I split out into lines again the make the responses clear. I prefer the keep focused on the question at hand (funding NH F&G), but epistemological sidebars are inevitable it seems.
1.) I don't believe I parsed specific words aside from 'entitled', where I sought clarity, not rhetoric. I did parse your sentences, as I do tend to analyze and evaluate statements. Note I am using 'parse' in two distinct ways here. I am also not using rhetoric, at least in it's vernacular use, as I suspect you mean it. While it's true that I do try to string together reasonable arguments to make a point, if you're calling me out on that, then thanks.
I do strongly object to the notion that I am twisting your words to match up with my beliefs. Your failure to address my arguments and instead attack me for merely being persuasive is unnecessary and doesn't add to the discussion. It's quite clear that you disagree with my line of thinking: it's less clear as to why.
2.) That is correct, but also, I didn't say you did. I asked if it was fair, which you have not answered one way or the other. This is the issue in the thread and the main point of contention here, so commenting on this would add value to the thread.
3.) This is an oft repeated line, but it is a conclusion. What are the arguments you make to support the conclusion? I've laid out my stance re: money to the general fund through Room and Meals, and Gas taxes that are a direct result of people visiting the mountains. If those people are contributing, why should they not be entitled to rescue services?
4.) If 'many folks feel entitled to services' is your gripe, then is expecting to being rescued (if needed) a reasonable expectation, or a privilege/special treatment?
It seems to me that you are arguing that some people aren't entitled to these services, but it's not clear who these people are, or what services specifically you mean. In the context of this thread, it should be 'people who need F&G to do a S&R for them, and the service is the S&R.
5.) Agreed, but this comes back to the point in section three (3).
6.) This philosophy has a secondary purpose of off-loading anyone else's problems onto themselves. It's used to ignore vast amounts of human suffering and cast people as 'victims of their own stupidity'. It is inherently anti-social, and is unproductive in practice and conversation.
Perhaps you can explain to me how "taking responsibility for one's own actions" would have helped the women who fell backwards and broke her back on Lafayette years ago? No matter how much responsibility she took, she still needed to be carried.
7.) I was attacking the argument in general, not you. Using a word that has multiple meanings in a way that isn't clear to others is ambiguous. I think people that make arguments that invoke the use of 'entitled' to derided a group of people do so with an understanding on the ambiguity, and therefore are being disingenuous.
Someone who repeats an argument without understanding it isn't being disingenuous - they are indoctrinated. This afflicts everyone to some degree (including me), as we don't have the time/mental capacity to consider every argument we are presented with; however, issues arise when we double-down on arguments that we don't understand when confronted with a valid counter argument. This is where belief usurps reason (and I get sad).
8.) The arguments are laid out in this thread:
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?59786-Hiker-to-be-Charged-for-Rescue in post 68, with follow up in posts 81, and 84. The estimates are meant to be reasonable, and would absolutely be adjusted with the introduction of more accurate information. Ultimately, I think NH should study this to come up with accurate numbers for all recreation users.
