Yes, I see that myself, Craven, in that I don't mind "intellectually dishonest" at all, it makes me look for where I am lousing up, and did even as I was typing understand that others might take umbrage to those words. Wording, wording. I am not at all arguing (well, me, argue, of course not) your ideas. Intellectually undefended, whatever. Bankrupt has resonance, somehow, perhaps by usage, of more than goofing up a discussion.
Simple description is adequate.
Well, in that case there's subjective disagreement on what is and is not a "simple description" beyond that of what is and what is not "adequate".
I posit that it has a lot less to do with what is simple and a lot more to do with what is pejorative.
Bankrupt has resonance, somehow, perhaps by usage, of more than goofing up a discussion.
I'm not sure if I made clear enough that I don't call people either intellectually dishonest or intellectually bankrupt.
I've not used either
to descibe a person
I got that you described the arguments, whatever they were, that way, not the people. I am railing at your choice of words to decry an argument because I think that even though I gather you think those phrases are equal in content, I think they hit posters' ears differently, one being more of a personal slice than the other, even if it was directed at the attempted argument.
Intellectually dishonest rings truer to me. Bankrupcy would mean a person is wholy without intellegence or intellect. That would be dishonest.
Ceili, I still favor the moralist perspective. To be intellectually bankrupt is not to be stupid, ignorant, or incapable of intellectual acuity. It best connotes a lack of intellectual integrity.