Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Deliberate ignorance

2008-03-23T11:53:13Z

JordanR: Look, it really is this easy to parody you...

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:

* [[Abolitionists]] refusing to acknowledge the economic benefits of slavery
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php here].</ref>
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
(add more)
* [[Northerners]] refusing to acknowledge the evils of integration

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

* I'm not aware of that! (without admitting a failure to look)
* I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!
* That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!
* Let's talk about something else!
* I'm not interested in that!

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:philosophy]]

Deliberate ignorance

2008-03-23T11:50:52Z

JordanR: Added Slavery

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:

* [[Abolitionists]] refusing to acknowledge the economic benefits of slavery
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php here].</ref>
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
(add more)

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

* I'm not aware of that! (without admitting a failure to look)
* I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!
* That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!
* Let's talk about something else!
* I'm not interested in that!

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:philosophy]]

Straw man fallacy

2008-03-23T11:39:12Z

JordanR:

A '''straw man fallacy''' (or straw man argument) is a [[logical fallacy|fallacy]] which occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. Straw man arguments are often found in politics. Liberals often make straw man arguments.

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

[[Category:Logic]]