My point was not that the conclusion (there are absolute moral truths, thus moral nihilism is false) is necessarily incorrect; it's that the arrival to the conc

My point was not that the conclusion (there are absolute moral truths, thus moral nihilism is false) is necessarily incorrect; it's that the arrival to the conclusion is based on a something I disagree with ("I have a ready example of an absolute moral truth."). I think there may be absolute moral truths, but that explaining them fully would be incredibly difficult or maybe impossible, and disproving moral nihilism that way would be intractible. I also side with the lobsters, BTW :)