ignorance or silliness, I usually bow out of the conversation. Nowhere have I even begun to suggest what you attribute to me. You're grossly mischaracterizing the question and it should be painfully obvious that you are. The question is not whether we assume the worst of others at all times. Of course not and that's a stupid question/point that never really came up until you just said it.

The question is whether ... when confronted with information, even, perhaps information limited in some way ... that calls into question the decision of another, what we do about it. You, and some others, seem to think that we can't ever intelligently question decisions ... even when they *appear* to be bad if we don't have ALL the information. That's a stupid viewpoint IMO.

To answer another question, I absolutely expect others to form opinions about my competence based on their observations, even with imperfect information. It's stupid to form hard, definitive, concrete, inflexible opinions without sufficient information, but it's equally stupid to insinuate that we can't question decisions that appear to be bad without perfect information.

By your specious reasoning (at best), we can't ever criticize politicians either right? How in the world do you ever judge politicians competence and whether you'll vote for them again because you don't have enough info to judge their performance? Crazy. Silly. The truth is that we CAN gauge the performance of people who have more info than we do. And at the bare minimum, we certainly can question decisions, even when we don't have all the info ... it's very reasonable to do so and I'd argue that it's GOOD when we do so.