← Back to context Comment by arduanika 13 hours ago [flagged] 7 comments arduanika Reply kelnos 6 hours ago Such anger and contempt, for no good reason. If we're going to be calling names, I think the "twelve-year-old" moniker fits your attitude better. ninjagoo 13 hours ago > This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic.Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call "A theory of justice" (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"?It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter.Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you, Sir. arduanika 12 hours ago [flagged] pjc50 6 hours ago .. what?
kelnos 6 hours ago Such anger and contempt, for no good reason. If we're going to be calling names, I think the "twelve-year-old" moniker fits your attitude better.
ninjagoo 13 hours ago > This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic.Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call "A theory of justice" (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"?It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter.Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you, Sir. arduanika 12 hours ago [flagged]
Such anger and contempt, for no good reason. If we're going to be calling names, I think the "twelve-year-old" moniker fits your attitude better.
> This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic.
Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call "A theory of justice" (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"?
It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter.
Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you, Sir.
[flagged]
.. what?