The paragraphs on which I commented are there in the article, whatever you mean to be doing. Is the dig at the POMO's self-referential dilemma gratuitous? Are you not rejecting an argument they make?

Maye we're talking style. Is the paragraph on POMOs necessary? I think it is logically flawed as an argument. But if it's superfluous to the case you are making, maybe we can just ignore it. Even so, that is hardly a defense of what I see as a logical hole in it.

I agree with your overall point, although, to the extent you are suggesting that humanism is immoral, I would dissent on the grounds that big fish eat little fish or die. We are where we are on the food chain because that's where natural selection has put us. If we have to make up stories to explain our good fortune, so be it. At least the lion doesn't have to earn his daily bread by the sweat of his face. We have a story for that, too.