Deceiver of the whole world

@fmf said
It's because he tried to leverage my parental instincts/love for my family in a shabby way when he was trying to justify eternal torment in burning flames. It's not something I would ever do in a discussion here. He didn't like being called out for it. He didn't like it at all. I get the impression he's trying to make that misstep by him seem like it was somehow my fault.

And you had to take it personal.

I seriously doubt kelly had any intention of causing offense.

Do you find it offensive that the Bible states that those who refuse God's Christ die in their sin and are separated from the life of God forever?

No doubt you do. Because it's at the crossroads where the vertical meets the horizontal that the issues of life are settled. One on the left, and one on the right. Two eternal destinies.

Some people get really pissed off there.

@secondson said
And you had to take it personal.

I simply called him out on it. I didn't retaliate. I didn't insult him. I wasn't angry. I just asked him to leave my family out of it. He ~ bizarrely ~ insisted he hadn't mentioned my family, and then started his boycott - which I believe debilitates his ability to discuss his ideas.

@secondson said
Do you find it offensive that the Bible states that those who refuse God's Christ die in their sin and are separated from the life of God forever?

"Offensive"? Not in the slightest, no.

@secondson said
Some people get really pissed off there.

If I were "pissed off", I'd stop participating in this community, more especially if I were "really pissed off".

@fmf said
KellyJay spent the whole of 2019 trying NOT to discuss "the idea that there is Truth relative to an absolute standard" with anyone, choosing instead to simply assert, over and over again, the idea that his personal, subjective opinions about "the Truth" constitute an absolute standard for everybody. That's all he did. And his way of 'substantiating' his assertions in discussions ...[text shortened]... agreed with him - like dj2becker, for example - and ignore numerous attempts to discuss it with him.

Maybe you should open your mind and consider that it was you that failed to "discuss it" with kelly. That kelly had mad every attempt at rational discourse, but was met by the usual derailing tactics employed by you and others, and simply got fed up with it and is now ignoring you.

You should be happy.

@fmf said
If I were "pissed off", I'd stop participating in this community, more especially if I were "really pissed off".

But you're obviously offended by kelly because of some perceived inappropriate language he used.

You got pissed, no? Or is it feigned? Either way you managed to alienate kelly.

@secondson said
Maybe you should open your mind and consider that it was you that failed to "discuss it" with kelly. That kelly had mad every attempt at rational discourse, but was met by the usual derailing tactics employed by you and others, and simply got fed up with it and is now ignoring you.

He's ignoring me, on this occasion, for calling him out for trying to use my family in a debate about eternal torment. I didn't boycott him for trying to drag my family into the debate; he boycotted me because he insisted that he hadn't mentioned my family ~ and the awkward fact was that he had. Pride is the issue, as far as I can make out. As I said, a mere few hours before his slip up he commended me for the way I advocate my ideas and for the thought that I put into what I post. There were no "derailing tactics" on my part and the discourse was basically rational,

@fmf said
I simply called him out on it. I didn't retaliate. I didn't insult him. I wasn't angry. I just asked him to leave my family out of it. He ~ bizarrely ~ insisted he hadn't mentioned my family, and then started his boycott - which I believe debilitates his ability to discuss his ideas.

Yes, I remember the incident. And you took advantage of what may or may not have been the best choice of words kelly used to make a point and created an unnecessary indictment.

@secondson said
But you're obviously offended by kelly because of some perceived inappropriate language he used.

No, I wasn't "offended". I just called him out for trying to leverage love-of-family in a debate about the morality of eternal torment. He himself obviously realized it was a bit shabby because his defence was that he had not mentioned my family. I would never leverage anyone's love for their spouses and children in an attempt to make a 'debating point'.

@secondson said
I respect your stance. It is logical and your right to not respond to those whose tactics are to misrepresent and mischaracterize your intent for the purpose of derailing coherent discourse.

I agree that we are each under no compulsion to respond to posts or posters. However, we were not talking about 'responding' to posts but 'reading' them.

Say the 2 of us had exchanged several posts in a particular thread on a very specific subject, and because Kelly never read my posts he instead responded to one of your posts in isolation with no knowledge of the contextual exchanges we had been sharing, and as a consequence completely misconstrued your post and replied to an intent not actually present in your post. Now say he did this on a regular basis. Would this, do you think, start to grate on you?

Look, I like Kelly and have time for the fellow, but I often have to deal with replies from him (to posts I have directed at someone else) which bear no relation to what I have written, due to him not taking the times to read the few posts that preceded my own. It's a tad annoying.

@secondson said
Yes, I remember the incident.

I think you are probably lying about this so that you can pluck some self-serving "analysis" about it out of thin air.

@secondson said
And you took advantage of what may or may not have been the best choice of words kelly used to make a point and created an unnecessary indictment.

Ah yes, just as I thought.

@secondson said
You got pissed, no? Or is it feigned? Either way you managed to alienate kelly.

I just called him out for it. That's all. I would expect to be called out for it too if I tried to leverage 'family' to 'win' an argument.

@fmf said
He's ignoring me, on this occasion, for calling him out for trying to use my family in a debate about eternal torment. I didn't boycott him for trying to drag my family into the debate; he boycotted me because he insisted that he hadn't mentioned my family ~ and the awkward fact was that he had. Pride is the issue, as far as I can make out. As I said, a mere few hours before his ...[text shortened]... what I post. There were no "derailing tactics" on my part and the discourse was basically rational,

Well, the whole matter is none of my business anyway.

I can see Kelly's point of view though. I believe he's justified in ignoring those he feels are disingenuous in debate.

I have a different constitution perhaps. I'll fight and argue all day long, I don't care how ugly it gets. 🙂

@fmf said
I just called him out for it. That's all. I would expect to be called out for it too if I tried to leverage 'family' to 'win' an argument.

Well, if that's what you really think kelly tried to do, then so be it.