What qualifiers are you on about? I've shown you they're meaning changes depending on context making any qualifiers redundant. Human language changes.
I gave you an example of qualifiers (which is probably not much different to context) - like 'for me' or 'given assumption X'. If you say 'it is wrong to kill someone' it would be generally assumed that this meant that you believed that it was wrong for everyone and people would naturally expect you to provide some evidence to support the universality of your claim. If you say 'it is wrong for me to kill someone' it would be ambiguous whether you were making a universal claim or not. The only correct way to express what you really mean is to say 'I would prefer if people didn't kill other people'. Only then does it become clear that you are not making a universal claim and should therefore not be expected to provide evidence.
Actually, you haven't shown me anything. You have repeatedly claimed that they can have a different meaning without showing any examples where they do.
And human language is quite adequate for the purpose you need to use it. You resist this because you actually don't want to give up making a universal claim even though you have no evidence to support it.
So what if unevidenced opinion have no more relevance than fairies? We can still express them and people will, subjective or not. You're still arguing about essentially nothing.
No, I'm agreeing with you. Just don't bother making reference to 'rights' or anything else if you want ton convince me of something. In fact don't bother making an value statements at all.
As for what is objective, one can argue the law is objective as we have to follow it whether we agree or not. The same with god's laws. If god's are to be considered objective I don't see why man made laws cannot. Both laws can be disagreed with and they are, however we are entitled to follow them.
Societal law is objective because it is external to your mind - not because we may or may not agree with it. I have no issue with the existence of societal law as there is ample evidence that can be brought to show that it exists. The question was about the existence of moral law. You have agreed that you believe moral law doesn't exist and that societal law is distinct from moral law.
In the same way that societal law will judge you whether or not you agree with it. So it is with God's moral law. You can disagree all you like with either but it will have no effect on whether you will suffer the consequences if you break the law. The question isn't whether you are entitled to follow them but that you are required to follow them.
Topic: Readings from the "Holy Book"