Context is everything in debate and there are many volconvo posters who aren't understanding it... or think it prevents us from proving things.
Let's start with a simple statement.
"I feel hot."
The context here (since it's written in present tense) means that all things that are described as Zhavric felt hot at 2:02pm on May 31st 2007 in Columbus, Ohio, USA. That is the
only person the statement applies to.
"But Zhavric," some will say."Columbus, OH is really cold compared to Venus so really your statement doesn't make any sense."
Not so.
Adding or removing information changes the context. Different contexts equate to completely different statements.
"I feel hot" is not the same as stateing "I feel hot compared to Venus". The original context doesn't apply to Venus.
We cannot change the original context and claim it's the same context. This is very important. We see it clearly illustrated when people insult one another. We pay very close attention to what's said. For example...
Steve: "All women are dumb."
Amy: "WHAT!? How dare you say that?"
Steve: "Oh... uhm... I meant the women at the supermarket are dumb."
Amy: "That's not what you said! You said all women are dumb."
Steve attempts to amend his insulting context to something less insulting, but the damage is done. Amy refuses to believe his new statement should be equal to his old one.
There are still those who think shifting contexts poses a problem with proving things. It doesn't. We can freely examine claims and compare contexts to determine their soundness.
Discuss... without changing the context.