The Plague of Denying Ignorance - Rant in a Mirror

Pardon?

vasaga
reply to post by Pardon?

 

I asked what. Not who.

The same thing that defines what or who.
Context.

Nope.. 'What' refers to a specific universal rule which you have yet to specify. 'Who' refers to authority, which only ends in a logical fallacy.

EnochWasRight
Typically, the rant section reflects the attitude of the person writing the thread. Not today. Today, I will give you a chance to rant. Here is the scenario.

The idea of ATS is to deny the ignorance of those who conspire against truth. For instance, if a politician tells a load of lies to get elected, then does the opposite, ATS will be there to point out the hypocrisy. There is a problem with this. People ignore truth. This is basically how ignorance is defined. The question then becomes, "What is truth?" How many opinions are there to answer this question?

edit on 2-11-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

I think, perhaps, before a discussion of truth; a discussion of just exactly "Deny Ignorance" means.

Let's start with Websters definition of ignorace - simple and straightforward"

Ignorance:

www.merriam-webster.com...
ig·no·rance noun ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s
: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant

Full Definition of IGNORANCE
:  the state or fact of being ignorant :  lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

We need to define it only a little more - State vs Fact. I'd like to propose, for the purposes of this discussion (I hope) that we use a State rather then a Fact.

Next, the hard one: Deny, also from Websters:

www.merriam-webster.com...

de·ny transitive verb di-ˈnī, dē-
: to say that something is not true
: to refuse to accept or admit (something)
: to refuse to give (something) to someone : to prevent someone from having or receiving (something)
de·niedde·ny·ing

Full Definition of DENY
1
:  to declare untrue
2
:  to refuse to admit or acknowledge :  disavow
3
a :  to give a negative answer to

b :  to refuse to grant

c :  to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires
4
archaic :  decline
5
:  to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of

Let's take he possibilities one at a time:

1) To declare untrue:

So "Deny Ignorance" means "to declare that ignorance (the state of) is untrue". Using this definition the phase means that ignorance is untrue, or ignorance doesn't exist.

2) To refuse to admit or acknowlege.

With this definition of 'deny' the tag line would mean that "we refuse to admit or acknowlege ignorance" also a seeming denial of the existence of ignorance, an even more emphatic phase IMO.

3) to give an negative answer to:

This is the closest to what I believe is generally meant: "we say no to ignornance"

3b) to refuse to grant

Similar, but less clear "we refuse to grant ignorance"

3c) to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires. Now this one this twisted, "we restrain ouselves from gratifying our ignorance. I rather like that one as we are all ignorant in many ways, most importantly, ourselves.

I'm skipping 4 as it's archaic.

and bringing us back to Do so to speak:

5) to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of

"Deny Ignorance" is once again refusal to accept theexistence, truth or validity of denial.

An ambiguous motto if every I saw one.

Thank you EnochWasRight, maybe we can get to Truth at some point. Big T or little t??

EnochWasRight
Typically, the rant section reflects the attitude of the person writing the thread. Not today. Today, I will give you a chance to rant. Here is the scenario.

The idea of ATS is to deny the ignorance of those who conspire against truth. For instance, if a politician tells a load of lies to get elected, then does the opposite, ATS will be there to point out the hypocrisy. There is a problem with this. People ignore truth. This is basically how ignorance is defined. The question then becomes, "What is truth?" How many opinions are there to answer this question?

My question is this: How much space is wasted on ATS answering the fallacy in the video below? I say that the main ignorance we can deny is attainable by all who invest their time here on ATS. It is a simple matter of educating yourself to the topic. If we all learn the lessons contained in this short video, the quality of our discussions will improve greatly.

Educate yourself, then bookmark this video. Keep it handy for a simple response to anyone founding their thought process on this level of childish reasoning.

Now it's your turn. Rant away. Tell me what you think.

edit on 2-11-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

Imagine if they didn't deny Hitler was dangerous when he wrote Mien Kamph. He was called a crazy loon with with a big mouth. This was before he gradually won over the German citizens with some of the same promises you hear from today's Silver Tongue Trolls we vote to run our country. History might be different.

Ask yourself what would our country look like if Paul revere and company laid down like we do today? and those guys didn't have protection in writing. they were what we would call traders who fired on our government for not relinquishing their guns.

IMHO they have us swept up in false idols, bread & circuses, who will only make a peep if you take away their phones or reality tv. Information is not the kind we need to know what is happening in our government. It's an overload of confusing, deceptive, dividing, opinionated, pieces infested in Political correctness and designed to make Reality extremely hard to weed out among the rest. and when we do learn stuff like our Fellow American Edward Snowden sacrificed himself for, they just spin it, or a week later it's another not so meaningful scandal that makes us forget.

A free country needs free press to do their job. Our current president makes the lives miserable of those who dare to paint him anyway he don't like. Arrogant Person who is not doing me any good as president. Only going out of his way to hurt my way of life.

So I only love my countries principles which can flourish under the right leadership. If your not that leader or you lead the opposite way then your not my president. I don't have to like, acknowledge, or give a crap about you, & I don't. All I can do is ride it our a Pray for a real leader in the near future

reply to post by NotSoAnonymous


I think the point here, even for someone like Paul Revere, is to argue the truth of the matter and leave the person out of it. I can call Obama names all day. I can call him a liar and be truthful. It's not until I say why this is so that I have founded a platform on truth.

The thread topic is all about speaking for the other person in the manner in which they should be speaking for themselves. Avoiding Ad Hominem is entirely possible and builds ground for the person with truth to stand above the person founded on simple name calling.