Can we please define "deny ignorance" and end name-calling?

In almost every post I read I come across pitiful name-calling and that extremely overused "deny ignorance" phrase.
First of all, I'm pretty sure "deny ignorance" does not imply that anyone that disagrees or sees something different than you are ignorant. Could we please all get together and agree to a definition of the phrase?

Defining "deny ignorance", my suggestion : (based on my understanding of the phrase)
Meaning to give ALL information an equal opportunity and a fair evaluation.


Name-calling
I assume that everyone understands the elementary problems here so I'll just focus on the more abstract branches.

Example 1:
Person A believes that Iran is the bad guy.
Person B believes that Israel is the bad guy.

Are person A a pro-Semite? Are person B a anti-Semite? Could it be that they just have different views or one part knows something the other don't?

Example 2:
Person A posts a breaking news story he/she came across on the web.
Person B recognizes the source of the story as a known hoaxer.

All I can say here is "What the hell?" How do some people come to the conclusion that every single person on ATS knows about every single hoax source. There are a g.damn lot of information on this forum and that multiplied exponentially on the web as a whole. Yes some hoax sources may be quite well known on the web, but remember this is a forum for researchers, curious and cautious people to get together to share and cooperate. We have to remember that it's not a forum specializing on computers. Some people use books and other printed sources and may not be as computer-savvy as some of us on here. Additionally person A are only sharing a news story, this does not immediately imply that he/she believes, agrees or anything like that in any shape or form. Person A are simply sharing a piece he/she thought might be of interest to some part of the ATS community.

Example 3:
Person A proposes a hypothesis
Person B "knows" it's not plausible
# Hypothesis = Correct word for the common use of the word "theory". we all forget that all the time, me included. Thought I'd just trow it out there

Basically the same as example 2 but included just to be thorough. Does person B really have the right to judge person A and call him out as (a) stupid, moron, ignorant, dumb, lazy, hoaxer, hate mongerer, shill and so on? Or could it be that person A simply did not have the information person B could share with him in a friendly manner?

Example 4:
Person A asks a sincere question about some-thing/-one taboo
Person B does not like that because he's a "taboo-ligan"

Just because person B does not specially care for the topic at hand it is not necessary to read between the lines and twist the words and reason for person A asking the question. We have not met each other first hand and simply have to rely on text so no need for interpretation outside their written words. And just because person A has a question which the answer could be in a bad situations/persons favor does not have the logical conclusion that person A agrees with the topic.


Last words
The fundamental point of discussion is to have a dialog and SHARE information, not drawing conclusions by ourselves and insulting the other party. If we believe someone is wrong we explain why we believe they are wrong. "We learn by our mistakes" does not exclusively cover physical learning experiments. I hope that one day it may be possible to have a discussion on the web where everybody who contributes tries to actually add something to the topic at hand.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely
ShadowBase

This is the main reason I do not post much on ATS.

I don't like confrontation and I have read some very intimidating posts in the short time I have been here.

I thought we all had the same basic philosophy on here but that certainly does not appear to be the case.

In my opinion the definition is very simple: Providing overwhelming evidence to the contrary of an individuals opinion or assertion.

If someone is making an argument against the generally accepted view with little to no evidence to back up their claims, "Denying Ignorance" could apply justly. I don't see it as a tool to insult someone, but merely a guide on good practise for content contributing. If an individual makes a wild claim they must be able to provide citation to back it up, otherwise it can be misleading and damaging.

It is used too much in name-calling slanging matches however, but as an ethos it is a good one to live by.

My 2 cents

reply to post by ShadowBase


Often enough when it comes to political, and geopolitical discussions, no one is right, and at the same time, everyone is right.

When it comes to ignorance, ignorance is very simply "not knowing".
That can be interpreted all sorts of ways as well.

It begs the question; What is Knowing?
There's knowing, like, you know your neighbors, and then there's knowing like you KNOW the person you wake up next to each morning.
This applies to topical subject matter.

How well do you really KNOW the topic. Both sides? All sides?
You list geopolitical argument as an example, and often enough those arguments have a much wider scale of different sides to look at them from much more than just Government X vs. Government Y.

What does China think of the whole thing? What does Easter Island think? How does the whole situation effect the price of pork in Hawaii? Will the price of 7.62 ammunition rise or fall in the next few weeks? Will the hobos on Skid Row get soup, or ham at the shelter kitchen on Wednesday?

Unless someone understands not just the Government X vs. Government Y perspective, but also how a small geopolitical contest effects the demand for blue dyed wool in India, or the cost of Sake or electronic components in Japan, then, essentially, everyone is ignorant. These contests effect more than just X or Y. They all have threads attached of various tensions and thicknesses, some of those thread having tigers, elephants, bears and dragons on the other end.

Additionally there's the lesson of Herman Melville's Billy Budd where sometimes the wrong thing is the right thing.

On more focused, specialized subjects, it's a much smaller fish tank, but, no subject is entirely simple.

Ignorance is the act of ignoring evidence in favour of personal opinion.

TO deny ignorance is to act in a manner that achieves a balanced view of a topic.

It's rather frustrating to have someone say "HAARP IS A DEATH RAYZZ.. DENY IGNORANCE WILL YOU!!" and get curt when people laugh at them.

It's a trap. They embrace ignorance and it causes saintly members to breach the T&C... A trap I tell you.

reply to post by ShadowBase


I have to say here there is a simple premise to your ideal here. If someone responds to you with name calling and insults, just walk away.

If someone can't be bothered giving an intelligent reply, and devolve into name-calling or insults, it's not worth my time replying. If they're really going to town, then just report it. It's not worth dragging yourself down to someone else's level which will wind up both you and them getting a slap on the wrist from a Mod.

The real replies are in the people who can disagree with your opinion but state it eloquently enough to make you think or even reconsider your thoughts, then to me that is the basis of intelligent reply and debate.

Originally posted by winofiend
Ignorance is the act of ignoring evidence in favour of personal opinion.

TO deny ignorance is to act in a manner that achieves a balanced view of a topic.

It's rather frustrating to have someone say "HAARP IS A DEATH RAYZZ.. DENY IGNORANCE WILL YOU!!" and get curt when people laugh at them.

It's a trap. They embrace ignorance and it causes saintly members to breach the T&C... A trap I tell you.

I do agree that anyone who commands someone to deny ignorance are already way deep in ignorance themselves, but those laughing are not their superior either. Why would one laugh and drag someone down instead of trying to see how they came to such a conclusion? Actually giving someones material and though a fair evaluation gives us the opportunity to help expand their knowledge and in some cases there might actually be something of note even in the wackiest of ideas, they may even end up being right.

I would also add that evidence are given way to much credibility at times, specially in context of theoretical topics. Evidence like theories are relative, evidence are only what they are perceived to be. Evidence are based on theories and theories are based on evidence. This would be the main reason many strive to develop a theory of everything, which would give a much more solid foundation to build upon.

And to use your example, how do we know it's not a death ray? A hypothesis based on the same reasoning with the same amount of evidence as countless other so called "conspiracy theories". They may not have evidence to prove it is true, but we don't have evidence to show that those in charge of it ain't lying to us either, which is the main question in most cases.

To conclude:
Would not laughing at someone who tries to contribute using their own collected knowledge, being right or wrong, be counterproductive?

Double-post, sorry. Seems that I had a happy trigger-finger for a moment

reply to post by ShadowBase


Spiracy is the Spirit. Conspiracy is against the spirit. A conspiracy is an agreement in secret against the rest of humanity. It is a willing subversion of law. Ignorance is Ignore(ance). It is ignoring the law given by the Spirit of God. In this world, there is a thing called natural law. When the "Experts in the law" hide truth, they are subverting the Spirit and willingly working against the Spirit of God working in humanity.

In this life, we ALL do two things. We think (Spirit / Consciousness) and we move. The movement can either be with or against the Spirit of God. Working against God is the ONLY conspiracy possible. Working with God and natural law is accepting that the two things we do are entirely dependent on the trillion things that are done for us each day. We don't make our eyes see, our hair grow, the sun shine or the Earth turn. A conspiracy would try to control those things as master of them.

God's will is to give and receive. Man's will includes the will to take. Being a thief is a reality for each of us. There were two thieves on the cross with Christ. If you reduce all reality down to the first natural law, you see why the two thieves are pictured with Christ in the Middle. Hydrogen has one proton and one electron in a balanced state of positive and negative. After this starting point, there is a neutral added. All elements, including the mark of mankind (Carbon - 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons), are kept in balance by the presence of the one in the Middle. The Proton and the neutron are in the middle and the electron is separated. Christ is in the middle on the cross and only one thief repents. One does not. The truth that denies ignorance is becoming the thief that repents. The one that does not is ignoring truth.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

I'm sorry I don't think I understand. An quite interesting read actually but could you summarize in short what you meant denying ignorance would be and what it is within the context of a discussion?

We lack objectivity, and we seek confirmation of our beliefs. It's pretty hard to "deny ignorance" when that is our mindset. The worst culprits are usually those who think they aren't.

We have to learn to deny our own ignorance before we can deny anyone elses. And it is a daily commitment to do so. Wanna Deny Ignorance? Deny Your Own

Originally posted by ShadowBase
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I'm sorry I don't think I understand. An quite interesting read actually but could you summarize in short what you meant denying ignorance would be and what it is within the context of a discussion?

Ignorance is Ignore(ance). It is ignoring the calling we all receive from the Spirit of God. Not seeking God is spiritual blindness and the only conspiracy is the one against the Spirit that calls us to repentance. God's will is to give and receive only. Our will is to take. We must adapt this and humble our souls. This is the sacrifice of the beast in the temple (Temple). Baptism is our immersion into the waters of life for this purpose. We must rise to new life.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

I'm sorry but I don't see how that is relevant to discussion..

On a subject I'm passionate about, I stick to what I know or believe, if there is alternative views, I read them, consider them, then pretty much agree to disagree.
When I post something or author a thread, I dont do it to get others to come to my line of thinking, thats not my place. Not everyone agrees with me and I know that, but I do state how I feel about something, and if the reader wants to agree great, we have dialogue, if not, thats okay too.

Originally posted by ShadowBase
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I'm sorry but I don't see how that is relevant to discussion..

The OP request is PLEASE, define "Deny Ignorance." So far, I have defined it twice.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Your are correct referring to the question as it stands in OP. My last comment was referring to your answer for my questions in my previous comment regarding your definition. Don't get me wrong, You did answer the question in OP and if I would have had any problems with it I would not be correct in blaming your answer as it would be due to my question being to unspecific.

reply to post by ShadowBase


Deny Ignorance is a misnomer. It was written, as such, to be a catch all that empowers debate.

In its most simple form, it means, post on this website.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

Even if everyone would agree to use it according to that definition we would at least all know that's how everyone knows it's used.

IMHO...The minute you lower yourself to name calling or otherwise personally attacking another member- your position on any given topic becomes null and void.
Remember that..
THE MINUTE YOU START NAME CALLING- YOU LOSE THE ARGUMENT.
This site is supposed to be a place to discuss topics on a generally neutral platform.
Some just love to post online what they wouldn't dare say to someone's face.
Anything to try to one up anyone else.
As soon as the ego steps into the argument...intelligence goes out the window.

reply to post by ShadowBase


Oh, I thought you wanted to know what the actual slogan meant. Instead, you want to know why everyone uses the slogan. Well, it's what's known as an argument by slogan, and it literally has no significant meaning.

When people say "deny ignorance" in their posts, what they're really saying is, "Im arrogant and I win by way of reciting the awesome site slogan". Like a crowd of over zealous boxing fans might chant, "USA, USA, USA", it just says "I'm number 1, I'm number 1, etc"... it's literally meaningless, other than to show arrogance.