Claims are in no way evidence…

Not have I ever claimed they were.

However, I do provide evidence and examples to back my claims, that makes them valid.

Except context always changes the outcome, properties and relationships of everything

Except that it doesn’t. I actually showed you how.

Every single time that context doesn’t influence the logical outcome of the point being made it becomes irrelevant.

Or is murder now something else entirely because instead of happening in the context of a bar fight it happens in the context of a robbery?

In a conversation about the effects of murder on, say, the family members, such a context is irrelevant. Any logical person would focus on the actual issue. But not you, you rather circle around in the irrelevant zone.

Context by its very definition, CANNOT be irrelevant because if it is irrelevant, it isnt context…

So, should I now throw a tantrum like you because you clearly failed to properly apply the concept of context, which obviously show you don’t understand it?

You see, context can be irrelevant to a certain topic.

I’m glad you can quote a dictionary but better than that would be great if you could understand it.

If you understand that it represents the the constraints of the situation, then you should understand that when such limitations don’t influence the outcome one of two things happened:

a) You failed to properly contextualized the situation (in which case you are out of context)
b) You failed to understand the context of the conversation.

In this case you failed to do the second since you clearly managed to consider three things equivalent when they very clearly weren’t.

To justify an argument with unrelated context instead of actual logic is the essentially the same as presenting an invalid argument.

Anyway this has gone way off topic and is completely useless to the point of the conversation.