Difference between revisions of "Deliberate ignorance"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (link)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
 
* [[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]]
 
* [[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 at [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php].</ref>
+
* [[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
 
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
 
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
 
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]

Revision as of 02:32, February 25, 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 the Encyclopedia Britannica!
  • I've never heard my public school teacher say that!
  • Let's talk about something else!
  • I'm not interested in that!

References

  1. ↑ This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility here.