Difference between revisions of "Deliberate ignorance"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added an example)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
* "Complete suspension of disbelief!"
 
* "Complete suspension of disbelief!"
 
* "That [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends me]]!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
 
* "That [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends me]]!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
 +
* "You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)
  
 
== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==
 
== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

Revision as of 17:38, February 14, 2011

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 find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by liberals[3])
  • "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!"
  • "They hate us for our freedom!"
  • "Complete suspension of disbelief!"
  • "That offends me!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
  • "You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)

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."[4]

References