Hacker News Reader

The actual debate is over whether it's debatable. It is very debatable. It's beside the point whether it is or is not a slave contract.

Then don't introduce the term in to the conversation. You're shockingly dishonest in your rhetoric by doing so. To quote you before:

> One can argue that the original contract is tantamount to a slave contract, thereby null and void at the outset.

You have a reading disability, trying to pinpoint precisely where will likely only serve illustrate it further.

"You're shockingly dishonest"

Are your panties truly in a bunch over this thread, or are you just feigning your "shock"? It matters not; either is laughable.