›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Stories of ignorant people

ninjarabbininjarabbi
edited May 2008 in Everything Else
Since most threads end up talking about ignorant people at some point, I figured I should just make a thread for it. Post stories about experiences with stupid or ignorant people. Things like science teachers who don't believe in evolution or people thinking the earth is flat.

Comments

  • VigaViga
    My entire half year education at H.D Woodson Sr. High.

    This might not be considered ignorant to most but I see it that way.

    A bit back story: This school was so dumb the curriculum was watered down to a tee. Luckily, I didn't have to lift a pencil to get good grades.

    Anyway in English class we were doing something from the textbook. It was pretty easy and kinda boring because of it. I don't clearly remember the conversation that led to this, but I remember this comment said by a girl.

    "Black people can't learn none a' dis stuff. Deez booksw were made for da white peoples."

    The teacher looked blankly at her.

    I looked angrily at her.

    The class was quiet but agreed.

    I then lost the last ounce of racial pride I had. I believe that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard. Could be another name for it.
  • SailSail
    My entire half year education at H.D Woodson Sr. High.
    What state was this in?
  • SoloSolo
    I once heard a story of a guy who walked into a store, then puts on a ski mask and robed it. And yes, his face was caught on tape.
  • VigaViga
    My entire half year education at H.D Woodson Sr. High.
    What state was this in?
    Washington D.C. Northeast part.
  • SailSail
    Washington D.C. Northeast part.
    Whoa. Didn't expect that.
  • VigaViga
    Washington D.C. Northeast part.
    Whoa. Didn't expect that.
    I lived in the ghetto on and off in my life. My grandma and sister was there and I stayed with them the majority of my life growing up and officially lived there for sometime as a teen.

    I rather be a Northeasterner than a Southeasterner. If you are from D.C. you know why.
  • jccjcc
    The thing many people seem to forget is that the person who believes in evolution is just as ignorant as the person who believes in a flat earth. People become less ignorant through thinking carefully about things, not through switching from one set of beliefs to another.
  • ninjarabbininjarabbi
    The thing many people seem to forget is that the person whobelievesin evolution is just as ignorant as the person who believes in a flat earth. People become less ignorant through thinking carefully about things, not through switching from one set of beliefs to another.
    How is believing in evolution ignorant? And speaking of a flat earth, the Flat earth society is pretty crazy.
  • jccjcc
    edited May 2008
    The thing many people seem to forget is that the person whobelievesin evolution is just as ignorant as the person who believes in a flat earth. People become less ignorant through thinking carefully about things, not through switching from one set of beliefs to another.
    How is believing in evolution ignorant? And speaking of a flat earth, theFlat earth societyis pretty crazy.
    Because holding beliefs is not a substitute for thinking carefully about things. It does not matter what the subject of the belief is. Let's say some people believe the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Even though it's true, the fact that they came to that opinion through uncritical belief rather than through checking the sources for themselves means that they have not made themselves any less ignorant.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • JayJay
    edited May 2008
    The thing many people seem to forget is that the person whobelievesin evolution is just as ignorant as the person who believes in a flat earth. People become less ignorant through thinking carefully about things, not through switching from one set of beliefs to another.
    How is believing in evolution ignorant? And speaking of a flat earth, theFlat earth societyis pretty crazy.
    What JCC is saying is that belief in something doesn't, by itself, make you smarter/dumber ignorant/not ignorant. (the following is not based on any sort of fact just an example) If im a scientist and I blindly believe that...the majority of cancer is caused by chemical exposure in everyday life. There was some evidence for it back in the day, someone I trusted told me it was true so I took it as fact. Now it turns out all the evidence points to the major cause of cancer being from viral infection. All the evidence is pointing to this end, the vast majority of the scientific community believes this is true, all the data correlates and there's some promising studies being done. But I refuse to believe it, (maybe I have a vested interest in chemical based cancer research/with this discovery my field of expertise becomes very marginalized. As such i wont allow myself to believe it) I ignore all the research, I campaign that everyone else are quacks and im right. I dont think critically of the situation, I only see the truth that allows my ideal world view to exist. The view that justifies my beliefs. I am now acting ignorant. Ignorance stems from a lack of critical thinking more then anything else. Its viewing your surroundings in such a way that things appear the way you want them to be, not as they actually are.

    That being said a flat world veiw is undoutably wrong, where that little thing called evaluation has some compelling evolution I hear. So by default if you believe in evolution over flat earth your probably going to be less ignorant.

    EDIT:*looks up* ....Damnit JCC where did that come from. Well...I already wrote this its staying
    Post edited by Jay on
  • AprecheApreche
    Because holding beliefs is not a substitute for thinking carefully about things. It does not matter what the subject of the belief is. Let's say you believe the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Even though it's true, the fact that you came to that opinion through uncritical belief rather than through checking the sources for yourself means that you have not made yourself any less ignorant.
    What you are trying to say is that believing something based on blind faith is bad, even if you end up believing something that is true.

    You could have expressed that idea in a single sentence. I just did. Also, if you had worded it the way I worded it, it would not cause a backlash against you. It seems to me like you have the right idea, but you lack the writing ability to effectively communicate those ideas without people misunderstanding you. Specifically, I refer to this part of your post
    ...the person who believes in evolution is just as ignorant as the person who believes in a flat earth.
    See, you misunderstand the meaning of the word "believes". You put it in italics to substitute for an inadequate vocabulary.

    I think that there are a lot of flamewars and such that happen on the Internets simply because people suck at reading and writing. People often have the same idea, but they write their own ideas so poorly, or they fail at correctly reading the ideas of others, that everyone ends up misinterpreting everyone else. Thus, people who agree completely will argue across many posts, when all they are really doing is battling against their own lack of literary ability to get their true meaning across.

    Puncutation and spelling are only the first step kiddies. Let's try to step it up.
  • jccjcc
    edited May 2008
    It seems to me like you have the right idea, but you lack the writing ability to effectively communicate those ideas without people misunderstanding you. Specifically, I refer to this part of your post
    ...the person whobelievesin evolution is just as ignorant as the person who believes in a flat earth.
    See, you misunderstand the meaning of the word "believes". You put it in italics to substitute for an inadequate vocabulary.
    I always appreciate feedback on my clarity. Did I use the verb believe incorrectly? I was under the impression that the common usage was
    1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real [ideals we believe in] [believes in ghosts]
    Post edited by jcc on
  • RymRym
    1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real [ideals we believe in] [believes in ghosts]
    Notice how these two definitions have very different meanings.
  • AprecheApreche
    I always appreciate feedback on my clarity. Did I use the verb believe incorrectly? I was under the impression that the common usage was
    Well, that's the problem. The verb believe on its own is not very specific. It can mean anything from
    To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
    to
    To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
    . Thus, it causes a problem. When you are trying to get a very specific idea across, and you use a word that is not very specific, you need to make sure people know exactly which definition of the word you are meaning. You can do this by either providing adequate context in your phrasing, or more preferably, by using more specific wording.
  • jccjcc
    edited May 2008
    1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real [ideals we believe in] [believes in ghosts]
    Notice how these two definitions have very different meanings.
    I think maybe the problem was that I assumed that people would note the word accept and think
    1 a: to receive willingly [accept a gift]
    2: to give admittance or approval to [accept her as one of the group]
    3 a: to endure without protest or reaction [accept poor living conditions] b: to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable [the idea is widely accepted]
    4 a: to make a favorable response to [accept an offer]
    which implies being predisposed, rather than
    1 b: to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) [a surface that will not accept ink]
    3 c: to recognize as true [refused to accept the explanation]
    I can see now how this might be misinterpreted.

    *Edit:Also, looking more carefully, I see that definition #3 for believe is "to hold an opinion", the definition that you were warning me might cause a misunderstanding. I suppose I have to remind myself that a definition being less common doesn't mean that people don't use it. ^^; My bad.
    *EditEdit:Apparently I was misinterpreting how they order definitions in dictionaries. This is fascinating.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • jccjcc
    edited May 2008
    I always appreciate feedback on my clarity. Did I use the verb believe incorrectly? I was under the impression that the common usage was
    Well, that's the problem. The verb believe on its own is not very specific. It can mean anything from
    To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
    to
    To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
    . Thus, it causes a problem. When you are trying to get a very specific idea across, and you use a word that is not very specific, you need to make sure people know exactly which definition of the word you are meaning. You can do this by either providing adequate context in your phrasing, or more preferably, by using more specific wording.
    I appreciate the feedback. :) I'll try harder next time.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • AnastiusAnastius
    Thisis fascinating.
    Well, if you think that the number 404 is facinating, probably.
  • jccjcc
    Thisis fascinating.
    Well, if you think that the number 404 is facinating, probably.
    Eh?
  • AnastiusAnastius
    Gave me a 404 a while ago.
  • jccjcc
    Gave me a 404 a while ago.
    Fixed!
  • AnastiusAnastius
    Fixed!
    Was before I posted.
  • DiagorasDiagoras
    I once knew a man who thought the world was flat. He was my uncle.

    No more to tell.
  • spiritfiendspiritfiend
    This might be off-topic, but arguing the a specific definition of a word that has multiple definitions is a good way to derail an argument without presenting any real evidence. I think this thread makes a good example.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited May 2008
    Washington D.C. Northeast part.
    Whoa. Didn't expect that.
    I lived in the ghetto on and off in my life. My grandma and sister was there and I stayed with them the majority of my life growing up and officially lived there for sometime as a teen.

    I rather be a Northeasterner than a Southeasterner. If you are from D.C. you know why.
    I taught Algebra in a Southeast high school. I did not have fun.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • jccjcc
    edited May 2008
    This might be off-topic, but arguing the a specific definition of a word that has multiple definitions is a good way to derail an argument without presenting any real evidence. I think this thread makes a good example.
    Sub-topic, not off-topic. :P Language is important. People only get no new information by examining individual word choices if the person who typed those words didn't put any thought into what they mean before typing them.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    I would say that practically anything that comes out of Pat Buchanan's mouth is ignorant. Here are some great quotes to prove my point:
    "Who are beneficiaries of the Court’s protection? Members of various minorities including criminals, atheists, homosexuals, flag burners, illegal immigrants (including terrorists), convicts, and pornographers."
    "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."
    "I think a real problem America has is we’ve taken this idea of equality and extended it so beyond where it belongs. All lifestyles are not equal. Some are wrong."
  • spiritfiendspiritfiend
    Sub-topic, not off-topic. :P Language is important.
    Language is important insofar as words are understood in their context. If you are using language in a way that you need to backpedal and explain the definition of an alternate definition of a word, you have failed at communication.
  • jccjcc
    Sub-topic, not off-topic. :P Language is important.
    Language is important insofar as words are understood in their context. If you are using language in a way that you need to backpedal and explain the definition of an alternate definition of a word, you have failed at communication.
    Quite so. :) This is one of the convenient things about the internet. If you read something posted on a message board rather than written in a book or letter (assuming an active thread, anyways) you can post questions and get feedback from the original author fairly quickly and reliably. :)
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited May 2008
    Sub-topic, not off-topic. :P Language is important.
    Language is important insofar as words are understood in their context. If you are using language in a way that you need to backpedal and explain the definition of an alternate definition of a word, you have failed at communication.
    This is a huge problem when discussing scientific matters especially. There will generally be a colloquial understanding of a scientific concept, and it can vary in a very specific but hugely important detail. Take the whole "evolution is just a theory" business; that shows a total lack of understanding about scientific theories, how they're derived, and how "solid" they are.

    Even saying something like "I believe/don't believe in evolution" is bad. Science doesn't speak that broadly; you have to really narrow it down. That's why I can be annoyingly pedantic and reductionist in scientific arguments; you have to get down to the very specifics of what you mean in order to talk about anything.

    The word "believe" gets thrown around improperly a lot. Science is really a set of beliefs (since "knowing" something to be 100% true is impossible); it just so happens that the beliefs are thoroughly supported by extensive empirical observations and testing. "Faith" is holding a belief with NO supporting evidence, and very often DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY evidence. Science has beliefs, but it has absolutely no faith. See how that works?

    EDIT: Really, semantics is never off-topic. We have to make sure that we all know what we mean when we use words, so that we can correctly convey our meanings to each other.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
Sign In or Register to comment.