> This is what she says happened. There content of the note is not provided, they didn't reach out to the officials, they didn't interview neighbors.
Yes, and? I find it plausible something like that happened based on my own experiences here. I see minimal incentive for her to lie. This isn't a court: that's enough for me to assume it true for the purpose of idle commentary.
> But for every story of bad neighbors doing this, there are orders of magnitude more unreported stories of neighbors helping each other.
That's consistent with there being a serious problem. You can't compare "raw number of bad things" to "raw number of good things" like that. Trivial example: if 4% of a neighborhood is shot at that's a neighborhood with a big shooting problem.
Plausible is a very low bar. We have to weigh what is more likely. She may not be outright lying, but it seems significantly more likely this isn't the full story and may include exaggerations.
"that's enough for me to assume it true for the purpose of idle commentary."
Why don't you assume what I'm saying is the truth? This is a story with terrible journalism. There's really no reason to assume this is the whole story, or even an accurate one.
"That's consistent with there being a serious problem. You can't compare "raw number of bad things" to "raw number of good things" like that. Trivial example: if 4% of a neighborhood is shot at that's a neighborhood with a big shooting problem."
Please read the context. We aren't talking about shootings. The prior comment implies bad neighbors being common in the US. I'm saying thats not the case. Clearly assessing what is common would be useful to compare raw numbers.
Yes, and? I find it plausible something like that happened based on my own experiences here. I see minimal incentive for her to lie. This isn't a court: that's enough for me to assume it true for the purpose of idle commentary.
> But for every story of bad neighbors doing this, there are orders of magnitude more unreported stories of neighbors helping each other.
That's consistent with there being a serious problem. You can't compare "raw number of bad things" to "raw number of good things" like that. Trivial example: if 4% of a neighborhood is shot at that's a neighborhood with a big shooting problem.