10.03.2006

Comment War Leads to Clear Victor

A week ago I wrote about the DC Crime Bill and what a big fat failure it was. The curfews weren't working. The cameras weren't working. People were still getting shot at alarming rates. Conclusion: failure.

I was involved in an exchange with someone going by "Conservative With a Brain" in the comments section of the post. I would very much like to copy-and-paste portions of this exchange. It goes on for a while, so I understand if you want to skip past all of this. CWaB's words are italicized, mine are bold and italicized.

Did you ever stop to think that if these little scumbags had actually been OBEYING THE LAW and had not been out on the streets after the curfew, that they would still be alive???? CURFEWS WORK IF THEY ARE ENFORCED. But if they were enforced, you would bitch about that instead.

As far as cameras go, they too work if used properly. A friend of mine was recently mugged in England. Within a few hours, the muggers were in jail. Why? Because the entire scene was caught on video.

But no, you'd rather just bitch that your right to privacy while on a PUBLIC street is being invaded, while offering no alternatives.

It's a spiral of poverty and hopelessness. There are no easy answers which is why the youth curfew and the security cameras were so obviously destined to fail.

...As for the cameras, you also chose to ignore my comment regarding the friend who was mugged. Hmm....let's see here. Friend mugged. Perps caught within hours because of CAMERAS. Perps now in jail. Perps can no longer mug anyone else (at least temporarily). But cameras don't work. Are you really that fucking stupid?

That's the way you want it? Crime gets bad so everyone is forced to be in bed by 10pm? What about the 32-yr-old who got shot in the back with a 14-yr-old in SE? What did he do to deserve his premature death?

And I'm glad that cameras caught your friend's muggers. Your anecdote is final proof that cameras are an effective way to catch criminals.

This is un-freaking-believable.

Anecdotal? What the fuck are you talking about, Rusty? I give indisputable proof that cameras can be an effective way to fight crime, and you call my proof "anecdotal"? Let's cover it again. BECAUSE OF THE CAMERAS, THESE GUYS ARE IN JAIL, AND CAN NO LONGER MUG ANYONE ELSE. Is that do difficult to understand? But it's "anectdotal" (sic!)? Why? Because it worked? Why are liberals so unable to grasp the concept that they may be wrong?...

Why is it so difficult for you to consider another point of view?

Do you know what anecdotal means? Your sample size of one is statistically meaningless.

Indisputable proof? I'm sorry, but I can dispute all sorts of things regarding security cameras. Can they work? Of course. But your friend's experience has done literally nothing to convince me that security cameras are an acceptable and productive way to fight crime.

(After my retort someone left an anonymous comment that included the dictionary definition of the word "anecdote." That person is undeniably awesome.)

My friend's attackers are in jail because of security cameras, and therefore cannot mug anyone else. Yet you say:"But your friend's experience has done literally nothing to convince me that security cameras are an acceptable and productive way to fight crime."Holy shit -- you really ARE that fucking stupid, aren't you?

Still with me? OK. Well, a bit later, on a different post, Conservative With a Brain left this comment:

...Dude, it ain't worth it. If Rusty could put forth a decent argument, instead of ignoring facts, I may stick around. I keep promising myself I'm going to delete this dumbass blog from my bookmarks, but for some reason I keep coming back. It's like some sort of freakin' drug. I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone. As long as the opposing side puts forth a good argument, instead of ignoring facts and statistics from reliable sources...

It's a shame that this hateful douchebag doesn't read this blog anymore. It would give me unlimited happiness for him to respond to this little hyperlink (h/t to DCist): "Police: Cameras Not Helping Fight Crime Much."

Yes, the Metro Police admit that cameras have yet to be used in a single prosecution. They haven't solved any crimes. And they certainly haven't been a deterrent. Two people have been murdered within the sightlines of the cameras. The cameras have failed. The emergency crime legislation has failed. DC fails its constituents again!

I'd rather be wrong and have cameras save lives than be right and watch innocent people get shot. But I am right, so let me revel in it. I just want to leave CWaB this little message:

The reason I ignore what you say is because I think you are an idiot. You don't even know what "anecdotal" means. You have cited no evidence other than a friend of yours getting mugged in London which you could have made up anyways. I'm taking you at your word which is probably more credit than you deserve. Regardless, you were wrong. If that weren't bad enough, you called juvenile murder victims "scumbags" because they were out and about after curfew. You are the worst kind of person. A cocky person who has the intellect of a field mouse and who has no empathy for others. Eat crow and eat shit, motherfucker.

Score one for Rusty, bitch.

21 comments:

  1. Conservative With A Brain says your blog is like a drug. It must be poisoning him; I hope they find an anecdote for it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You were right to insist on the proper definition of anecdotal evidence. While the show HOMICIDE was running in Baltimore, a pair of robbers, attempting to evade arrest unknowingly ran into an area they were using to film, ran into two of the cast members and surrendered. By CWaB's reasoning, this is "indisputable proof" that the cast of HOMICIDE should be used to police street crime.

    And, going further, I'm afraid that the traditional position of Conservatives With Brains is that surveillance of that kind equals large, intrusive governments and were therefore verboten. But times change, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ted Kennedy's LiverOctober 03, 2006

    "Conservative" these days basically means "keep fighting in Iraq" "lower my taxes," "pray in school."

    As far as "liberal" I think it means "kill any unborn child you want."

    Nice country.

    ReplyDelete
  4. liberal with a brainOctober 03, 2006

    Rusty,

    I believe "Conservative with a Brain" was using anecdotal evidence from the UK to say that it might work here.

    I also believe I just saw a news report yesterday indicating that cameras were working very well in the UK in fighting crime (either deterring or prosecuting)....

    The thing is, the camera system is just a "beta" deal. There's really not the sort of comprehensive (I'm borrowing that word from the "open borders crowd") system in place here as they have in the UK.

    Well, Ted Kennedy's Liver, if that's your assessment, I am neither liberal nor conservative. Now the republicans are trying to get my vote on the border issue but they're not doing well enough to make me forget about other issues.

    yes, nice country.

    ReplyDelete
  5. liberal with a brainOctober 03, 2006

    Ahhh, conservative w/ a brain dared to challenge the liberal orthodoxy around here.

    Rusty, just to be a prick, I'm going to put an "Allen" sticker on my car and pray it doesn't get vandalized.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have a blog and I'm going to write a post about what a homo Rusty is.

    I thought for sure you'd write a post today defending former congressman Foley.

    ReplyDelete
  7. conservative with a brain. That's an oxymoron.

    ReplyDelete
  8. He's like all those other conservatives who scream "enforce the laws on the books," but simultaneously scream "smaller government"and "less taxes." They can't have it both ways.

    Kinda of like molesting children and charing a congressional child protection committee.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My anecdotal evidence:

    I put up cameras in my Kingdom of Make Believe and that finally stopped Mr. McFeely from breaking into Daniel Tiger's clock-house to steal drug money.

    ReplyDelete
  10. liberal with a brainOctober 03, 2006

    He's like all those other conservatives who scream "enforce the laws on the books," but simultaneously scream "smaller government"and "less taxes." They can't have it both ways.

    Begin-rant: Uh, 'scuse me, Lucy! What conservatives would those be? Most (neo) conservatives today are fighting for a half-trillion or more defense budget and spending on all kinds of pork barrell shit.

    And remember "compassionate conservativism?" Now, I'm all for funding social programs like Head Start (which works!) and WIC (which HALF the mothers in America receive, which half were you in?!), but I do think that enforcing border law isn't going to break the bank.

    It'll actually save us some money as the average American is losing $11k per year in wealth because of illegal immigration.

    Who do you think pays for all of those social services and the emergency room care and the new teachers? My ex-girlfriend got a Masters degree in bilingual education for FREE, a $35,000 benefit paid for by the federal government.

    Your arguments make no logical sense but stem only from ignorance.

    And all you can do is castigate people who disagree w/ the ENTIRE democratic orthodoxy by using slogans:

    1. conservative w/ a brain is an oxymorin.
    2. guns don't kill people, I do.

    And on and on....


    Sure, Conservative w/ a brain is a bit foolish but you'd forgive his often asinine logic were he a liberal.

    It's okay for liberals to be stupid and fall back on slogan-thinking all of the time.

    Backslash-end-rant.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I like your style, King Friday, XIII.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Conservative Spending. $477 billion deficit.

    http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-040420.html

    And what were you saying about ignorance?

    ReplyDelete
  13. That's EXACTLY what my point was. They be spending lots of money!

    I also said that I fall into neither the liberal nor conservative camps. A square peg in a round hole, perhaps.

    But there you go again (Ronald Reagan voice), trying to define me. If you weren't so ignorant, you might have gleaned that by reading the comment thread. ;)

    I mean, i AGREE w/ you on that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ted Kennedy's LiverOctober 03, 2006

    The wire is a good show.

    As far as your victory dance, Randy, your whole argument can easily be overcome by, i don't know, perhaps putting up MORE or BETTER cameras in the shitbox areas of DC (oh, wait, that would be about 90% of this hole).

    ReplyDelete
  15. I know that my argument is filled with holes. But I am undeniably "more right" that CWaB.

    That being said, I don't think you're right. People are already willing to shoot people right in front of the cameras. There doesn't seem to be a deterrent factor here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. MS-13 with a brainOctober 03, 2006

    Wow! Rusty straight thuggin. American University has been known for rowdy frat boys attacking one another in large numbers. Nowhere near as large as MS but large none the less.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I put up cameras in my Kingdom of Make Believe and that finally stopped Mr. McFeely from breaking into Daniel Tiger's clock-house to steal drug money.

    Oh, thank goodness. The nightmare is over!

    ReplyDelete
  18. like Jesus Reagan said, facts are stupid things!

    ReplyDelete
  19. oh, you know what else? my friend in london drove drunk once and didn't get into a wreck, so drunk driving doesn't cause accidents! and like once, tim mccarver said something funny, so he's a great broadcaster!

    ReplyDelete
  20. If that 19-yr-old girl didn't break the law and drink, she wouldn't have been date raped. She is a scumbag for braking the law.

    ReplyDelete
  21. you devoted an entire post to this argument, which was carried on via a comment section on a BLOG, for god's sake. you have really taken a turn for the worse.

    ReplyDelete