Sorry, Dan, I should have been more clear. When I said 'discuss" I was meaning something along the lines of
'think about the ramifications of misunderstanding this". Or 'Isn't this such an obvious thing that there is really no way to deny it?". I should have written a longer, more specific post, keeping my audience in mind.
Not familiar with the Uttaravipatti Sutta, but I can speak to the idea that the teachings should be taken in context. Not all teachings are given in response to a situation: some of them are direct statements. That's why, for all the obvious differences between traditions, we can all agree on a few basic things. You can call me a fundamentalist: I'm of the opinion that if the Buddha makes a direct statement, it should be considered as the truth. When he elaborates, and points out specifically why you should do this, but not do that, I'll take it as true. Don't misinterpret my words, he said. Ok. I'll accept that as a definite, not something up to debate.
As for the Kalamas, yes, that was in response to a situation. But the meaning is not entirely clear, not enough is known about the background. It is way too often used to support viewpoints that are otherwise contradicted in the Suttas.