The logical end point of universalism isn't even superhappies, the logical endpoint is a singularity of holier than thou signaling inspired behaviour.

I think not, I think you're strawmanning Universalism without having given it as much thought as I have, and we need much more time and space if we are to pursue this disagreement further. Thanks for letting us seize upon it, at least!

(Damn, just imagine how batshit crazy we must be looking to the average liberal here right now. :D)

P.S.: from Muflax' post about Catholicism that you've linked to above:

I sometimes wonder, just for the lulz, what would the most un-progressive kind of belief system look like? It would have no salvation, no deliverance, no unity, no equality, no hope, no mercy. It would be painful, and gladly so. It would have strict hierarchies you couldn’t even in principle overcome. There would be no goal, and only purity. It would want you to be alone, sick and other.

Sounds reasonable enough. So... um... WTF? Why would the most progressive belief system apply the same torture to you, except with guilt-tripping you about Universalist morality instead of simpler, generic ways?

My line of reasoning here is dead simple. I just think that if there are only two possible stable equilibriums of values, and they are both at extreme ends of this ideological spectrum we see, and one equilibrium is like what Muflax describes above... the Universalist one has to be better for you and me.