Willful ignorance is a spectrum

I am willfully ignorant of the process involved with kidnapping children, murdering people, etc., because I have no interest in those activities. More like anti-interest. That is different than wanting to hear your perspective on say abortion rights because abortion is wrong 100% of the time, end of story, my fingers are in my ears, la-la-la-la I can't hear you, you're wrong. In the latter, the person wants the other opinion to be wrong and so treats it with disdain in order to keep it in the "wrong" box. I would argue that is both willfully ignorant and stupid.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forced birth is slavery

The Supreme Court of the United States appears to be on the precipice of making the most heinous, inhuman ruling of law since the Dred Scott case. There is no way to sugarcoat the gravity of the stakes. Restricting abortion rights denies a person of their humanity. Fundamental to issue of abortion rights is the concept of bodily autonomy. If a person does not have the right to dominion over their own body, which certainly must be denied in order to deny a pregnant person the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, then truly, a person does not have any other rights at all. Without the self-evident right to bodily autonomy, a citizen of the United States loses all of the following rights which have been sacrosanct since before the Constitution was drafted, before the Declaration of Independence was signed: Freedom of speech Without control over their own body, a person does not have the right to articulate, write or type words. If the state has control over a person's body, the s...
Read more

The Right to Bear Arms is Outdated and Needs to be Repealed from the Constitution

The 2nd Amendment grants citizens the right to use a certain technology. It does not say "right to defend themselves" or "right to carry swords". It says "right to bear arms". The historically and contextually accurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the states have the right to defend themselves against an aggressive federal government by using war technology which was, at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, guns: manual rifles and hand pistols which could fire 1-2 bullets per minute. If the intent was enable states to defend themselves, then clearly they must have the right to match the war technology of the aggressive federal government against whom they have the right to defend themselves. The concept that the right is limited to guns is historically-bound and irrational, as it does not advanced through time along with literally every other right and law in the Federal Code. If the aggressive federal government uses technology to adv...
Read more