Two flaws I observe in your reasoning as of late, and I can expand later, are: treating ‘relativism’ nominally like one would argue with a corpse, and denoting all nonscientific means of knowing as culpable pseudoscience when some claims are not appealing to that form of…
I’m afraid you misunderstand my position. Here’s what I argue for in its most concise form:
(1) Relativism & Science: Relativism has no right whatever to tell science what it can or cannot study. Relativism has no epistemic authority over science. And, I have every right to ignore any such nonsensical claim. (Also, I’m not a scientific realist or a logical positivist. If anyone reduces my position to such views, they shall be doubly ignored.)
(2) Relativism & Morality: Relativism has no right to tell me what I ought to value, or prescribe me behavior. The relativistic “ought” (i.e. that I “ought” not criticize others based on my own values or impose them on others) seems nothing but an arbitrary assertion, an attempt to tame the nihilistic/anti-realist perspective on meta-ethics—which I pretty much adopt.