Bednar claims the church is growing and vibrant

[Res Ipsa]

IHQ, how is that responsive in any way to what I just posted?

[Marcus]

The context doesn't change the explicit language and equivalence of his comment that I've quoted.
He's equating same sex attraction as a physical limitation in the same way that having no legs or being blind or being deaf are physical limitations. What he should be equating it with is opposite sex attraction. But he doesn't. So you can apply all the perceived context you like. It doesn't change what he does in that very clear, very explicit, statement.

A person robs a bank. Does the context that he's just lost his job and is about to be evicted from his home with his wife and kids change the explicit fact that he robbed a bank?

Your analogy simply assumes away the reason for a dispute. You start with stating the conclusion "A man robs a bank." By doing so, you've removed yourself from your role as an interpreter. I'll illustrate using your example:

IHQ: A man robbed a bank.

RI: How do you know that.

IHQ: Watch this video clip.

Video clip from what appears to be from a security camera shows a person in a ski mask walking up to a bank teller and giving him a note. The teller nods at the man, takes money out of a drawer, puts it an envelope, and slides it to the person. The man walks away and leaves the field of the camera.

IHQ: He robbed the bank. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: Did you watch what came before and after on the video?

IHQ: I don't have to. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: You always have to check for context.

IHQ: Context is irrelevant. It's a self-contained even documented on camera. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: I'm going to check context before reaching a conclusion.

The start of a video shows a woman talking to two men, appearing to be giving them instructions. She walks out of the field of view. One man puts on a ski mask and walks out of view. The other walks out of view, then then back in behind a counter.

The part of the video described above then plays.

Finally, the woman, both men, and several other people enter the field of view. The woman talks to the assembled people, and there is what appears to be a question and answer session. The group laughs as the man who was wearing the ski mask shows that the envelope is full of newspaper clippings.

RI: When you look at the context, the man didn't rob the bank.

IHQ: He clearly did. The video shows it. It's a self contained event on the video.

RI: You can't tell whether or not an event is "self-contained" without considering the context.

We are talking about a long answer Bednar gave to a question. The evidence is a video tape. Because the answer is being translated, the entire answer is in the form [Phrase] [Pause for translation] [Phrase] [Pause for translation] [Phrase]. Bednar does not say "paragraph" or "period" or "comma" or "semi-colon." Just like the example above, you have arbitrarily picked a couple of phrases and claimed they are clear and self contained without ever considering what came before and after.

Your post is creating a story by putting words in other people's mouths. It's a very unpleasant situation, because you are clearly not expressing what that person thinks, but what you are interpreting them as thinking. Ihq is being a good sport about it, but it's pretty uncomfortable to read this. Please use an imaginary other if you really need to write like this, because not only is it no different than changing a person's quotes (which is not allowed here), it's unnecessarily intrusive and disrespectful.

[Res Ipsa]

Your analogy simply assumes away the reason for a dispute. You start with stating the conclusion "A man robs a bank." By doing so, you've removed yourself from your role as an interpreter. I'll illustrate using your example:

IHQ: A man robbed a bank.

RI: How do you know that.

IHQ: Watch this video clip.

Video clip from what appears to be from a security camera shows a person in a ski mask walking up to a bank teller and giving him a note. The teller nods at the man, takes money out of a drawer, puts it an envelope, and slides it to the person. The man walks away and leaves the field of the camera.

IHQ: He robbed the bank. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: Did you watch what came before and after on the video?

IHQ: I don't have to. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: You always have to check for context.

IHQ: Context is irrelevant. It's a self-contained even documented on camera. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: I'm going to check context before reaching a conclusion.

The start of a video shows a woman talking to two men, appearing to be giving them instructions. She walks out of the field of view. One man puts on a ski mask and walks out of view. The other walks out of view, then then back in behind a counter.

The part of the video described above then plays.

Finally, the woman, both men, and several other people enter the field of view. The woman talks to the assembled people, and there is what appears to be a question and answer session. The group laughs as the man who was wearing the ski mask shows that the envelope is full of newspaper clippings.

RI: When you look at the context, the man didn't rob the bank.

IHQ: He clearly did. The video shows it. It's a self contained event on the video.

RI: You can't tell whether or not an event is "self-contained" without considering the context.

We are talking about a long answer Bednar gave to a question. The evidence is a video tape. Because the answer is being translated, the entire answer is in the form [Phrase] [Pause for translation] [Phrase] [Pause for translation] [Phrase]. Bednar does not say "paragraph" or "period" or "comma" or "semi-colon." Just like the example above, you have arbitrarily picked a couple of phrases and claimed they are clear and self contained without ever considering what came before and after.

Your post is creating a story by putting words in other people's mouths. It's a very unpleasant situation, because you are clearly not expressing what that person thinks, but what you are interpreting them as thinking. Ihq is being a good sport about it, but it's pretty uncomfortable to read this. Please use an imaginary other if you really need to write like this, because not only is it no different than changing a person's quotes (which is not allowed here), it's unnecessarily intrusive and disrespectful.

Nonsense. It’s very clear that I’m using an imagined dialog to make an argument. It’s a technique that’s been around for thousands of years. IHQ is a fully capable adult. If he thought my example wasn’t accurate or fair, he was certainly capable of explaining how I got wrong. He certainly doesn’t need Mommy Marcus to swoop in and run interference for him by once again avoiding substance by criticizing form.

Your discomfort with my words is not my problem. And, frankly, given your behavior upthread, you are the last person who should be lecturing others on disrespect.

So, how about addressing the substance of what I posted rather than tone policing someone toward whom you’ve displayed significant personal animosity?

[I Have Questions]

IHQ is a fully capable adult.

I’m gonna have to CFR that…

[Marcus]

Your post is creating a story by putting words in other people's mouths. It's a very unpleasant situation, because you are clearly not expressing what that person thinks, but what you are interpreting them as thinking. Ihq is being a good sport about it, but it's pretty uncomfortable to read this. Please use an imaginary other if you really need to write like this, because not only is it no different than changing a person's quotes (which is not allowed here), it's unnecessarily intrusive and disrespectful.

Nonsense. It’s very clear that I’m using an imagined dialog to make an argument. It’s a technique that’s been around for thousands of years. IHQ is a fully capable adult. If he thought my example wasn’t accurate or fair, he was certainly capable of explaining how I got wrong. He certainly doesn’t need Mommy Marcus to swoop in and run interference for him by once again avoiding substance by criticizing form.

Your discomfort with my words is not my problem. And, frankly, given your behavior upthread, you are the last person who should be lecturing others on disrespect.

So, how about addressing the substance of what I posted rather than tone policing someone toward whom you’ve displayed significant personal animosity?

I registered my concerns, you are dismissing them. You put words in other people's mouths. It's inappropriate.

As for your snide remark about 'my behavior,' you were called out for misusing moderator powers. It's your problem if you can't handle that.

[Marcus]

IHQ is a fully capable adult.

I’m gonna have to CFR that…

[I Have Questions]

IHQ, how is that responsive in any way to what I just posted?

I thought it was pretty clear. I’m simply pointing you to the wider context (which you feel is important) that Bednar has form when it comes to talking disparagingly about people who don’t comply with his view of gender norms.

[Res Ipsa]

IHQ, how is that responsive in any way to what I just posted?

I thought it was pretty clear. I’m simply pointing you to the wider context (which you feel is important) that Bednar has form when it comes to talking disparagingly about people who don’t comply with his view of gender norms.

Wait. You’ve argued over and over that we shouldn’t look at the things Bednar said before and after the phrase you’ve isolated because it’s clear. Now you want to use your conclusory description of what Bednar said in some other context in the past as “context?”

Unless you consider blind people, dead people, autistic people and people who use wheelchairs as being something less than fully human, how can you say with a straight face that being committed to any or all of them is “disparaging.”

Ignoring the full text of Ballard’s answer while referring to text removed in time and space from the answer is, at best, blatant cherry picking.

Referring back to the analogy I presented, suppose we learned that the man in the ski mask had actually robbed a bank 20 years before. Why would that context be relevant to the complete video, which clearly shows there was no robbery?

If you’re not willing to consider anything in Bednar’s actual answer other than than the phrases you’ve isolated, then I’m not willing to consider something else Bednar said at a different time and in a different context.

[Res Ipsa]

Nonsense. It’s very clear that I’m using an imagined dialog to make an argument. It’s a technique that’s been around for thousands of years. IHQ is a fully capable adult. If he thought my example wasn’t accurate or fair, he was certainly capable of explaining how I got wrong. He certainly doesn’t need Mommy Marcus to swoop in and run interference for him by once again avoiding substance by criticizing form.

Your discomfort with my words is not my problem. And, frankly, given your behavior upthread, you are the last person who should be lecturing others on disrespect.

So, how about addressing the substance of what I posted rather than tone policing someone toward whom you’ve displayed significant personal animosity?

I registered my concerns, you are dismissing them. You put words in other people's mouths. It's inappropriate.

Yes. I dismiss your concern trolling.

[Marcus]

I registered my concerns, you are dismissing them. You put words in other people's mouths. It's inappropriate.

Yes. I dismiss your concern trolling.

That's your label.

Your post is creating a story by putting words in other people's mouths. It's a very unpleasant situation, because you are clearly not expressing what that person thinks, but what you are interpreting them as thinking. Ihq is being a good sport about it, but it's pretty uncomfortable to read this. Please use an imaginary other if you really need to write like this, because not only is it no different than changing a person's quotes (which is not allowed here), it's unnecessarily intrusive and disrespectful.