You are right about that. I was not careful enough with the "stupidity or slowness" part. What I meant is something along the lines of "wilful stupidity" which can equate to slowness. But it is also true that when present as a sort of "disorder" (still in quotes ;-)) this can translate to real stupidity (substitute stupid with a less strong word) in real world situations.
The problem with the psychoanalysis is this: even if I am indulging in self-flagellation, that in itself does not make the reasoning offered wrong. The validity of an argument is based on its internal consistency and its appeal to data. So, it is a distraction to analyse "what my words look like" (to quote a different part of your message) in lieu of what they actually say. It is, shall we say, "the analysis of fools" ;-) (I add the smiley because I am just turning your phrase -- I do not in any way believe you, or for that matter any list- member, is a fool).
Note that I might decline to examine an argument on pragmatic grounds, such as a distrust of the individual offering the view. This is especially so when I have explanations available that I believe are productive and reliable. In such a case, I have merely rejected the argument (at my own peril), not refuted it. It is a sad corruption of English that "rejected" has recently come to be synonymous to "refuted".
--ravi