>As opposed to them simply not getting the message at all. We write to communicate, and readers are not idle consumers.

Speaking from personal experience: Maybe I've lost sight of what I'm talking about. Maybe I need some constructive criticism to get back on track. Maybe I've seen the extent of my own limited ability and wish to let more capable people develop my work like I know I won't be able to. Maybe I'm convinced that I'm dead wrong and need some social justification to turn over a new leaf.

As you say, readers are not idle consumers. Feedback is great. Feedback about issues of which I wasn't even aware is better.

>What about the person writing it? If they can't frame their assertions clearly, what does that mean?

It means that they might dare to put their own work into perspective after the audience has drawn its own conclusions, perhaps become sufficiently attached to those conclusions to not be easily swayed by the author's own bias?

>The issue here is to remove as much ambiguity as possible.

I don't see how removing ambiguity translates into indepedence of thought and action. Once all ambiguity is resolved, won't there be one clear definition, one objective, and an expectation that everyone will work to achieve that objective? What if I disagree? Where is my freedom to independent thought and action then?

>I have no idea what you're talking about. This is a prime example of pretentious crap.

That's because it's pretentious crap. Neither side can ever accept that the other has any merit, so no progress is made.