> "ignorant" and "ignoring" are different forms of the same word ("ignore"). One describes a person that regularly ignores something ("ignorant") and the other describes the act of ignore ("ignoring"). So, to say that people aren't ignoring the issue, they're just ignorant, is the same thing.
"Ignorant" means "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated" not "a person that regularly ignores something" - ignorance has nothing to do with ignoring things. Seriously, if you're going to try to make an argument that hinges on definitions, at least make the effort of checking if the definitions you're claiming are correct or not.
It's not exactly the same. Ignorance can be corrected. Willful ignorance cannot be, except by making the thing that is being ignored too obvious to be, possibly by painting it in neon pink and yellow stripes - of course, that works as a way to correct normal ignorance too.
Very true. However, they're also a very useful way to make sure that we're all using the same definitions. Since, as you can see, when we have our own definitions we get into long arguments about which one is correct or not, and we try to use our own definitions to refute people who are using different definitions. It becomes quite confusing.
Anyways, it's seems pretty clear (to me, at least!) that Spyro7 was using "Ignore" to mean something like "push out of mind, actively suppress the knowledge of" and "Ignorant" to mean "not aware of, not knowledgeable of", which are the common usages, at least in my experience. That also fits the classic difference between ignorance and stupidity - ignorance is not knowing something, stupidity is refusing to know something (or at least refusing to act on the knowledge).
You can have the last word, if you want. Either way, enjoy the Perseids - watching meteor showers is probably a better use of time than arguing, no matter how fun it can be.
Yeah, I am aware that he was using the words in that context. I was using his words as a platform based on the tautological relevance. I sought to indicate that long-standing corruption can't be excused by ignorance in terms of awareness, because it really portends an ignorance that is borne of actively ignoring important matters, and at the heart of the matter ignorance is about ignoring things. There's a time where it's reasonable to say nothing has been done because most people are ignorant, i.e., not aware, but the FCC has been this way for 30+ years.
"Ignorant" means "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated" not "a person that regularly ignores something" - ignorance has nothing to do with ignoring things. Seriously, if you're going to try to make an argument that hinges on definitions, at least make the effort of checking if the definitions you're claiming are correct or not.