I certainly agree that objective facts inform, and that they can precede an “ought”.
My point is that they merely temper the translation of one “ought” to another. An “ought” that’s informed by an “is” comes after this “is”, but it doesn’t originate in this “is”. The “is” can certainly be significant in this process, but it’s just the decoration (the style/way) from one “ought” to another “ought” - it’s not where the latter “ought” came from. The “ought” came from a previous “ought”, and the “is” just tells you how. Not why.
A good “is” can describe how one “ought” to go about achieving an objective better than a bad “is”. That bad “is” can in turn describe how one “ought” to go about achieving that same objective better than a worse “is”. One “ought” to pick the best “is” that’s on offer, but only provided the best “is” was what is valued in the first place. Maybe you want a challenge, maybe you want to self-destruct, maybe you ought not to pick the best way for whatever reason - an “is” can build on the mechanics of how to get anywhere, but without an initial ought to direct it, it has nothing to build upon. “How” needs a “why” - an “is” needs an “ought”. You can’t derive an “is” without first having an “ought”.
I agree that people tend to not want their consent violated - because this is basically the same as saying everyone wants what they want. This is most apparent in babies who know nothing more than to express distress whenever they aren’t getting what they want, which just so happens to manipulate the parents into providing it. Gradually they learn to cope with not getting what they want sometimes and in certain ways - adapting to the environment and the parenting. They might eventually even learn the value of self-sacrifice, delaying gratification, and taking on difficult challenges instead of choosing an easier path. It’s easy enough to frame these more advanced behaviours in terms of them consenting to a certain degree of “not getting what they want” in order to attain a certain degree of “getting what they want” in another way. But even if you do this, you recognise a relativity to “consent” that isn’t as absolute as “nobody wants their consent violated” - it looks like more of a trade-off where there’s a definite overall aversion to consent violation, but not clearly and cleanly - not devoid of some degree of consent to have one’s consent violated. It’s not black and white, and shouldn’t be considered and phrased in a black and white way.
This is always going to be the case in a universe where there is entropy, competition, and where planning is effective. A universe without these things would perhaps eradicate consent violation and you’d exist like a kind of pleasure-amoeba constantly wishing for more and more pleasure, and getting your wish over and over without any hint of obstacle. A bizarre existence, certainly without higher purpose - but I guess you wouldn’t care if “getting what you want” was constant regardless of what you did.
Onto syllogisms - unfortunately any attack you can possibly mount against them will be self-contradictory.
“Syllogisms don’t work.”
“Why is that anything more than a claim interchangeable with its opposite or anything else?”
“Because…” - and you’ve already begun to construct a syllogism whether you realise it or not.
If you have a “statement” because of “reasons”, the statement is contingent upon said reasons such that “if reasons, then statement”.
Your premises are your reasons, your conclusion is your statement. Your reasoning can be reduced to a syllogism.
So, “syllogisms don’t work” relying on the syllogistic is a contradiction.
The only way around this would be to dodge all reasoning and logic, and simply “claim”.
Blindly following your intuition can certainly precede this, and you can simply deny reason citing said intuition. You’d be impossible to argue with, and any and all interaction with you would be irrational and without purpose - except for you to simply express your intuition.
If however you intended to be reasonable/rational instead, every argument you make could be reduced to syllogisms that would either be valid or invalid and maybe even sound (or unsound). Trying to complain about syllogisms is to try and deny the exercise of thoroughly and precisely breaking down your reasoning, presumably to let through any prejudice and fallacies that you merely intuit without explicit reason. I’m not going to let you or anyone else off that easily.