why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[philbo]

In what way can a people who practice one of life's basic functions in a way nature did not intend nor shared by the overwhelming majority of humanity be considered normal?

"Normal" is a loaded word - it's a minority, therefore you may legitimately describe it as not normal; but it's natural: homosexual behaviour is seen in many other species, too. So how can you say nature did not intend?

I made a connection between moral right, suffering, and justification.

Your "moral right" is so much hogwash; your "suffering" (wait until I get onto your posts below), ditto. Which leaves no justification other than your self-rightous posturing.

Regarding your figures, it's disingenuous in the extreme: you have posted HIV prevalence in the homosexual/heterosexual population for the US, and infection rates for Africa. If you can't see the disjunct there, there's no hope for you: AIDS is not a homosexual-only or even -mainly disease in Africa. HIV/AIDS are devastating countries in Africa, not homosexuality.

I don't have a different definition of "devastate", I think you're blinkered and not thinking straight. You obviously didn't check the links you gave: none of them support your assertion that the devastation in Africa has anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality.
ETA: the ones that worked.. you presumably didn't check all your links

 

[1robin]

Sorry to wade into this debate, gentlemen, but I couldn't resist.

Wade away.

Just because something is different to the overwhelming majority, doesn't make it necessarily "weird" or anything. It's a way they were programmed and hard-wired, whether by a God or just by nature itself. I have very little doubt that you believe in a God, so wouldn't homosexuality be a relatively clever and healthy way of thinning the population?

Weird was not the term used. Normal was. There are far too many that claim to have been formerly straight or homosexual who completely changed their mind for me to believe that there is no choice involved. One thing is certain, choice is involved in prosecution.

First of all, if you are looking at LifeSiteNews for information, I recommend you find more sites for your news.
I clicked on it and the headlines could be summarized to "abortion, abortion, the pope, abortion, homosexuality."

What head lines? My source was the CDC

Secondly, while I hate to get into the fairly uncomfortable mechanics of it, it's fairly safe to say that a reason that HIV would spread would be...
well...
Not wearing a condom.
If you think about it, people wear condoms less for the protection from STDs and more to prevent pregnancy. Homosexuals don't actually need to prevent pregnancy so STDs are more likely to be transmitted.

A piece of plastic does make an immoral thing moral. Regardless even with them it is still a problem. The nature of the organs involved indicate no one or no thing intended they be used that way. Since it is bad judgment that is the issue in the first place, I do not think additional bad judgments are going to help your case.

Also, you act as though the rate of death in a developed country has anything to do with Africa.

No I didn't. I did not make any claims that had anything to do with that. The increase in suffering that comes with homosexuality is present in every nation. Africa has additional problems because it is poor. So my claim it has devastated nations is true.

Which is ridiculous, considering the immensely different circumstances.

I am discussing practicing that neither God not nature intended to occur and the massive costs of them. What does culture have to do with that. Since you are new here I will restate my two primary claims.

1. Homosexuality massively increases human suffering and costs.
2. It contains no justification that compensates for the harm it causes.

Can you prove either wrong?

Your formatting caused some information to be lost I believe.

 

[1robin]

"Normal" is a loaded word - it's a minority, therefore you may legitimately describe it as not normal; but it's natural: homosexual behaviour is seen in many other species, too. So how can you say nature did not intend?

I used justifiable. I think you introduced "normal". What is not a majority is not normal if the term has any meaning. The overwhelming majority of species do not practice it. Why are you drawing from the exceptions to contend with the rule? Nature intends nothing. It has never suggested that anything should be done? Sexuality does have a purpose and sexual organs a function. Homosexuality is consistent with neither.

Your "moral right" is so much hogwash; your "suffering" (wait until I get onto your posts below), ditto. Which leaves no justification other than your self-rightous posturing.

I must be dealing with a person who has no standards for wrong. If anything is actually wrong in a secular sense then producing suffering without justifying gain is it. Homosexuality is just such a behavior. I really wish you would take that personal commentary elsewhere. Only failed arguments need insults to prop them up. I regard myself as a moral failure so self-righteous comments dreamed up without any foundation have no relevance. I do however admit my mistakes are mistakes.

Regarding your figures, it's disingenuous in the extreme: you have posted HIV prevalence in the homosexual/heterosexual population for the US, and infection rates for Africa. If you can't see the disjunct there, there's no hope for you: AIDS is not a homosexual-only or even -mainly disease in Africa. HIV/AIDS are devastating countries in Africa, not homosexuality.

And everyone knows that what is true for the US and Africa is the exact opposite everywhere else I guess. There were two questions I gave two APPLICABLE statistical studies from secular sources. I am sorry they are inconvenient but they stand as they are. I proved that homosexuals cause a massive increase in certain diseases and how that affects nations that are not wealthy enough to sweep much of it under the rug. They were perfectly appropriate.

I don't have a different definition of "devastate", I think you're blinkered and not thinking straight. You obviously didn't check the links you gave: none of them support your assertion that the devastation in Africa has anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality.
ETA: the ones that worked.. you presumably didn't check all your links

Then pray tell, where does the error reside.

1. Homosexuality increase transmission rates of aids and other STD's along with many other disgusting problems by a massive amount. The CDC confirms this.
2. Those exact same diseases are devastating nations not wealthy enough to mitigate the damage done by them. No one reputable denies this.

Which of those is wrong? Complaints are not evidence. I gave secular sources that claimed exactly hat I did.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A piece of plastic does make an immoral thing moral.

Wow. Talk about a dysfunctional logic.

1robin: Homosexuality is immoral because it spreads disease.

jester: So what if they use condoms?

1robin: Condoms don't make an immoral thing moral.

That's just plain broken logic, friend. A breathtakingly flawed logic.

 

[1robin]

Wow. Talk about a dysfunctional logic.

1robin: Homosexuality is immoral because it spreads disease.

jester: So what if they use condoms?

1robin: Condoms don't make an immoral thing moral.

That's just plain broken logic, friend. A breathtakingly flawed logic.

What is breathtakingly flawed is using a hypothetical impossibility as a justification. You are getting my peanut butter in my chocolate. I make comments from a theological perspective and a secular one and at times do not explicitly state which is which.

However I overcame all of that by stating my two primary claims, neither of which are over come by this condom issue. Substances are amoral. Behavior is not. The fact that the behavior causes massive increases in suffering is not excusable even if there exists something that can be used to stop some of it. Lets pretend every homosexual who ever lived used a condom and they were 99.9% effective, instead of a lack of judgment about sex being the entire issue it self. How many lives are justified to be lost by the gratification of sexual lust which has no gain that can compensate for a single life? Now how much worse is the problem when condoms have not been available for most of history, homosexuals apparently make far more irresponsible choices about sex anyway, and do not prevent all damage even when used? There are even concerted efforts within the homosexual community to actively resist any preventative measures do exist.

My two claims remain unchallenged and as usual a side bar is hopelessly confused in order to salvage some hint of justification for what has no justification. If every argument I ever made was wrong, my two primary claims are still true and absolute. Can you contend with either or are we going to stay hopelessly mired in semantic technicality?

 

[philbo]

I used justifiable. I think you introduced "normal".

I said they were normal people. As they are.

I must be dealing with a person who has no standards for wrong. If anything is actually wrong in a secular sense then producing suffering without justifying gain is it. Homosexuality is just such a behavior.

Who are you to decide that there is nothing to gain? It makes people happy, and is the pursuit of happiness not enshrined in the Declaration of Independence? And the overwhelming majority of homosexual relationships do not produce suffering.

I think this has been mentioned before, that what you appear to have a problem with is more promiscuity than homosexuality.

I really wish you would take that personal commentary elsewhere. Only failed arguments need insults to prop them up.

That wasn't an insult, it was a description. Compared to what I'm thinking about you at the moment, a rather complimentary one, too.

I regard myself as a moral failure

So feel free not to inflict your moral failures on everyone else. Everyone would be a lot happier for it, including yourself, probably.

I do however admit my mistakes are mistakes.

No, you don't. Not in the many dozens of posts of yours I've read. You are frequently wrong, you have been regularly corrected and you've not admitted a single one.

And everyone knows that what is true for the US and Africa is the exact opposite everywhere else I guess. There were two questions I gave two APPLICABLE statistical studies from secular sources. I am sorry they are inconvenient but they stand as they are. I proved that homosexuals cause a massive increase in certain diseases and how that affects nations that are not wealthy enough to sweep much of it under the rug. They were perfectly appropriate.

The incidence of HIV in Africa is many places many times the incidence of homosexuality. Your figures simply do not show that the devastation has anything to do with homosexual behaviour at all, especailly in an Africa which has even more bigoted views about homosexuality than you do, to the point of oppression. There are nothing like the same number of overt homosexuals as in the US, showing none of the same promiscuous behaviour.

In fact, you would probably consider it a more moral place for these reasons. I can't think where all this HIV has come from.

Then pray tell, where does the error reside.

In your head: the simple fact that you are either innumerate or unwilling to concede that you're wrong.

Which of those is wrong? Complaints are not evidence. I gave secular sources that claimed exactly hat I did.

No, they didn't. They do not mention homosexuality at all, so they do not do anything to support your contention that it is homosexuality causing the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

 

[1robin]

I said they were normal people. As they are.

What you said was not disputed. Whether you have the slightest basis for claiming it is. When is this basis due for an appearance?

Who are you to decide that there is nothing to gain? It makes people happy, and is the pursuit of happiness not enshrined in the Declaration of Independence? And the overwhelming majority of homosexual relationships do not produce suffering.

I never stated this either. I said there is no justifying gain. No pleasure is compensation for the misery and death it creates. If happiness alone was justification then let all the prisoners out then. A man's rights end at the other man's none. What right do those who practice deviancy have to make others pay for it? In fact what rights does anyone ever have without God?

I think this has been mentioned before, that what you appear to have a problem with is more promiscuity than homosexuality.

That also is more prominent in homosexual statistics.

That wasn't an insult, it was a description. Compared to what I'm thinking about you at the moment, a rather complimentary one, too.

I don't care.

So feel free not to inflict your moral failures on everyone else. Everyone would be a lot happier for it, including yourself, probably.

I have never insisted my failures must be paid for by others as homosexuals do.

No, you don't. Not in the many dozens of posts of yours I've read. You are frequently wrong, you have been regularly corrected and you've not admitted a single one.

I dare you to compare my admission of mistakes with any other person that is a non-theist that has as many posts and post the results. Until you do this is another unjustified assertion.

The incidence of HIV in Africa is many places many times the incidence of homosexuality. Your figures simply do not show that the devastation has anything to do with homosexual behaviour at all, especailly in an Africa which has even more bigoted views about homosexuality than you do, to the point of oppression. There are nothing like the same number of overt homosexuals as in the US, showing none of the same promiscuous behaviour.

I never said that only homosexuality spreads aids. I said it do so without justification. Unless you think propagating the human race is not justification there exists no argument possible. I did not assign or link rates of homosexuality in the US with those in Africa but think you are mistaken anyway. Let me change this to stop this trifling effort at intellectual gymnastics. If there was only 100 cases of aids causing death a year that can be traced to homosexuality. What justifies those deaths concerning the practice? How much fun are those who do not practice it's lives worth? Heck forget even that. Let's say no one died. How many billions is it worth?

In fact, you would probably consider it a more moral place for these reasons. I can't think where all this HIV has come from.

Where, Africa? I do not think so. I know Christians who go over year after year to dig wells for them. Every year they have to clean out the waste and trash from them so they can get the water again. The populations of the starving that depend almost exclusive on Christian aid has exploded. They are at many times impossible to even help. I get that aids stuff from reality. Join me there if you wish.

In your head: the simple fact that you are either innumerate or unwilling to concede that you're wrong.

I asked for specific evidence I was wrong. It was not provided however the insistence I still concede I am wrong was maintained. What in the world justifies this? I can't possibly justify admission of wrongs not even attempted to be shown to be wrong in the first place.

No, they didn't. They do not mention homosexuality at all, so they do not do anything to support your contention that it is homosexuality causing the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

They did not mention homosexuality huh?

WASHINGTON, DC, July 8, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM).
"Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).
"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states.
US News reports that if HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to rise at the current rates, more than half of college-aged homosexual men will have HIV by the age of 50.
LifeSiteNews Mobile | CDC warns gay men of ‘epidemic’ HIV rates

Unless aids is spread by homosexuality in America but not Africa then it is you who have been shown to be wrong and must admit it. I do not think physics, sexuality, nor diseases operate in the opposite way based on geography do they?

Let me suggest something. The closest you ever claim to providing evidence that anything I said was inaccurate was concerning the number of people that owned slaves. I offered to debate using your numbers regardless if they were accurate, or to debate only those numbers, or to debate the issue regardless of the numbers. If it is so important for you to find something I was wrong about I would suggest that, and tried to. You do not have a chance here. There are good reasons they denied homosexuals the right to donate much needed blood so often, why they ask you your sexual status if blood contact is likely, and why homosexual inmates are often segregated.

 

[Curious George]

What is breathtakingly flawed is using a hypothetical impossibility as a justification. You are getting my peanut butter in my chocolate. I make comments from a theological perspective and a secular one and at times do not explicitly state which is which.

However I overcame all of that by stating my two primary claims, neither of which are over come by this condom issue. Substances are amoral. Behavior is not. The fact that the behavior causes massive increases in suffering is not excusable even if there exists something that can be used to stop some of it. Lets pretend every homosexual who ever lived used a condom and they were 99.9% effective, instead of a lack of judgment about sex being the entire issue it self. How many lives are justified to be lost by the gratification of sexual lust which has no gain that can compensate for a single life? Now how much worse is the problem when condoms have not been available for most of history, homosexuals apparently make far more irresponsible choices about sex anyway, and do not prevent all damage even when used? There are even concerted efforts within the homosexual community to actively resist any preventative measures do exist.

My two claims remain unchallenged and as usual a side bar is hopelessly confused in order to salvage some hint of justification for what has no justification. If every argument I ever made was wrong, my two primary claims are still true and absolute. Can you contend with either or are we going to stay hopelessly mired in semantic technicality?

But don't hetero relations also spread disease? And while I see you earlier suggested that homo relations do this moreso, I would simply toss back that how many lives justify... and the value of a single life rant of yours.

I suppose you could point out that all promiscuous relations are also immoral, at which point I would just congratulate you on your support of homosexual monogamy.

Consider one of your two main points countered.

I will go back and look at your "substance" claim.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The fact that the behavior causes massive increases in suffering is not excusable even if there exists something that can be used to stop some of it.

You need to stop ducking my example of the massive harm done by heterosexuality. So long as you avoid addressing it, it's really hard to take this argument seriously -- about homosexuals increasing suffering.

You like heterosexuality, so you excuse the massive harm it causes.

You hate homosexuality, so you condemn the relatively slight harm it causes.

Do you see why some call your views just plain bigoted?

Lets pretend every homosexual who ever lived used a condom and they were 99.9% effective, instead of a lack of judgment about sex being the entire issue it self. How many lives are justified to be lost by the gratification of sexual lust which has no gain that can compensate for a single life?

Fortunately, most of the world doesn't share your uptight Christian attitude toward sex. Most people understand that sexual gratification is indeed a positive and even necessary aspect of human life.

Ever notice how it's usually the Republican politician or conservative church leader who gets caught in some sexual perversion? That's because their repressive thinking about sex is seriously unhealthy. They should just go out and get laid. Satisfy their lust and no big deal. Then the world would be a better place.

So is their uptight theology regarding sex worth a single molestation of an underaged girl or boy? Nah.

Therefore conservative Christian theology is immoral and should be outlawed.

 

[1robin]

But don't hetero relations also spread disease? And while I see you earlier suggested that homo relations do this moreso, I would simply toss back that how many lives justify... and the value of a single life rant of yours.

Of course they do but they have propagation of the human race to justify the risk. Homosexuality does not. The entire human races existence is justification for the losses incurred in it's creation. It is regretful and if the Bible were followed there world be far less but it is still justifiable.

I suppose you could point out that all promiscuous relations are also immoral, at which point I would just congratulate you on your support of homosexual monogamy.

That does not follow at all. Promiscuity causes damage and homosexuality causes damage. Neither have sufficient justification.

Consider one of your two main points countered.

Nope, that only occurs once they have been. Which claim you made do you even think attempted this?

I will go back and look at your "substance" claim.

That was a side bar but have at it. I am still lost which claim even attempted to refute my primary two?

 

[Curious George]

What is breathtakingly flawed is using a hypothetical impossibility as a justification. You are getting my peanut butter in my chocolate. I make comments from a theological perspective and a secular one and at times do not explicitly state which is which.

However I overcame all of that by stating my two primary claims, neither of which are over come by this condom issue. Substances are amoral. Behavior is not. The fact that the behavior causes massive increases in suffering is not excusable even if there exists something that can be used to stop some of it. Lets pretend every homosexual who ever lived used a condom and they were 99.9% effective, instead of a lack of judgment about sex being the entire issue it self. How many lives are justified to be lost by the gratification of sexual lust which has no gain that can compensate for a single life? Now how much worse is the problem when condoms have not been available for most of history, homosexuals apparently make far more irresponsible choices about sex anyway, and do not prevent all damage even when used? There are even concerted efforts within the homosexual community to actively resist any preventative measures do exist.

My two claims remain unchallenged and as usual a side bar is hopelessly confused in order to salvage some hint of justification for what has no justification. If every argument I ever made was wrong, my two primary claims are still true and absolute. Can you contend with either or are we going to stay hopelessly mired in semantic technicality?

Well I don't want to find wherever you posted about substance is amoral first. I wracked my brain trying to think of a counter example but could only come up with sin. And since sin isn't immoral by itself I guess I can concede that substance alone is amoral.

 

[1robin]

You need to stop ducking my example of the massive harm done by heterosexuality. So long as you avoid addressing it, it's really hard to take this argument seriously -- about homosexuals increasing suffering.

Post a single claim I have ever made that heterosexuality does not caused harm. I have no need to duck anything you have ever claimed nor inclination to do so if needed. I admit 100% of what you claimed about heterosexuality and always have. You have not even began to construct an argument with that alone.

You like heterosexuality, so you excuse the massive harm it causes.

The human race depends on it and you have no evidence I ever claimed what I like is moral. Most of what I like is not moral.

You hate homosexuality, so you condemn the relatively slight harm it causes.

I hate it because it is bad. Do you like bad? You must.

Do you see why some call your views just plain bigoted?

I have trouble seeing why you claim anything you ever have. You had two false claims and an illogical one, plus one assertion and there said take that. Your are the best player for my team.

Fortunately, most of the world doesn't share your uptight Christian attitude toward sex. Most people understand that sexual gratification is indeed a positive and even necessary aspect of human life.

Actually most of the world probably does even now but certainly has for most of it's history. You claim this and then accuse me of justifying morals by preference. Simply amazing.

Ever notice how it's usually the Republican politician or conservative church leader who gets caught in some sexual perversion? That's because their repressive thinking about sex is seriously unhealthy. They should just go out and get laid. Satisfy their lust and no big deal. Then the world would be a better place.

No because it isn't. They are reported more because they are exceptions. The rule is not interesting. You ever noticed that conservative Christians are the most generous demographic in history?

So is their uptight theology regarding sex worth a single molestation of an underaged girl or boy? Nah.

I have no idea what the 1 in a thousand who do that use for justification. I do now that a complete absence of justification exists for abortion and homosexuality exists.

 

[1robin]

Well I don't want to find wherever you posted about substance is amoral first. I wracked my brain trying to think of a counter example but could only come up with sin. And since sin isn't immoral by itself I guess I can concede that substance alone is amoral.

What the Heck was this? I must have misunderstood what you said. Sin does not exist by its self. It only exists if God does. There for it can only be immoral or non existent.

 

[Curious George]

Of course they do but they have propagation of the human race to justify the risk. Homosexuality does not. The entire human races existence is justification for the losses incurred in it's creation. It is regretful and if the Bible were followed there world be far less but it is still justifiable.

That does not follow at all. Promiscuity causes damage and homosexuality causes damage. Neither have sufficient justification.

Nope, that only occurs once they have been. Which claim you made do you even think attempted this.

That was a side bar but have at it. I am still lost which claim even attempted to refute my primary two?

Hetero sex is morally justifiable then only if their is a chance at procreation. So an infertile married couple should not have sexual relations?

That is highly irregular.

I refuted your claim by pointing out the flaw. Monogamy.

And besides, sexual relations are a fundamental aspect of a married relationship. This act adds to the relationship and helps people be better people. I would hope two loving men or two loving women who had a child or children would take care of their sexual needs so they can be better parents.

I am not sure if you know this, but there is more to raising a child than impregnation and birthing.

 

[Curious George]

What the Heck was this? I must have misunderstood what you said. Sin does not exist by its self. It only exists if God does. There for it can only be immoral or non existent.

Sure, we can include God. Then homosexuals are behaving even more morally by your standard, because through him all things are possible. Even homosexual reproduction. Those homos just need to keep banging away trying.

 

[1robin]

Sure, we can include God. Then homosexuals are behaving even more morally by your standard, because through him all things are possible. Even homosexual reproduction. Those homos just need to keep banging away trying.

In what way are possible and moral equal? We can murder others, is that even more moral because it is possible? Apparently you are not sincere.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hetero sex is morally justifiable then only if their is a chance at procreation. So an infertile married couple should not have sexual relations?

That's the necessary logical conclusion to 1robin's argument. Same with couples who are on birth control. They shouldn't be having sex. There is nothing positive to be gained by them slaking their ugly lust, and there is the potential of great damage.

An innocent child could walk into the room and be scarred for life by seeing Mommy and Daddy 'that way.' In young adulthood, that child may commit suicide just to get the image out of his head.

The woman could get an infection from the sexual activity and die.

The man could have a heart attack!

I ask you: Is one single life worth all that useless humping and bumping of two grownup people at their lust! For no good reason!

Nay. Obviously not.

Let us all keep our private parts covered and to ourselves unless it's really really necessary and justified. OK?

On the other hand, consider the sheep of the fields. If we are willing to murder them for their meat, surely it could be no sin to... well... you know.

I am only trying to find the moral path here. I don't personally care for mutton.

 

[1robin]

Hetero sex is morally justifiable then only if their is a chance at procreation. So an infertile married couple should not have sexual relations?

I am not discussing subsections of any group. It is not practical. Do you think condemning one tiny aspect of heterosexual behavior is a good defense for homosexuality? Infertile couples (or those that were thought to be) have had many children and until you can use your omniscience to predict who will or not you can not make what is not a good claim at all. The potential exists for having children in at least 98% of heterosexual couples and exactly 0% of homosexual couples.

That is highly irregular.

That statement is irregular.

I refuted your claim by pointing out the flaw. Monogamy.

How is that the slightest thread to any of my claims. It is not even relevant unless you could guarantee total monogamy and is not a good one even then.

And besides, sexual relations are a fundamental aspect of a married relationship. This act adds to the relationship and helps people be better people. I would hope two loving men or two loving women who had a child or children would take care of their sexual needs so they can be better parents.

You just disproved you first claim. This is intellectual schizophrenia and not a even a reasonable attempt at justifying the cost of only homosexual monogamous behavior alone.

I am not sure if you know this, but there is more to raising a child than impregnation and birthing.

However if homosexuality was strictly practiced there would be no children to raise.

I actually thought the only argument against homosexuality was theological and avoided it. I was wrong. There is no claim that can over turn my secular claims alone judging by the desperation of the attempts so far. Believe what you wish, logic and evidence obviously can't change that. I still do not even see an attempt to refute my two primary claims by you. Monogamy is not it, if that is what you thought was one. If that was it, then why did you ever think it was?

 

[Curious George]

In what way are possible and moral equal? We can murder others, is that even more moral because it is possible? Apparently you are not sincere.

Monogamy defeats your disease spreading.

Self actualization defeats your purposeless perspective.

Beyond that, choosing not to wash one's hands spreads more disease than homosexuality ever could. Are you telling me not washing your hands is immoral?

 

[Curious George]

You just disproved you first claim. This is intellectual schizophrenia and not a even a reasonable attempt at justifying...

Hmmm. Didn't one poster say something about the types of arguments that rely on insults to prop them up?