook 'slippery slope' fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

It is a logical fallacy, however, claiming that an argument is invalid due to logical fallacy, is also a fallacy.

There is enough evidence that shows that prostitution, drugs, and violent crime are inextricably linked.

Prostitutes are more likely to be victims of sexual assault, while being under the influence of drugs provided by their pimps, who may also use violence as a means to control the prostitutes, and as way to deal with Johns.

In addition to sex, drugs, and violence, prostitution has ties to human trafficking, child exploitation, and slavery, not to mention the health risks.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#38

Post by moron4hire »

ddt wrote: post #30
moron4hire wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, she's admitting that the property is more valuable than its current use, and the city is actively denying itself tax revenue because of it.

I think she's taking the position that there's inherent value in providing affordable residential property in New York which exceeds the value in extracting maximum tax revenue from every square inch of the city. At the very least, I find that to be a defensible position.

Yeah, I get that, but it seems pretty tenuous. All this talk about the "value" of the property with regards to it being used for one thing over another, when price is the way in which we quantify value.

Who gets to decide what the value of a piece of property to The People should be? Should it be elected officials, who probably only represent the interests of the people on even numbered days, or should it be The People themselves, through price movement?

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#39

Post by michaelt »

moron4hire wrote: post #16
rch wrote: post #4

> we need to protect the limited housing stock we have from being arbitraged into other uses This seems like a more compelling point than the title topic.

So basically, she's admitting that the property is more valuable than its current use, and the city is actively denying itself tax revenue because of it.

Some would say the purpose of government is to provide the services the voters voted for it to provide at as low a cost as reasonably possible - rather than to maximise tax revenue.

There are many things that would increase short term government revenue but which would be terrible public policy.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#40

Post by moron4hire »

schrodinger wrote: post #32
moron4hire wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, she's admitting that the property is more valuable than its current use, and the city is actively denying itself tax revenue because of it.

Sometimes a short term gain in capital doesn't result in a long term social benefit. Of course people on vacation will spend more for a few days than a resident will for rent. But if that grows unchecked, the city will begin to lose its residents. Which additionally will result in a decline in income taxes, so it may even result in a decline in tax revene.

And if the city loses residents, then it can't support its tourism industry as well, and then it become less of an attractive tourist destination. This really seems like a self correcting problem.
Post reply on HN