The arguments I advance aren't just wrong, they're "naive". (There is a useful non-combative useage of the word "naive" regarding ideas, but that's not how you're using it here.) When I disagree with people, I am "dismissing" and "denigrating" them.

The whole point of my post was to point out an alleged flaw in your discursive approach, but I was genuinely trying to temper my language. It's clear I didn't do a good enough job of that. For the record, I don't think a priori morality is an unreasonable belief, I just think there are other compelling theories and that if we want to talk about other moral issues we have to be willing to find common ground in spite of metaethical disputes. There are many philosophers I greatly respect whose beliefs I would also call naive.

Belittling another person is the last thing I want to do, so I'll thank you for the opportunity to improve my manners and drop the issue here, sincerely wishing you the best.