Ignorance as Disability--yes, or no?

[catsittingstill]

I was poking around the Web this morning and came across an amusing post (presumably inspired by April Fool's Day): Top 10 Creationist Discoveries of All Time.

And this kind of got my thoughts running along these lines, inspired by, but not really a response to the post in question:

1) obviously we don't make fun of disabled people; that's just a) wrong and b) deeply uncool. 

2)So we don't make fun of mentally disabled people either.  Wrong and uncool; we're all on the same page here, I'm pretty sure.

3) This would logically mean that we shouldn't make fun of stupid people--but sometimes I do.  Or at least, I make fun of people who I call stupid because they have nutbar ideas that they insist on spreading.

4) But having nutbar ideas doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid (can't learn--arguably a genuine disability that one shouldn't make fun of).  It may just mean that someone is ignorant (doesn't know better, but could learn better under the right circumstances.)

5) But sometimes ignorance isn't the ignorant person's fault.  Perhaps the ignorant person has never had the opportunity to learn.  Perhaps the ignorant person was even deliberately taught the nutbar ideas as a gullible child and carefully innoculated against any appeals to rationality and logic and evidence that might have made it possible for the ignorant person to learn.

If the ignorant person's ignorance was deliberately created and maintained by others, is the ignorant person the innocent victim of a disability?  Is making fun of the ignorant person wrong and cruel, the way making fun of somebody in a wheelchair is wrong and cruel?

I'm having a hard time deciding.

Comments

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that it takes a great amount of intentional effort for an adult (who does not suffer from some learning disability) to remain ignorant of alternate points of view -- especially on subjects where the person professes to know "the truth". I realize that there were historical times and places where that would not have been true, but in most of North America today I'd bet the odds favour willful ignorance over induced ignorance.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I grant you that it's practically impossible for a normal adult to be unaware that there are alternate points of view. I'm just wondering where induced ignorance leaves off and willful ignorance begins.

For instance, if a child is taught a) the earth was made in 7 days about 6,000 years ago and b) if she questions "a" she will go to hell--is it really willful ignorance on her part to refuse to consider the arguments for a 4.5 billion year old earth? It's the "b" part that's really a kicker--if the child never lets go of that, there's no way to get at the incorrect beliefs in "a", and I wonder how often "b" is taught and how big a role it plays in preserving demonstrably incorrect beliefs.

I suppose there might be some way to get at that with surveys, and such.