IT is a waste of time for smart people to take matters which are really non-issues and pretend that they are real debates all because of political correctness.  Take corporal punishment; do we really need to discuss the pros and cons of assaulting our defenceless offspring?  About the death penalty; should the state for any reason be given the right to kill its citizens?  Of course there is the abortion issue.  The question becomes should a thinking human being have the right to decide whether her body is used to host a mass of cells which may have human potential?  Please, we are intelligent creatures, these questions are really non-starters.

Our problem is that the brightest among us want to be fair, so fair that we want to include everyone in the discussion, get all the opinions.  Let us face it, not all opinions are equally valid.  I don’t often agree with Freddie Kisson’s logic but when it comes to political science I am ignorant, I am not informed therefore his views, right or wrong,  are better informed than mine.  People in his line of work spend their lives worrying about things that I know relatively little about so the smart thing for me to do is shut up and let the informed people figure it out and maybe try to understand the discussion if I can.

Evolution: without getting into evidence and so on, biological evolution is a scientific concept.  Science is the discipline of examining evidence and through a logical process arriving at testable conclusions.  Therefore if you don’t understand the scientific method or the biological processes involved you are simply incapable of having a valid opinion on the subject, in other words you are ignorant and ignorant people should shut up or go find other ignorant people to impress and leave the informed folk to get on with the business of acquiring genuinely valid knowledge.

There are a lot of “debates” euthanasia, global warming, and homosexuality and so on.  I believe that for any given issue in a defined context it is possible to either find an absolute truth (evolution, the big bang) or a socially advantageous solution (sexuality, abortion) it is just a matter of having the informed people address the right questions. For example: if we are exploring the biology of sexuality we ask biologists and psychologists.  If we want to know about homosexual rights we consult ethicists and lawyers.  That is we consult open minded people, thinkers; we consult scientists. To attempt to elicit an informed opinion on a subject from someone whose relevant belief system solidified at age ten and was based on four thousand year old writings is not constructive inclusion, just stupidity.

The truth of a matter is not subject to majority vote.  We all know of a time when the majority consensus was that the earth was flat.  Most of us remember a time when the majority of our peers believed that fat guy named Santa came through the keyhole at Christmas time and left presents, look how those things turned out.  A thing within a context either is or is not.

We are all ignorant of something.  I wish I understood economics like Bharrat Jagdeo or law like Robert Corbin but I don’t, but I probably have a better understanding of nuclear physics than either of the two men.  My point is that we all are ignorant of something and too many are ignorant of too much.  In fact if you are sufficiently ignorant you become ignorant of your own ignorance and are incapable of arriving at the logical course of action best suited to you: shutting up.