If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[R-Farmer]

That's unusual, most people I know have a great deal of control over whether someone finds what they say offensive.

I said I have no control over someone else's decision to be offended. Not the same thing.

Perhaps you are deficient in some way.

I am in fact deficient in many ways, not just in some ways.

You certainly seem deficient in understanding what people post.

this is true. but at the same time if I thought the same way you did would it not be logical to assume we would come to the same conclusions?

But maybe it's me. To me it's crystal clear that Nudger was stating his morality is objective, and therefore asking him how his morality would change if his country's did is a non sequitur. But perhaps I missed the post where Nudger said his morality would change depending on what's popular.

Ah, you seemed to have missed my effort that dispelled the popular belief that his objective morality was not in fact 'intrinsic morality' but a generational form of relative morality.

I explained that what 'we' think is objective morality isn't truly objective at all in that objective morality says if a thing is wrong in 1492 it is wrong in 1992. I posited that slavery in 1492 was in fact a moral act. but murdering babies in 1492 was wrong.. but in 1992 owning slaves was an immoral act but by then abortion was not only a woman's right to choose it was a basic human right. IE it was immoral to even protest abortion.

Which avails us to conclude 'objective morality' Is not a morality based on the intrinsic value of a given act (meaning we don't think slavery is wrong because that act itself is and has always been wrong) But rather, Objective morality says a given act is wrong because your father, and his father and his father's father said it was wrong. There is a generational chain of condemning a given act as being immoral.

This means immoral acts fade in and out of popularity as societies change.

So me identifying objective morality as 'generational' morality demonstrates that this form of moral classification is still relative. Relative meaning subject to change over time. I was asking nudger if one of these long standing moral absolutes changed in his life time, would he adopt said change or resist it.

Do you know what you call someone who's not a moral relativist? A moral objectivist.

unless you understand that objective morality is simply generational morality and still subject to change.
That is assuming the man is Not a moral absolutist who aligns Himself with God's righteousness.

And by the by, I am also a moral objectivist and never said anything that could reasonably be construed as indicating I'm not. You just assumed it.

If your system of right and wrong is based on any form of morality not decreed by god. Then at some point the acts you deem as moral or immoral have changed.

If you don't think this is the case, then provide an example.

Example that have already been discussed in this thread and disproven are: Rape, Murder, Child murder/abortion, Child sex, slavery. All immoral now, but at one time where considered moral acts by the societies in power.