Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina  This piece is written in a provocative style. That was intentional. The perspective is worded strongly so it will have an impact on those who read it. Wimpy wording usually falls on deaf ears and doesn't help anyone. |
I've seen you use that defence a couple of times now and it's a cop out. Writing can be strong without being divisive and it can be provocative (of thought) without demonising.
You argue that you don't own this point of view, but you still consciously chose to express it. You are responsible for that expression.
If we wanted to read simplified diatribes against religion, there are countless sites out there dedicated to it. You can do better.
P.S. I have no religion, not that that matters.