I saw the quote below and wanted to comment, but since it was off the initial topic I decided to start a new thread.

From: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/member...tml#post150329

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krs

There is no need to call (name removed) ignorant...

---

What's wrong with that? Merriam-Webster defines ignorant as:
destitute of knowledge or education : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

It simply means that someone is unaware or hasn't learned about something. The crime is not in being ignorant, but in REMAINING ignorant. No one can know everything, but in today's information age its easy to find almost any knowledge that exists.

I realize that calling someone "ignorant" is often intended as a pejorative. But, if someone posts something that shows they lack knowledge of what they are posting about, I don't see anything wrong in stating that they are displaying ignorance. Just as long as that statement is factual.

Scott<>

I'll agree with Krs on this one - it like a personal attack on a member which is something that is not allowed here as I understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I'll agree with Krs on this one - it like a personal attack on a member which is something that is not allowed here as I understand it.

---

Yes precisely how I see it.
Thanks NeedKarma.

I too agree with KRS. A better answer is a better answer. Pointing out a previous posters ignorance is unnecessary.

Thank you both
:)

Lots of face-to-face stuff is missing here, tone, facial expressions, body language... and as a result it is very easy to give the wrong impression, let alone get one. To that end I think everyone leaning to the side of caution (as challenging as that may be for some) makes for an all around better experience for everyone and it's the everyone part of the equation that makes the call here, if I understand the moderators rules correctly. To put it more concretely, while being called "ignorant" might not bother some, including yourself Scott, I can guarantee it will some others, like it or not, and what comes next after that will mar the quality of the site one way or another. And like Rick said, pushing someone else's answer down does nothing to raise another person's answer. Krs was correct.

First, this wasn't intended to be an attack on KRS's comment. Rather it was meant as a comment on the general issue. KRS's comment was just the trigger.

Second, I don't dispute that, in the original post, the use of the term was meant to be pejorative.

However, what I am saying is that just the act of saying someone is ignorant about a specific issue is not automatically a put down. There are many, many things I am ignorant about. Partially because I have never encountered them, or have not had an interest or never needed to know. That's one of the reasons I enjoy participating in sites like this one, because it gives me the opportunity to broaden my knowledge base.

So saying someone displays their ignorance when they post information that is in contradiction to the facts is not necessarily bad. It can simply be a statement of fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

Lots of face-to-face stuff is missing here, tone, facial expressions, body language....

---

Definitely. I've often commented about the lack of auditory and visual cues in conversation leading to misinterpretation. Again, I wasn't saying that KRS was wrong in THIS instance. I apologize if I gave that impression.

I know you weren't Scott.

Personally instead of the word ignorant, which I feel implies that a person is ignoring/lacking intelligence, I would try to use naïve instead... Sorry about the spelling if I've made those errors... lol

Yes agreed with Myth, the word ignorant is abit strong!
People get offended by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Personally instead of the word ignorant, which I feel implies that a person is ignoring/lacking intelligence, I would try to use naive instead... Sorry about the spelling if i've made those errors...lol

---

See that's my point. I don't believe that the word ignorant implies lacking intelligence. It just means lacking knowledge, not intelligence. I don't dispute that some people do look at it that way, but, in doing so, they display their ignorance of the true meaning of the word :D.

Now that's not very funny Scott :eek: :cool:

I said implies... I actually understand that the word is not meant as a paticularly aggressive word, but how it's perceived in general. Hence the reason I like naïve better. It really isn't as offencive and ignorant.

We can get away with calling our children niave, but calling them ignorant is out of the question. It's kind of odd how we perceive things isn't it.

I can't spell today so please excuse any spelling errors I have made. Thank you... lol

Sure. Semantics. Sort of. The following link mentions ignorant as a lack of knowledge or intelligence, though the main focus is knowledge.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ignorant

I think it's the "intelligence" part that's the problem. Intelligence as in info or intelligence as in a reduced mental capacity?

If I refer to myself in conversation as ignorant about an issue, someone would probably take that to be a candid, honest assessment of myself concerning the issue... not necessarily implying any other lack of mental capacity outside the issue.

But when I use the word ignorant to describe someone else, instead of "uninformed"... I think it is more of an insult... possibly. I would only use that word if I meant it strongly. If someone described me as ignorant, id take that as saying I'm largely uninformed, and the potential for an insult would probably depend on the context and the rest of the conversation.

Again, yes its hard to know and probably not right to assume the worst. Especially when english might not be a first language, the use of the word might be strictly "lack of knowledge"

But, again, I think it's a word best reserved for situations of gross lack of knowledge, or when you are intending to potentially insult.

As a teacher if I had used that word to describe the students in my class who hadn't read the material (therefore, they had no exposure to the info) there would have been some insulted people for sure.

I am so not a fan of making everything politically correct, but regardless of the textbook definition, some, including myself, would interpret that word as more harsh and potentially insulting.

The post in question was meant as an arrogant mean spirited attempt to belittle , as I saw it, I could be wrong, I don't think so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The post in question was meant as an arrogant mean spirited attempt to belittle , as I saw it, I could be wrong, I don't think so

---

Again, the point was not the post that used that word, but rather general use of the word.

There are clearly other ways of describing someone's lack of knowledge that may not be perceived as insulting. I still feel that using ignorant to describe a display of lack of knowledge should not be assumed to be pejorative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

Lots of face-to-face stuff is missing here, tone, facial expressions, body language....

---

I agree that without the above, sometimes communication can get muttled up. Pardon me Val for borrowing some of your thoughts. ;)

I don't see anything wrong with using the word ignorant. If a person reads an entire post, they should be able to see what context the word was used in. I agree that naïve may have been a better word to use. However, I am not a thesaurus and sometimes my answers are more emotionally lead and that just comes out. I think that this site has become more like a family and sometimes that could be a problem when wanting an answer about certain things. Make sense?

Scott, I do agree assuming gets us all hyped over what could be nothing. Point taken. Just stating my take on the actual post itself without really knowing the person, but I took it the way I did. As a general statement by someone whom I've know and exchanged ideas with I would probably would have tried to be more polite and chosen my words more carefully. It is evident that many of us, myself included, take exception to being called ignorant, no matter what the definitions is. That's the only point I was trying to make.

I would ask only this of this topic:
Why risk the unnecessary when there are so many other words to choose from?

People all over the world have already proved that how you say it is as important as what you say and that isn't really changing in some radical way... so where is the need for the risk?