Re: [Gnu-arch-users] OT: Slavery???

[Tom Lord]

    > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
    [snip]


Looking at my subsequent reply to the paraphrased question, I see that
it can be simplified, perhaps answering your objections to my
paraphrase.   This paraphrase of your question will do just as well:

        The offer of a private contract that one is not party to, that
        one is free to accept or decline, and that one is free to
        advocate against is presumptively not an outrageous act.

        A claim that such an offer is "outrageous" requires a positive
        defense to overcome our presumption that the offer is simply
        a non-outrageous act.

        What is your defense for that outrage?   Why is _this_
        (BK) contract offer an outrageous one?

In other words, it seems to me that your question is premised on the
presumption that the mere _form_ of a contractual offer (within
certain broad parameters) is, in and of itself, an excuse from
responses of outrage.

I would _guess_ that you still object to the paraphrase.   But could
you do us the courtesy of trying to make clear what specifically you
object to?

-t


The orginal question:

    Stephen> What justifies "outrage" at the offer of a private
    Stephen> contract that one is not party to, and one is free to
    Stephen> accept or refuse as he chooses, and one is free to
    Stephen> advocate publically that others not accept, either?