Comment on God tortures little dog by IvanAndreevich
This could have been worded a whole lot differently and NOT provoked a massive flame war. I'm not religious, but I really think you're being pretty insensitive here. There are phrases here that are clearly designed to provoke.
You could have put forward 'look at this advance in science that has helped to correct a genetic disorder'. Or you could have simply put 'here's a dog, it has problems walking, is this the work of a loving God?'
To lather this in sarcasm is just...petty. As an idea, the next time you want to point out a scientific marvel, leave out the religious references unless it associates directly. I really don't have the time for half-assed flame fuel journals.
You could have put forward 'look at this advance in science that has helped to correct a genetic disorder'. Or you could have simply put 'here's a dog, it has problems walking, is this the work of a loving God?'
To lather this in sarcasm is just...petty. As an idea, the next time you want to point out a scientific marvel, leave out the religious references unless it associates directly. I really don't have the time for half-assed flame fuel journals.
If something is not provoking, it's freaking boring. The only way I see that something could be done wrong is to provoke in the wrong way.
But why provoke? I mean really, the only point I can see for something like this is just to cause a lot of anger. Do you expect any religious people to see it and go 'hmm, that's a good point. I'm going to be reasonable and understand his point of view even though he is attacking my beliefs'? That's not really human nature, if I'm perfectly honest.
Like I said, this just seems a little petty. Anyone else would want to appreciate the fact a dog can walk again, but you just seem to want to rub people up the wrong way.
Like I said, this just seems a little petty. Anyone else would want to appreciate the fact a dog can walk again, but you just seem to want to rub people up the wrong way.
| But why provoke?
To engage interest.
| just to cause a lot of anger
I want to cause cognitive dissonance, not anger.
To engage interest.
| just to cause a lot of anger
I want to cause cognitive dissonance, not anger.
Is it a discussion you wanted? Because if it is, I still think you've gone about it the wrong way. You say you want to engage interest and get people to think, but if you truely wanted that you should have really cut out the sarcasm. You aren't going to get meaningful discussions from irritating the wrong people in the wrong way.