That's a logical fallacy, reductium ad Hitler. So, my point still stands.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum (Latin for "reduction to Hitler", where Hitlerum serves as the accusative case of Adolf Hitler's surname in Latin) is a term coined by German-American philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951.[1] According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is a humorous observation where someone compares an opponent's views with those that would be held by Hitler or the Nazi Party.

My comment wasn't an example of this. At no point did I compare your views to the views of the Nazi Party. Which is the potentially fallacious part(guilt by association with Hitler).

What I did was use Hitler and the Nazi regime as a poignant example. Following your assertions to their logical end will in fact lead you to the conclusion that Hitler and the Nazis did nothing wrong and that modern Canada is in no way morally superior to Nazi Germany.

I am a moral relativist- there's nothing ridiculous about it.

I can't say I agree. I think there's plenty that's ridiculous about moral relativism.

To be a moral relativist you essentially have to ignore human nature. That people suffer, that people feel joy/contentment, or that one is subjectively any more desirable than the other. You have to be able to say that a society which causes nearly everyone to suffer endlessly is just as moral as a society which allows everyone to live peaceful, content, and fulfilling lives.

If we aren't talking about human well-being then what are we even talking about when we discuss morality? Nothing of any use or substance, I would argue.