As for using intellectually bankrupt - well, it comes down, I think, to how much you are happy to offend people as well as your view of their argument. Having their arguments called intellectually bankrupt will offend most - being disagreed with will offend few.
I agree, but on the flip side I think it can also be characterized as how willing you are to be bludgeoned by intellectual dishonesty and individual sensitivities.
Intellectually bankrupt is, though, empirically speaking, a highly emtional term, which most people will read as an attack on them personally. Actually, I think it sophistry to argue that it is not, given both the emotive nature of the term, and the pretty common connection most of us will make between having our arguments described as such and an estimation of our intellect.
Said connection is intellectually bankrupt by my estimation. People seem unable to fathom the possibility that they can produce sheer idiocy without being an idiot.
I'm guilty of brainfarts and mental flatulence all the time. And I encourage people to call me on it (prepared, of course, to make their case). I certainly don't think I'm an idiot (perish the thought)
IMO, equating the estimation of one's position with the estimation accorded to the individual is intellectually bankrupt.
Note: I'm saying that to do so is, not that to recognize that many will do so is.
You are correct, logically speaking, if you say that you are critiqing the argument, not the person - and there is large variance between people's responses to such a comment - but it ain't a bell curve - there will be a very large cluster, I posit, at the "sensitive" end of the range. C'est la vie...
I agree, and I wish those people would recognize their sensitivity as a matter of personal preference instead of thinking they have a moral high horse.
It's just enforced sensitivity. I agree with it but only because I see the majority as incapable of getting past the ego wounds and dealing on a strictly intellectual level.
Avoiding offense is laudable, I'm just making the case for intellectual honesty. Which is not related to civility as much as it is related to unemotional reason.
I'm all for avoiding offense, but it depends on the cost.
Because of the varying degrees of sensitivity sometimes mere disagreement expressed will cause offense. When I brainfart I want people to challenge it, dissect it and throw it back till I can come up with a better position or refute it.
I understand that this is not everyone's cup of tea and I avoid discussion with those who won't react well to it but here I'm just making the case for unemotional and rigorous exchange.
I still think it's important to appease the sensitive masses (you'll note that I've long gave up on avoiding elitist undertones in this thread, no matter how hard I try to avoid it it will be there so...) but I'd like to make the case for unemotional intellectual rigor.
It's stimulating and I wish individual sensitivities were more compatible with strident intellectual exchange.
Now, I am rambling. I've needed to go pee real bad!