Yep. Note the "English" in that. Ie, no translation necessary.
Actually, you're wrong there. Translating can be used when you're taking information/writing in one form and reproducing it in another form. Probably the tertiary part of the definition, but it's in there.
Now you're just being too tough on yourself.
Your insinuations that this is somehow all my problem have been addressed.
It's not an insinuation. It's a statement you make when you do the, "Dude, English." And when you make more particular comments along that line. As I've noted repeatedly, you're just wrong. Part of the proof in that pudding is your inability to site specific passages and set out what seems impenetrable to you. I suspect it's simply above your comfort level as a reader and the implication of that irks you. You're like the guy at the party who doesn't get the joke, but rolls his eyes as if he did and it was beneath him.
That's life.
Note how far you'll go to get away from the challenge. JR said that his willingness has no impact on the rightness.
A man who thinks it's essential to vote will cast his vote. A man who supports a war won't dodge the draft. So when someone says they think it's okay to kill a child it's reasonable to first suggest they don't mean that (because it's both crazy and brutal) and then, if they insist on supporting the idea, to ask if they'd be willing to do it.
Because if they say fidelity is vital to a marriage but won't commit to it I can question whether they really mean it and whether they're the person to have the debate with on the point.
Otherwise it's grotesque gamesmanship on a matter of some importance. For the record, I think killing children is unconscionable. Before or after they're born. But I'm in the minority on that one. So be it.
