My entire point was that you're projecting your own subjective moral views onto the world at large as an objective truth. Which they aren't. And I'm not even quite sure that your moral framework is internally consistent. You seem to acknowledge that you're discussing your own subjective morality though, which is why I'm confused on how you jump from there to "Killing is objectively and absolutely a moral wrong. Period." So I guess you can explain yourself more clearly by laying out, step by step, why "Killing is always wrong". I can guarantee you that your logic is circular. "It's wrong, because it's wrong."

This entire conversation began because you were mocking other people's logical conclusions as logically fallacious, despite them being logically consistent. What separates you, at that point, from bible thumpers who ignore any logical conclusions that they don't emotionally agree with? "The Bible says you're wrong, so I don't care what logical structures you're using."

You're welcome to believe killing is wrong. You're welcome to believe that people who think killing as a whole or in certain limited circumstances is ok are wrong. That's just your opinion, man. But again, there's nothing inherently wrong about it. Every logical proof that you could possibly submit towards the conclusion that killing as a categorical class is inherently wrong will be based on or composed in part of a subjective and personal standard. That's not how objective truths work. An objective truth is something like gravity. If I jump, I will fall back down. If you jump, you will fall back down. It's a constant.

As I said before, you seem to be using "wrong" as a synonym for "I don't like that, it ain't right." I'm not sure you've ever been exposed to the brutality of nature, but according to your moral framework, this whole world is "wrong". People and animals kill each other for survival, every day. Does your philosophy even extend to animals? Why not? Some are quite intelligent even by our standards, and suffer just as much as any human could.

That makes your definition of "wrong" meaningless for any real world application. If I want to call the grass "green", I can't also call the dirt "green". I can't look at the sky and say, it's "green". I mean, technically I could, but what's the use of a word that conveys no meaning? It defeats the entire purpose of communication.

You're asserting that killing somebody who is trying to murder me is absolutely wrong. That's bullshit. Your moral framework has no relevance to real life. We as a society label things "right" or "wrong" as part of a moral system to try and promote "right", while minimizing or ridding ourselves of "wrong". So if something is inherently wrong, you cannot justify it. If you can justify it, then what makes it an objective wrong ...? Your arbitrary opinion? Your black-and-white moral standards are created in an intellectual vacuum that does nothing to provide any sort of meaning or guidance to anyone trying to live by doing "right".