Rules are made to be broken: this is the first discovery of anthropology.
Objectivity requires us to conclude that people are definitely not monogamous; which is a purely coincidental discovery; a merely coincidental fact is that we must call our audience human beings and assume that they are objective.
But before we attempt to prove that black is white, which reminds us that monochrome is a question of which is on top, and before we attempt to discover how jargon might enter a lexicon, which would certainly require us to refer to psychological conditions of jargonator beings, and admit that the condition of tranquility is easy to fake by perpetually publishing painstakingly edited unintelligible garbage, which at least gives a purpose to the saying that honesty is the best policy, I say what I might have said without preface, and what I have likely said before: if there's anything in being an adult it's that which allows us to recognize that our parents must have made some mistakes, and dedicate some time to the contemplation of how we may bring ourselves to call ourselves men and women with a clear conscience.
My parents taught me that honesty is the best policy. For reasons I'd need someone else's affirmation to give credence to, I have remained alone.
Honestly I don't know if I can hope for such an affirmation.
In the meantime I can only issue death threats to those who suggest my parents made any gross mistakes.
An anthropologist would look for measurable indications of my success and rate the parenting I received in a number of ways.
My ability to be objective about success went away when I felt I was being given a lesson in relativism. In this condition I could not recall ever being warned against falling in love with a relativist.
Conditions or not, the appearance was that the follower of relativism was going to make a business of the teaching thereof; from that moment I began to live in regret. The last phase of regret was that I wasn't old fashioned enough at the time: I had to work out that regret by following it to its logical conclusion.
Relativists who produce natural relatives without asking permission, are more than likely to bring an absolutist to its knees.
Which is only said to bring a reader or two to consider the difference between absolutism and absolution.
Is it possible that one mightn't be opposed to relativism yet not an absolutist?