Would you risk family relationships just to be right?

[screwtape]

 It will help you prepare for the day when you are ready to have your atheist discussion with your other arrogant siblings who treat you poorly.  

Ok first off what does SFTU mean?? :shrug

STFU = Shut The F- Up.

and I think that statements like this and saying that our family are "jerks" would put anyones back up, maybe if you did not say these things, then maybe it would have not got so emotional?

Thank you for bringing that up.  That was part of the problem, wasn't it?  I said something that seemed accurate based on your description of the family.  Mr Stuff took exception and acted like a tard, but did not explain that when I was talking about your "arrogant jerks" of a family, it included him.  So, he was upset, but I had no way to connect the dots until two pages later.  He was taking things very personally, and I did not see it or suspect it, because it did not add up.  Now it does.  So that is another way his deception undermined the conversation.

Now this thread has gotten way off track, can we please just agree that we disagree.

We can agree to disagree about what advice is best.  That was more or less decided a couple pages ago. 

But as for your brother's behavior, no.  It is beyond that now.  He has behaved poorly[1] and he should at least acknowledge that.  When I make an ass of myself I admit it and apologize.  When I have misunderstandings I clear them up as best I can.  I did that in this very thread.  I apologized to your brother for a misunderstanding where I did not even intend insult.  That is courtesy.  That is having manners.  That is an earnest attempt to have and maintain a civil discussion despite the fact that all along the way he mischaracterized[2] my points.  If I let him off the hook now, he will continue to act like an irrational doofus.  He has to confront that and own up to it.

I think that I know my brothers intentions, and I know that he does not have ulterior motives, or that he has lied in anyway.

You cannot say he did not lie in any way.  He pretended you were not related.  He put on an act.  He maintained a pretense.  He lied.  This post, when looked at knowing what we know now, is laughable in its dishonesty.  He's trying to fill in the blanks where it makes his argument, but he is still trying to pretend he doesn't really know the whole deal.  "heck, they probably don't know how to turn on a computer."  As if he were guessing.  "Probably" my foot. This is a lie and it should be very clear to you.

In addition he has been intellectually dishonest with me.  Rather than respond to him as he responded to Azdgari (you know, by dropping the F-bomb), I have tried to help him.  Unfortunately, rather than show gratitude, he has to be dragged kicking and screaming to rationality.  I would appreciate it if you helped me.

Have you completed your assignment yet?  This is exactly why I suggested it.  You instinctively jump to your brother's defense.  That is natural and I would defend my brothers too.  But you are justifying his actions when you should not.  You should work on seeing through emotional bullshit and countering it.  If we cannot do that with fellow atheists, how can we expect to do it with theists?

1.	that is, dishonestly
2.	ie, lied about

[Not on the fence]

Thank you for bringing that up.  That was part of the problem, wasn't it?  I said something that seemed accurate based on your description of the family. 

The way I explained things I did not mean they were jerks. Did you even read what I just said in my second to last post? Also the video I posted have you watched that?  What is "my assignment 
I think that you have blown this all out of proportion,and no Im not just standing up for my brother because he is my brother, I stand up for his reasoning because  he knows the details.

[Star Stuff]

Sorry screwtape, I have once again gone over every post I made on this thread from the beginning and cannot find anything wrong with what I've said, or my conduct. You appear to have an enormous amount of stuff fabricated in your mind about my intentions and I cannot be responsible for your misunderstanding; that's your baggage.  In your last post to me you have once again gone on a diatribe with claims & ideas about me which only exists in your head.  You have not provided what I asked for, your references are tissue thin and nonsensical.

I'm done with you on this. I think you should get some fresh air, or exercise or something.

[Azdgari]

Reasoned analysis = diatribe in Star Stuff's lexicon.  Good to know.

[shnozzola]

Fence,
          I was raised brethren also, maybe not as strict as you.  My mother and sister are very religious.  One of my sisters kids(in college) is religious one is atheist(in college).  My brother in law is an atheist.  I consider myself an atheist, but, since I only studied christianity, I believe that the teachings of jesus, whether real or myth, are extremely important, as I also realize are the teachings of many secular and religious leaders throughout history.  Have your views changed so much from your family?   I would not tell my uncles I am an atheist, because I care about them too much to have the discussion that leads nowhere.

 My extended family is not going to attack police in Michigan - we are not that type of christian family.  The "love" part of our collective upbringing, because of my grandfather's mennonite strengths - knowing that ALL men are created equal and we can't judge anyone for thinking what we ourselves are not sure of - allows us to remain a strong family.  Some may not understand the need to remain silent concerning this, but to me family is too important.

[jetson]

shnozzola,

Could one or more of your family members do something that would make you consider that maybe they no longer deserve your respect?

[RegalSin]

My family is a god fearing family too, however once I am out of the house I really could careless about there strickness on the subject at hand. If your at home, just make your daily tasks revolve around them. To hell with there respect, as long as your not a maniac killer, drug user, or something else in that feild, consider yourself clean.

My brother in law is an atheist.

Is also the person sleeping with your sister. He is not your blood relative, in this terms at all. He is not your freind no matter how much of a good time you enjoy with him. Like the guy who impregnat my sister. I am just too hot and too tired to deal, with being hatefilled against him. I mean so what, if she got pregnant when she was 13 or 31, I am just happy that my sister is being a normal woman. Making babies and going out with men, and not sleeping with women.

[Star Stuff]

I am just happy that my sister is being a normal woman. Making babies and going out with men, and not sleeping with women.

Now that should open up a can of worms.

[L6]

I know this response is late and probably nobody cares now, but whatever.

Why the need for conflict and strife?

It's not a need, it's merely an inevitability. As already pointed out above, whenever someone close to you is presented with the notion that you are either going to change or are not the person they already think you are, they will resist that notion. That is the strife.

When people realize that their views can hurt their family members, particularly their children, their behavior is more likely to change.

Not necessarily.  Big assumption.

Not necessarily more likely to change? So, your position is that your family, upon hearing you're Negative Attribute X, is going to ramp up their hatred for X, knowing it will hurt you more? And keeping a family like that is more valuable than honesty, among other things?

You don't need to fight or debate your family; it's as simple as saying you don't believe. Most people avoid conflict and will probably leave it alone after that. It's their knowing at all--and that you are a good person, to boot--that is important.

You say this, apparently with the assumption that open discussion always leads to enlightened decisions and reactions.  Not always so.  Sometimes a relationship with family hinges on more than just religion, but the strife or conflict that you urge, above, is enough to fuck things up for good.  The conflict that starts with one thing can set other aspects of the relationship on fire.

It doesn't have to be open discussion. Like I already said, only the individual knows which approach is best, once they've made the decision to let their family know the truth.

Like I've said in posts in this forum and at ATT: I told my loved ones what I think about religion and God.  With some, it has been beneficial, with others, not so.  It is very, very unfortunate that some relationships hit the rocks.  Despite what you say -- there were other values to those relationships beyond religion, and I do not feel that it was for the better because they could not reconcile with what I felt.

So you value family over honesty. Fine. Then please direct your attention to my first little rant about losing the right to complain about how atheists are treated. (Not that you do complain about that, not that I can recall.) If you felt great angst over the public opinion of atheists and yet refused to inform your family, I don't think you would deserve any sympathy.

As for atheism gaining ground, politically -- you and everyone else here can help with that, with or without family's help or knowledge.  To imply or state in a coercive manner that you must tell your family, "come hell or high water", in order to be a good atheist is rather indoctrinating of you, L6.  First, you must submit.  slm

Every decision comes down to an emotion. If you want to see it as indoctrination to make you feel better about rejecting my opinion, go for it.

I will continue to keep my own counsel about this kind of matter.  I do not "live a lie."  But, then again, I have no need to discuss or denounce religion.  Most people I meet in life just don't rank getting into that personal space.  I know far better about what is required in my life than you ever will.

Okay, well, this was never about you, specifically, so okay.

The shame you attempt to invoke by slinging around "cowardice", and similar remarks, merely exposes your need to bully others into feeling the same way you do.  My advice to others is to use extreme judgement, do not rush, and certainly do not listen to those, like you, who would demean them with cries of "spinelessness" -- you may as well be telling them to not think through what they should do.

That is safe and useless advice, as everyone uses their own judgement regardless. It sounds like you just don't want to be accountable.

You and Star Stuff are just emotionally riled up because I've reminded you of your own cowardice and dishonest rationalizations.

I won't speak for Star Stuff.  For my part, I have noticed your feather primping and strutting.  Very nice: pretty plumage.

I like how you're trying to demonize me both to make it easier to dismiss me, but also to shame and coerce and bully me into shutting up. Must be your valuable family influence shining through.

Edit: for the record: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=4328.0

[screwtape]

Thank you for bringing that up.  That was part of the problem, wasn't it?  I said something that seemed accurate based on your description of the family. 

 The way I explained things I did not mean they were jerks.

Yes I read that.  You did not elaborate further so I am stuck with this image of bullying, religious oafs being dismissive of you.  If that is inaccurate, help me out here.  Paint another picture.

Did you even read what I just said in my second to last post?

Yes, I did.  What point do you think I have missed?

Also the video I posted have you watched that? 

No.  They are blocked for me.  I rarely watch videos posted here mainly because I am usually disappointed by them. Perhaps you could give me a synopsis?

What is "my assignment  :?

This:

It would be a good exercise for you to reread my conversation with him.   It will be to practice using reason over emotion.  Look for all the places where he dodges the point, accuses me of saying things I did not say and generally behaves like an irrational tool. Then explain it to him.   

I think that you have blown this all out of proportion,and no Im not just standing up for my brother because he is my brother, I stand up for his reasoning because  he knows the details.

You are missing the point, pumpkin.  I am not hung up on his advice to you vs my advice to you.  So it is not about whether he knows the details.  It is now about how he has conducted himself in this thread. 

You see, this forum is a kind of community.  It is not a traditional community where you meet people in person, get to know them, borrow their lawn mower, and have picnics.  But there are still some expectations.  Among them are honestly representing yourself and honorably debating.  Some key expectations in this particular "community" are intellectual honesty and being rational.  Your brother has broken those expectations.  In a traditional community he would be like the guy who borrows the lawn mower and returns it broken.  Or the guy who hits on his 15 year old daughter's friends. 

So as you can see, a bad neighbor has to be addressed.  You cannot have someone in a supposedly "rationalist" community behaving irrationally.  I have outlined specifically what my grievances are.  I have given examples and explained them.  He is in denial.  I hope that you can see what he cannot.

[screwtape]

Sorry screwtape, I have once again gone over every post I made on this thread from the beginning and cannot find anything wrong with what I've said, or my conduct. You appear to have an enormous amount of stuff fabricated in your mind about my intentions and I cannot be responsible for your misunderstanding; that's your baggage.  In your last post to me you have once again gone on a diatribe with claims & ideas about me which only exists in your head.  You have not provided what I asked for, your references are tissue thin and nonsensical.

I'm done with you on this. I think you should get some fresh air, or exercise or something.

I go through all that trouble and effort and you just dismiss it with sloppy handwaiving and denial? 

You suck. 

You suck in the exact same way Fran sucks. 

You may think you have dropped the dogma of your childhood, but you only lost the jesus part of it.  Clearly all the mechanisms that kept you blind all that time are still intact.  Look in the mirror.  Only this time, instead of doing it to confirm how beautiful you are, try to find the zits.  They are there.  I promise.  I would not go through all this just for the heck of it.

[Not on the fence]

Yes I read that.  You did not elaborate further so I am stuck with this image of bullying, religious oafs being dismissive of you.  If that is inaccurate, help me out here.  Paint another picture.

Can you not go to youtube and watch this video? I think it would be best if you did that, as I am not the greatest trying to explain things. This will not disapoint.

[Not on the fence]

You are missing the point, pumpkin.  I am not hung up on his advice to you vs my advice to you.  So it is not about whether he knows the details.  It is now about how he has conducted himself in this thread. 

You see, this forum is a kind of community.  It is not a traditional community where you meet people in person, get to know them, borrow their lawn mower, and have picnics.  But there are still some expectations.  Among them are honestly representing yourself and honorably debating.  Some key expectations in this particular "community" are intellectual honesty and being rational.  Your brother has broken those expectations.  In a traditional community he would be like the guy who borrows the lawn mower and returns it broken.  Or the guy who hits on his 15 year old daughter's friends. 

So as you can see, a bad neighbor has to be addressed.  You cannot have someone in a supposedly "rationalist" community behaving irrationally.  I have outlined specifically what my grievances are.  I have given examples and explained them.  He is in denial.  I hope that you can see what he cannot.

  Again I do not see how SS was being irrational, etc.., sure some words are harsh, but all of you guys on this site are guilty of that.
I know what a forum is, I am on a few just like this one, and others.  Though the other forums have more rules than this one, and I would have been kicked off a long time ago if I talked the way alot of you do here to Theists.

[Azdgari]

Again I do not see how SS was being irrational, etc.., sure some words are harsh, but all of you guys on this site are guilty of that.

Why do you immediately think of "harsh words" as being the main instance of "SS being irrational"?

Do you think that it is "harsh words" that Screwtape is talking about?  If so, then why wouldn't he say "harsh words", instead of saying "being irrational"?

[Star Stuff]

It is now about how he has conducted himself in this thread. 

You see, this forum is a kind of community.  It is not a traditional community where you meet people in person, get to know them, borrow their lawn mower, and have picnics.  But there are still some expectations.  Among them are honestly representing yourself and honourably debating.  Some key expectations in this particular "community" are intellectual honesty and being rational.  Your brother has broken those expectations.  In a traditional community he would be like the guy who borrows the lawn mower and returns it broken.  Or the guy who hits on his 15 year old daughter's friends. 

So as you can see, a bad neighbour has to be addressed.  You cannot have someone in a supposedly "rationalist" community behaving irrationally.  I have outlined specifically what my grievances are.  I have given examples and explained them.  He is in denial.  I hope that you can see what he cannot.

Welcome once again to the dream world of screwtape.  Your bullying and crescendo of false accusations are really tissue thin to anyone reading this thread. Do you even hear yourself? Just look at what you've just said about me, it is so offensive, and at the same time laughable, as I have so much more integrity than the caricature of me you have attempted to erect, and have fixed in your head.  Anyone looking at your claims of my "dishonest and irrational conduct" must be confused, as they see that I have been a reasonably good member of this "community" for four years, and yet suddenly I decide to act like the the morally bankrupt person you're painting?  Does that make sense? No, it doesn't.  Thus, your dream world. You enjoy taking the pompous stance of judge and jury with your conclusions, but you are wrong.

I think you would benefit from reading this book.  In it, the author speaks about a common trend with many people (and the example of police is sited) where once a person gets an idea of guilt in their head, they'll often follow that conviction to no end in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  You are doing this very thing, and it is quite amusing to watch you doggedly dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.  I encourage you to put down the shovel.

In an exercise of honestly looking at myself (and your claims) I have read through this entire thread twice, and can find nothing that substantiates your accusations.  I've asked you for unambiguous evidence for your basless assertions, and all you did was refer back to your own previous rant!  What a joke!

I too will not beat my chest and do a celebratory dance when you admit you are wrong.  I do not want to gloat or humiliate you.  I want you to see where you have been acting in a way you would condemn if a theist did it.

[Azdgari]

Star Stuff, your failure to actually address Screwtape's evidence of your intellectual dishonesty painfully evident.

The dream world, in this case, is the objectively-real physical one.  Please wake up.

[screwtape]

Can you not go to youtube and watch this video? I think it would be best if you did that, as I am not the greatest trying to explain things. This will not disapoint.

Right now, I cannot.  That site is blocked.  Is it the Star Stuff family picnic?  Is he wearing a "Kiss the Closet Atheist" apron?

Again I do not see how SS was being irrational, etc.., sure some words are harsh, but all of you guys on this site are guilty of that.

Well, lets you and I take an example or two.
This was what I actually said:

I am all for using tact and making the announcement quietly and without confrontation.  She doesn't have to stick her thumb in their eye.  But whatever the approach, we have to be honest with ourselves and our families. 

This was how SS characterized it:

Your one-size-fits-all, carpet bombing approach lacks wisdom, sensitivity and compassion.

and

It is insensitive to throw a gernade into an elderly person's world...  Would you also drub your non-belief into a cancer victim on their death-bed?

and

You just seem to want to throw your gernades in a pell-mell fashion.

Does what he says have any semblance to what I actually said?  Of course not.  That is not just harsh wording.  That is gross mischaracterization.  It is a strawman argument.  That is where intellectual honesty should come in to play. That is where, after I pointed it out to him, he should have taken a step back, seen his error and apologized.  Instead, he denied, denied, denied.  And, sadly, he continues to deny. 

I understand why he reacted that way initially[1] - he got all emotional because thought I was in some way attacking his parents or that my idea would be harmful to them.  His emotional response was to try to protect them.  So we get these posts that near hysteria and do not deal with what I said, but how he felt.  I do not hate him for that.  I think though, that by now he should be able to recognize it and own up to it. His continued denial is shameful and embarrassing.

Another example - this whole denial of dishonesty.  I have been through it a couple of times with both of you here and here.  I'm not going to go through the whole explanation again.  But just as with the point above, you are both getting caught up in your emotions.  Neither of you want to think he was dishonest and so you recoil from the notion.  But I never said the dishonesty was malicious or even necessarily harmful.  I just wanted it addressed. He was dishonest.  There is no question of that. You cannot argue that he was not.  He all but used those words.  If he is to be believed, he lied "for the sake of anonymity".  I routinely withhold personal information for security and privacy.  I do not think there is anything wrong with that.  And I said as much.  But cripes man, be honest about it.

One last point about where he was irrational.  I don't think it needs any explanation.

Poor behaviour!?!

Fuck you.

It's succinct.  I have to give him that.

I know what a forum is, I am on a few just like this one, and others. 

I wasn't talking down to you.  I am sorry if it sounded that way.  I had no idea of your level of experience and I was just trying to put it in terms even a noob could understand, just in case.

1.	now that I know the whole story.  At the time, I thought he was a loon.

[Star Stuff]

Star Stuff, your failure to actually address Screwtape's evidence of your intellectual dishonesty painfully evident.

Please go through the thread, and provide me with this "evidence" you assert that I:

- Tried to "shut down" the conversation
- Attacked people.
- Said that you "should not have answered"
- Dodged points
- Had a "hidden agenda"
- Lied about relationship with sister (and don't give me that "lie by ommission" BS, I eventually felt forced to drop the anonimity for reasons evident, and that's it.)


So go on, find it for me. Go back and read my posts from the start, but first remove the guilt filters that you seem to be wearing.

You have my bad intent stuck in your heads.  It is false, but if you wish to maintain your erroneous position, the onus is you to prove my bad intent.  I know that you cannot do that because I know that I had no such intent, but, go ahead, you seem to love your conclusions.

[screwtape]

... I have been a reasonably good member of this "community" for four years,

I agree.  You have been a good member here since I have known you.  That is why I am so perplexed by this thread. 

and yet suddenly I decide to act like the the morally bankrupt person you're painting? 

This is a prime example of what I have been talking about.  I never made any judgment about your morality.  I never accused you of being morally bankrupt.  Those are your words, not mine.  This is yet another emotional outburst.  It is a response to how you feel, not to what I have said.

And for the record, you do not strike me as immoral. 

but you are wrong.

Maybe I am.  I think I've left room for that all along.  So far though, you have given me no reason to think so. 

In it, the author speaks about a common trend with many people (and the example of police is sited) where once a person gets an idea of guilt in their head, they'll often follow that conviction to no end in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  You are doing this very thing,...

It sounds interesting.  I have brought up something like it as examples of faith and against arguments for torture.  However, to say I am in this position would require that there have been evidence contrary to mine presented.  So far, you've given none.  Whereas, as prosecutors would say, I have provided a preponderance of evidence against you.  Your defense has been like the opening arguments in My Cousin Vinnie: "Everything that guy just said is all bullshit." 

In an exercise of honestly looking at myself (and your claims) I have read through this entire thread twice, and can find nothing that substantiates your accusations.  I've asked you for unambiguous evidence for your basless assertions, and all you did was refer back to your own previous rant!  What a joke!

I'd say the punchline is you referring to it as a rant.  I gave examples, provided links and explained in what I thought was fairly neutral language.

I too will not beat my chest and do a celebratory dance when you admit you are wrong.  I do not want to gloat or humiliate you.  I want you to see where you have been acting in a way you would condemn if a theist did it.

At least we both have each others best interests at heart.  Though pardon me if I do not take you at your word here.  You sound a bit sarcastic.

[Not on the fence]

Ok Screwtape if I had best friends on this site and we were writing in the same thread, would I be lying if I did  not tell you?

[Star Stuff]

It sounds interesting.  I have brought up something like it as examples of faith and against arguments for torture.  However, to say I am in this position would require that there have been evidence contrary to mine presented.  So far, you've given none.  Whereas, as prosecutors would say, I have provided a preponderance of evidence against you.  Your defense has been like the opening arguments in My Cousin Vinnie: "Everything that guy just said is all bullshit."

Nope. My evidence (as though I need to prove a negative) is the thread itself.  Go through it, post by post - I invite anyone & everyone reading this to do that.

Your post above (#162) is a good example of you taking things that I said, out of context (out of the different statements that they were replying to) and bunching them together to try and build your case.  Fail.

At least we both have each others best interests at heart.  Though pardon me if I do not take you at your word here.  You sound a bit sarcastic.

That's because it's going through your "guilty filter", as described earlier.  There was no sarcasm on my part.

[screwtape]

Ok Screwtape if I had best friends on this site and we were writing in the same thread, would I be lying if I did  not tell you?

Not in every case.  It depends.  In your hypothetical situation, did you put on a pretense?  If you pretended to not know them, then yes.  If you responded to them in ways that intentionally implied you were strangers, yes.  If you were asked and denied, yes.  Otherwise, no.

[Star Stuff]

Not in every case.  It depends.  In your hypothetical situation, did you put on a pretense?  If you pretended to not know them, then yes.  If you responded to them in ways that intentionally implied you were strangers, yes.  If you were asked and denied, yes.  Otherwise, no.

Phew!  I'm clean.

[Not on the fence]

Ok Screwtape if I had best friends on this site and we were writing in the same thread, would I be lying if I did  not tell you?

Not in every case.  It depends.  In your hypothetical situation, did you put on a pretense?  If you pretended to not know them, then yes.  If you responded to them in ways that intentionally implied you were strangers, yes.  If you were asked and denied, yes.  Otherwise, no.

Well I do have 2 friends on here, though I do not know their names on here, we never really discuss it.  So I could be talking to them and I dont even know it.  They do know my name on here, but I have changed it since I first joined, not sure if they come on this site much but im sure they would admit to knowing me if they felt that they needed to help me out a bit if they knew the situation I was in.
Guess I should find out their names, etc, so Im not lying to everyone.  I think that kind of sounds absurd, they are allowed to have their privacy, no?  It was my choice to invite them here and tell them my name.

[screwtape]

Nope. My evidence (as though I need to prove a negative) is the thread itself.  Go through it, post by post - I invite anyone & everyone reading this to do that.

The thread itself?  Jesus H christ on a stick.  Could you possibly be any lazier?  You've not been asked to prove a negative.  You've been asked to address points brought up.  Throughout the thread you have either ignored them, distorted them or just dismissed them. Like this one:

Your post above (#162) is a good example of you taking things that I said, out of context (out of the different statements that they were replying to) and bunching them together to try and build your case.  Fail.

In what way does context change it?  You see, if you were to show that, it would be a whole lot more convincing that "Fail."  In no placed did I suggest "carpet bombing", "grenade throwing" or "pell mell".  I corrected you every time and you never acknowledged it.  You continued your injudicious language.  If you could show where your characterization was accurate, then you might have a point. If you could show where you corrected yourself, then you might have a point. But just claiming "Context! Fail" is lazy and sloppy and does not get the job done. 

I feel like I am having a conversation with poseidon/nihilanth .

[Not on the fence]

Let it all out now, because Im going to have this thread shut down since we cannot come to an agreement
Thanks for participating.

[screwtape]

Phew!  I'm clean.

No, you're not.  I pointed out exactly why not.

Not in every case.  It depends.  In your hypothetical situation, did you put on a pretense?  If you pretended to not know them, then yes.  If you responded to them in ways that intentionally implied you were strangers, yes.  If you were asked and denied, yes.  Otherwise, no.

Well I do have 2 friends on here, though I do not know their names on here, we never really discuss it.  So I could be talking to them and I dont even know it.  They do know my name on here, but I have changed it since I first joined, not sure if they come on this site much but im sure they would admit to knowing me if they felt that they needed to help me out a bit if they knew the situation I was in.

You don't know who the are, so how could you possibly be putting on a pretense?

Guess I should find out their names, etc, so Im not lying to everyone. 

Why would you say that?  I already said that would not fit the definition of lying.  You actually do not know who they are so speaking as if you did not know them would not be an act.

I think that kind of sounds absurd,

It is absurd.  That is why in this case I agree with you.

they are allowed to have their privacy, no?  It was my choice to invite them here and tell them my name.

Of course they are. I said as much in one of my posts above. 

Why does almost everything I post seem to not sink in?

By the way, you've not responded to my post where I go through SS's mischaracterizations.

[screwtape]

On-topic, I think people get irrationial when they start attaching personal thoughts and feelings to things. The stronger the thought or feeling, the more irrational you can get.

[Not on the fence]

Ok Screwtape if I had best friends on this site and we were writing in the same thread, would I be lying if I did  not tell you?

Not in every case.  It depends.  In your hypothetical situation, did you put on a pretense?  If you pretended to not know them, then yes.  If you responded to them in ways that intentionally implied you were strangers, yes. 

but maybe they want to be anonymous?

Yes I did respond to the "mischaracterizations" and I told you I do not see it, I do see however some harsh, and to the point words from both parties, which I am not accustomed too on forums.