If you reject the above as the intended argument then all you achieve is changing the interpretation from "coherent argument based on ridiculous premises" to "no argument whatsoever". Hardly an improvement.

I had intended to shift the discussion to the emotional reaction that created the argument. If a subset of the population responds to certain things with such a strong emotional reaction, then this may be worth talking about, even if the arguments scientism used when expressing this emotion aren't.

I agree with everything else you said.