Difference between revisions of "Deliberate ignorance"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(legal meaning also)
(can be a crime)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
* I'm not interested in that!
 
* I'm not interested in that!
  
−
== Legal Meaning ==
+
== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==
  
−
'''Deliberate ignorance''' is a legal term also.  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>
+
'''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 ==

Revision as of 18:18, March 20, 2008

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

(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."[2]

References

  1. ↑ This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility here.
  2. ↑ http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/