27 ms·

Yeah, because those guys never get it wrong. /s It is always okay for citizens of this country to criticize the actions of our government. It is healthy to be

Yeah, because those guys never get it wrong. /s It is always okay for citizens of this country to criticize the actions of our government. It is healthy to be skeptical of programs.

wil421 7y ago
What about times they get something right? It’s a thankless job I hope to never have.
- rosser 7y ago
  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.
  - wil421 7y ago
    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.
benchaney 7y ago
Are you suggesting that because experts are imperfect, we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously? That makes no sense. Please clarify.
- rosser 7y ago
  > It is healthy to be skeptical does not imply > we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously
  - weberc2 7y ago
    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".
    - rosser 7y ago
      > 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. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - hombre_fatal 7y ago
        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.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    I take the implication to be that, in this particular case, the skepticism is more than ordinarily uninformed.
  - benchaney 7y ago

Yeah, because those guys never get it wrong. /s It is always okay for citizens of this country to criticize the actions of our government. It is healthy to be skeptical of programs.

wil421 7y ago

What about times they get something right? It’s a thankless job I hope to never have.

rosser 7y ago
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.
- wil421 7y ago
  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.

benchaney 7y ago

Are you suggesting that because experts are imperfect, we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously? That makes no sense. Please clarify.

rosser 7y ago
> It is healthy to be skeptical does not imply > we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously
- weberc2 7y ago
  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".
  - rosser 7y ago
    > 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. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      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.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  I take the implication to be that, in this particular case, the skepticism is more than ordinarily uninformed.
- benchaney 7y ago