Just think about it for a minute.
.
.
.
.
Do I really have to explain? 
Yes.
Okay, make it several minutes.
Maybe sleep on it? 
It’s a bit too hot, here, to think. 
What is “relativism” for you?
What is “absolute”?
Nope. You really do have to explain.
thinking about it for a minute, but no longer than that:
relativism, in practical terms, is not absolute because in life there is no absolute - “absolute” is either a contradiction in terms, or it is itself a relative concept, like everything else, including relativism
after all, we can define anything as perfect or absolute simply by declaring that they are “not relative” - but the fact that anything can be perfect or absolute is precisely what makes those concepts relative
of course, the statement that there is no absolute cannot itself be absolute, it is rather a practical observation
but the fact that we do not absolutely know that there is no absolute doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s possible that there is an absolute, it is, however, further evidence that we can’t absolutely know anything.
so in the end, it’s all still relative - at least in practice
i think
But then, doesn’t that make relativism itself an absolute? Hehheh. 
no, it makes it a practical truth - which i would argue is not the same thing
Until we know everything about everything, we can’t declare relativism or absolute an impossibility.
jonquil,
Really, if you want to catch fish, you should consider putting bait on your hook.
perhaps the absolute is impossible the same way a perfect circle is impossible
That’s correct, ugly - a perfect circle is not impossible (as opposed to possible) - it’s fictional.
Could be. With the right set of assumptions, we could make the argument either way. For me, I’ll just continue whistling in the dark.
When you go to see a play, you are expected to suspend disbelief - to forget that you are in a theater, looking at actors. That’s a suspension of disbelief for a given time, for a specific purpose. Geometry is just like that. There are no real perfect circles - not because it’s impossible, but because a perfect circle is just an idea. Absolutes are like that - useful ideas, but not literally true to the world in which we live.
Actually perfect circles are truly physically impossible. But on the other hand, absolutes are not.
“All things are relative” is actually an oxymoron - a self-contradicting phrase. It is the same as saying;
[size=150]“Absolute Relativism”[/size]
It is proclaiming a square circle.
To know that something is curved, one must have something “straight” to compare it to. To even know what relativism means, there must be an absolute to compare it to. As soon as you know what the term “absolute” means, you have just found an absolute.
“Absolute” absolutely means absolute.
“Relative” absolutely means not absolute.
There is no way to cause all things to be relative regardless of what you do else you would cause the absolute fact of it.
Complete and utter relativity is absolutely true, necessarily. I believe this to be the case, whether or not it really is true. I see no good reason to feel embarrassed by that. The example of a square circle is not at all fitting here.
I think an inability to live with paradox is an example of a misguided relationship to logic.
… or relatively more or less curved. Bad example 
Lol. Oh please. Anything that exists is an absolute, including moral relativism, even if it’s only a special case in a world of universals. 
Of course, you can deny the existence or the possibility of moral relativism and take it out of the realm of absolutism. Lots of people do that. Maybe it makes them able to bait their hooks and catch lots of fish. If the number of fish is … ermm … a relative indicator of happiness, then they would also be very very happy. So, let’s lift our glasses to fishers of impossibilities swimming in the absolute ocean of possible worlds.
Speaks for itself. 
The only way you know more curved from less is by comparison to straight. So bad retort. 
I suspect that you have a unique definition for “absolute”, or perhaps for “existence”.
Relativism proposes that absolute does NOT exist at all. For relativism to exist, absolutes cannot exist (by definition of “relativism”). So even if it is true that “anything that exists is absolute” (whatever that means), relativism still would not be absolute because relativism only exists as a belief, not a reality.
How a thing relates to another when compared results in relativism. Since each thing has an absolutely unique concourse of atoms, nothing can be absolutely the same as another thing in existence. Yet every individual thing is absolutely unprecedented and unrepeatable.
Even ‘reality’ is a belief. Just see if what each person knows about it is the same.