3 ms·
> Why in the world is saying that a point is intellectually bankrupt "insulting" a point versus criticizing it? Because “intellectually bankrupt” doesn’t mean
by erikpukinskis 8y ago
> Why in the world is saying that a point is intellectually bankrupt "insulting" a point versus criticizing it?
Because “intellectually bankrupt” doesn’t mean anything. It’s just strong words for the sake of pushing around people’s emotions.
Otherwise “wrong” will suffice.
If we’re not arguing in good faith, then “intellectually bankrupt” is fine, and it can be used right alongside any other insult or epithet you’d like to feel the sizzle of.
- stcredzero 8y agoBecause “intellectually bankrupt” doesn’t mean anything. It means baseless. The point has only a semblance of a basis. "Ooooo, 50 years seems like a long gap." If you try to make relevant historical comparisons, no, that's way too little data with way too little relevance. Otherwise “wrong” will suffice. No, you can be wrong, but still have a basis. Just having a semblance of a basis, relying on naive impressions doesn't cut it. That's “intellectually bankrupt.” If we’re not arguing in good faith, then “intellectually bankrupt” is fine Not addressing the point and claiming offense isn't arguing in good faith.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoSay “baseless” then, if that’s what you mean. Both of the words “intellect” and “bankrupt” have strong personal connotations. I think you want them to mean something different than what they do.