Because I just couldn’t resist, here’s a little parable to summarize things:
Let’s say it’s a sunny Monday morning, and Sam is sitting on his front porch, on a tattered sofa, drinking beer. Out on the street in front of Sam’s house there’s a construction crew at work on the road. At one point in the day, a bunch of Sam’s friends come over to have some beers. The construction workers overhear him loudly berating the laziness of the workers, and their ignorance. If they were anything enlightened like Sam, they too would quit their jobs and enjoy the freedom of front porch sofa beers. One of the workers responds to Sam, and using the very arguments that Sam had used, shows that Sam is actually the lazy and ignorant one. This is not a personal attack on Sam. Sam had made very simple and direct statements exalting himself over and against the workers, and the worker had refuted those statements. Now, it may be that the worker was wrong. It may be that the workers were in fact the lazy and ignorant ones and that Sam had been right all along. But instead of trying to show this, Sam simply complains that the worker, by using Sam’s very words against Sam, had unfairly deconstructed the argument to suit his own views, and that this was further evidence that Sam was right. At the end of the day, the workers went back to their work, and Sam went back to his beer.
(I won’t be approving any new comments on these posts. Judging from the ones that have been made so far, I can’t see this going in any sort of fruitful direction.)