Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Nonpareil]

Okay.  Give an example of an opinion that is subjectively true, but not objectively true, and demonstrate that it is so.  It should be simple-- state any opinion you have.

We have been over this. In fact, we reached agreement on this. "Chocolate ice cream is the best" is only subjectively true.

You seem to be running around in circles, demanding repetition of already-established points for no reason. I am not certain what point it is that you think you are making here.

I kind of sense this thread is done, because nobody is saying anything original or substantial enough to merit a philosophical discussion.

Substantial posts have been made, benny.

The subject of this thread is whether or not objective morality (that is, the nebulous, generally theistic position that an "absolute" moral code exists, and that certain actions are always, objectively, right or wrong) can be said to exist. It cannot, since there isn't even a coherent definition for "objective morality", because morality is a value system, and value systems are by definition subjective. This is substantial.

It just doesn't leave the door open for... whatever point you want to make, apparently, so you've spent a long time trying to argue that the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are not the definitions of "subjective" and "objective", roped in a lot of incoherent statements about "agency", and so on. You claim that others' obsession with dictionary definitions is keeping them from making any sort of substantive point about morality and the human condition, or whatever, but haven't actually made any point about it yourself. You've just asserted that some things are objective that aren't objective for reasons that have nothing to do with the definition of "objective", and so on for "subjective" as well. You are effectively railing against the dictionary itself.

No one here is against having a discussion about morality and its relation to human society, or what have you. But you keep misusing terms, saying that it proves some sort of point without establishing what that point is, and then blaming others for not contributing to the discussion when they point out your misuse of terms has rendered your entire argument incoherent, even without getting into the fact that it's never been clear what your point was to begin with.

And then you tell them that their pointing out your misuse of terms is somehow a fault on their part.

It is, quite frankly, bizarre, and I have no idea what it is you think you're going to prove by it.