WTF are you talking about?
That is utter nonsense.
Certainly, our notion of what is right and wrong, does develop, as we learn more and mature (whether it be personally, or collectively as humankind)
...but to say that it changes by the week, or that (because it fluctuates so much) you can't say that something is "right" or "wrong", is utterly preposterous!

It's not something that I was claiming you said, just something I figured was in essence came down to objectification = something that's morally bad/corrupt. Please don't correct me and go on saying "well clearly you said here about something I said that I didn't..." It was a misunderstanding on my part as far as having preconceived notions about the topic we were discussing, and so I'm sure you didn't say it anywhere and again, it was my mistake. I'm not completely fed up with barely talking about the topic, but really just not in the mood to discuss it here online, especially while I'm on break.

Perhaps I'll try to move on to the next poll's forum post. Seems pretty interesting as far as what can really fuck up a edited + translated chapter release, and whether or not there are any prime examples out there of it occurring.

Uh, sure. Whatever.

Cool beans.

Learn some history.

Ha!
According to you, nothing in history books can be trusted.

Quite contrary, if you take some modern history book and compare it to some old, you can see how changed views on things here and there, especially if you take most modern "politically correct" editions. Most easiest to understand examples is slavery, woman rights or "sexual revolution" in USA starting from "you inferior" to "we're both equal" to "we inferior", or "this is improper" to "this is normal" to "this is modest".

Oh, but the stuff that is written about some historical event or time, in history books, what historians thought they knew about some time or event in history, constantly turns out to be wrong.
What was known to be true about history this week, can be false tomorrow, and vice versa.
(Again, according to what you're saying)

You talk about history, yet none of what you say about history, can be trusted, by your logic.

Don't project your logic on me. And historical society/moral =/= historical event.

It is most certainly NOT my logic! I do not agree with it, in the least!
It's your logic.

If it applies to morals, then it clearly applies to history, in the same way, as well
...unless you're a massive hypocrite, that is.

Accounts of historical society/moral = History.

What we know of historical morals, we know about thorough the same way as we know of historical events
...and History isn't the study of historical events.
It's the study of past times.
Not just significant events, in past times. Everything of and about past times.

Our perception of what happened in history, changes with time.
Whether it be historical event and what happened during them, what people wore in certain times/regions, what people ate, how they slept, how they worked, when they worked, what they did for recreation, what they drank, their various rituals and the purpose of them, what they considered status symbols, what they believed...
I could go on.

Initially, people thought the Earth was flat.
Then they thought it was round.
Now we know that those are both wrong
...but if you think they are equally wrong, then you are a moron. If you think that our current understanding, can't be trusted, due to how it may well be disproven, just as past beliefs have, you are similarly moronic.
You may want to listen to this lecture, on the subject.

The same applies to morals, because ...of course it does. Why on Earth wouldn't it?