I like how you ignore where I respond to a prior comment, describe the commenter's arguments as fair, and then address them one by one. Maybe you notice where I don't insult the guy who disagrees with me? You've now written 500+ words of arrogant moralizing premised on a single rhetorical question which you intentionally misconstrued.
> Now, it should be clear that there is nothing irrelevant about an overlooked weakness that exists in a speaker who is busy arguing that people who are unprepared to discuss their weaknesses are either lazy or dishonest.
In point of fact, it is clearly irrelevant.
Let's be honest: like everyone, I surely have many failings I am blind to. Probably these including massive, debilitating personal failures. And still, I am aware of at least some of my many flaws, and I'm willing to talk about how I am trying to improve with an interviewer. Perhaps not the weaknesses which you would impute to me, but other ones.
The question is not to correctly identify an applicant's greatest weakness (how would the interviewer verify this?), or for the applicant enumerate every weakness. It's to discuss one weakness. So whether I'm oblivious or idiotic or anything else you call me has nothing to do with anything, except as an expression of your own incoherent anger.