>>508799819Ah. There it is. The tired post-structuralist hissy fit dressed up in pseudo-rational garb:
“Without an objective arbiter of morality, you can’t make justified ought claims.”
Well, congratulations. You’ve weaponized semantic nihilism like a child who’s learned to say “Why?” at the end of every sentence and thinks that counts as debate.
Listen, bucko — suffering doesn’t need an objective referee in the sky blowing a cosmic whistle for it to matter. It asserts its reality phenomenologically — that is to say, it declares itself through your own screaming nervous system whether or not a bearded deity stamps it with a gold star.
And this notion that calling it a “value judgment” refutes it? That’s not a counterargument. That’s just you admitting you’re too emotionally constipated to care unless God personally wrote it in MLA format.
You speak of virtue and betterment — as if those are value-neutral concepts — but then turn around and demand an “objective ought” to validate them. That’s like lighting your house on fire, then complaining that warmth is subjective.
And as for your final remark —
If you think “autism” is the insult that wins the war, then you’ve already lost the territory of basic decency and coherent thought.
Sort your self-deception out.
Before it sorts you out permanently.
