In this case, the site owner is deliberately sabotaging non-JavaScript users in order to get them to run ad-tracking and analytics. There isn't actually a good-faith reason to require JavaScript here.
The site owner profits from showing ads. There's little business reason for them to show ad-less pages to users. What does good faith have to do with it? They're not assuming you'll hack them or steal their content, it's a matter of business.
My Chrome still has a radio button (admittedly not a checkbox...) that will disable javascript on all sites.
There's a distinction to be made between content sites and application sites. It's really just too much work to try to make an application fall back to plain HTML, but for a content-centered site, like a blog, a news site, etc, it's not that hard to do things right and not require JS.
> If you cripple your browser some websites will break.
A browser which doesn't implement JavaScript is not crippled; it is 100% functional. A web page which requires JavaScript is crippled, because JavaScript is not required in order to display text and images.
Fail gracefully was over the moment the "disable javascript" checkbox was removed from the options menu in every major browser.