> It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism.
Quoting someone who already explained why this interpretation is untenable:
> The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark.
I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.
I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away was "trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be "a defense of ignorant reactionaries."
If there's anything in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended consequences...
It's implied by the context of the thread. The subject is "ignorant reactionaries". No one has challenged that characterization, so we're left assuming that the commenter is arguing that "ignorant reactionaries" are equivalent to "healthy skeptics".
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. [0]
It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism.
The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark.
I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.
I have an uncle who's a retired Game, Fish, and Parks warden from Alaska. From his stories, at least, it's far less thankless a job than your comment would make it out.
To be sure, he caught no end of flak and abuse from people who were over their quota, or fishing in the wrong place, or poaching, or whatever, but — at least according to his telling — the majority of citizens he interacted with exhibited many-to-most of the "good" traits we associate with "outdoorsman" and such.
Good, next time I’m fishing and get approached by the DNR I’ll be sure to thank them.
Fishing is weird in some ways. My trout stamp directly funds the stocking and protection of trout waters in Georgia. The parking passes I use for fishing and kayaking locally directly fund those parks and rivers. The same in Florida, my saltwater license is funding the restocking of Redfish and other species that were wiped out by Red Tide and hurricanes last year.
For hunting and fishing you have a vested interest in the wildlife. I’ve seen hunters on TV call the DNR on themselves because they are that dedicated to the outdoors.