You can measure it's average position, the rate of jumping, it's average instantaneous speed between jumps... I'm talking about speed in the sense of rate of change.

Another reason time can have no speed: change in time over time makes no sense.

That is not an example, that is the topic. I have no faith in your authority as a physicist. And you yourself said that Einstein was an eternalist.

I would say it is logically impossible for something to have no speed, and yet be dynamic.

Not having speed is not the logical equivalent to is not dynamic.

Explain then, or provide an example.

Time does not have a speed.
Speed is a measure of distance traveled in an amount of time.
It does not make any sense to say time has a speed.

Any dynamic process, a chemical reaction for example, has a speed. "Rate", if you prefer.
Time, as you point out, cannot have a speed/rate.
Therefore, time cannot be a dynamic process.

You introduce a problem, how can a thing which is static be converted into an abstraction which is dynamic?

Perhaps the entirety of time exists all at once, no one moment is more privileged than the next. What we perceive as a dynamic 3-dimensional system is really a static 4-dimensional one. The extra dimension gives "room" to project a 4-d static reality as a dynamic 3-d abstraction, just as the different chemical properties of different wavelengths of light allow for their projection as colors.

Reality is not colorful, but it is colorful as we perceive it, or in the abstract, as you put it. According to you, this should be impossible. Or is there a difference between these two cases?

Yes, time is a dimension. But saying that is not enough, time also keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping, into the future. We seem to be moving through this dimension, at a constant speed.

I think the confusion arises because morality is in it's nature both objective and subjective. As you say, mores are not whims of the moment; they persist in the face of an individual's belief or disavowal of them, in the same manner that a teapot does. Mores may be studied and classified, and books are written about them which can be said to be accurate, or not. And yet, moralities are subjective, in that it has no reality outside of the minds of the societies which formulate them.

The situation is analogous to the valuation placed on money, or gold. That money is valuable is a real, objective fact of the world; it makes the difference between someone wielding enormous power vs. a stack of worthless paper. And yet, there is nothing objective in the world which confers on money it's value, outside of the collective agreement of the individuals who use it.

Maybe a new term is called for. Morality is neither objective nor subjective, but rather collective.

Er ... no ... ever heard of relativity?

Yes... and if one is foolishly brazen enough to issue grand pronouncements on the nature of time, he should at least mention relativity!

So yes, time does have a speed, when measured against other frames of reference. And of course, these relative speeds are incredibly minute, at least as far as the everyday world is concerned.

But I am arguing that time has no absolute speed. We can easily accept that motion can have only a relative speed, this accords more or less well with our intuitive understanding of motion. But with time, it is much more difficult. It clashes with the intuitive notion that time is plodding forward at a constant rate.

So the problem remains: there are at most minute measurable differences, in most cases, in the relative speeds of time. But there is no such thing as an absolute speed of time. And without a speed, how can time, as we understand it, operate at all?