If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[R-Farmer]

Objectivist values aren't true or false based on the level of acceptance in a society. 

Actually they are. as again might = right through out all of human history. Whom ever has the power and authority has the right and ability to dictate morality.

If you still think this is a meaningful criticism of metaethical objectivism you have failed to absorb anything you've only recently been exposed to, as you tell the tale.

You are correct I have failed to absorbed anything that I have most recently been exposed to.. I fail to see how this is a 'bad' thing. especially when the conclusion of the new content is flawed. As again if you can not produce a single example of metaethical Objectivity, then how can you pretend it exists anywhere outside of a philosophical argument?

Even worse, you're missing the inference there completely, imo.  It's often proposed that doing some little harm will prevent or make less likely a greater harm.  People who think that harm can be corrective are not rejecting harm based moral objectivism - they're thoroughly assuming it.  It's because harm thing x does indeed harm said subject y that y will remember it and find it corrective, with respect to greater harm possibility z.  

So.. Harming others = A No harm to others moral stance?

If so then why has this society all but banned spanking, at school and even by parents? why has this same society outlawed caning as a cruel and unusual punishment?

The idea of christian sin plays with harm based objectivism.  Every time some witchdoctor says that homosex causes hurricanes..or that evil acts damage your soul.  The idea of sin as miasma or disease is so explicit on harm that it detaches the harm from any particular agent and makes it it's very own force floating through the air doing shit to people.  The idea that god puts folks through trials and tribulations and that the world exists as it is (warts and all) because this is a giant soul forge, also very explicitly arising from harm based objectivism.

The short version of a long story, is that in arguing against moral objectivism with me you remove the alleged moral warrant of your own god, you contradict your very own apologetics, and you present a self defeating worldview of purely transactional nihilism.  I somehow doubt that was your intention...but here we are.

Removing all moral implications from god is my primary objective. As again morality is Man's standard. Not God's. Morality is a bastardized version of the Standard of God's Righteousness (what God has in place of morality)

Objective morality is our attempt to have Righteous absolutes like God has without bending the knee to God. This simply does not work with any form of morality as the standard of morality that we adopt is only applicable to the society's ability to enforce their morality. As God is all powerful meaning every person alive will have to one day stand infront of Him then Give an account of our lives. Because He has final say along with the power and authority to sentence and carry out His judgement.. We can conclude God's righteousness and man's object morality are not the same thing.

Yes, you should be much more clear.  Are all colors red, even green?  Tell me how to make sense of a statement like this so that I can make sense of your statement that all morality is relative, even objective morality.

Can you give an example of relative morality? great. put a pin in that.. Now, can you give an example of a universally accepted point of morality that hold an intrinsic moral value despite what society faces it?
No?! you say??

Then maybe this is not a color discussion at all. Maybe the type of light we are talking about isn't even on the/your current visual spectrum..