I have been failing to communicate, but it has not been deliberate. Your assertion that there is no such thing as objective truth is A) false and B) not a reas

I have been failing to communicate, but it has not been deliberate. Your assertion that there is no such thing as objective truth is A) false and B) not a reason to redefine objective truth (a property that is impossible to obtain is still a useful thing to talk about). Humanity does not generate the properties that it invents language to describe. Those properties can be thought of objectively, but natural language does not always do that (it does do it sometimes though, the word "three" is objectively defined). Some words do not contain within their definition any objective phenomena; "Beauty", for example, does not. The reasoning you have applied thus far should apply to all words, since you have not expressed any particular property of 'troll' in any of your arguments. So if the original comment had said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and we had continued to have this same argument, the validity of either of our positions would be unchanged. Would you still be complaining about relativism if that had been the topic?