That wasn't phd514's point at all. It's clear he didn't bother to read the article. (lol, look at me, I'm upset people didn't read the article before commentin

That wasn't phd514's point at all. It's clear he didn't bother to read the article. (lol, look at me, I'm upset people didn't read the article before commenting. I'm turning into such an old fart. Maybe I should load up my newsreader and post about cats. Also, you should look up what Pythagoras believed. Whew!) Now, if you're making an entirely separate argument that the author went out of his way hurt people's feelings and "provoke conflict," that's another story. I don't think that's the case, but maybe I've got a tin ear for that sort of thing these days. I'm not persuaded. Let's say that, hey, maybe he did. My response is, "So, what?" The target audience for this article or this book isn't the sort of person who is going to get their feelings hurt by suggesting that the St. Paul depicted in the painting (which had its own context, the 17th century European context, which is the context described by the article). The target audience of this book is the set of people who commonly think, "Gee, I wish I could convince lots more folks that global warming is real before large swaths of the world become uninhabitable by multi-cellular animal life." Frankly, the kind of person who would let this up their nose is probably not going to be persuaded by anything we have to say, anyway.