If so, I think you need to have a very firm basis and legal logic to the path from social contract item through to this particular issue of racism, since it will be precedent from now on. A clear link between casual racism and the contract would be needed, since you are de-facto linking that to Tom and the Social Contract.
No, I am not. I am exposing
my opinion on that matter and saying that I don't know why there's anything against racism and discrimination in Inalienable Rights or in Social Contract. IMO it should be. That's why I brought Tom's name here.
IMO if the magistrates find a flaw in Social Contract they could/should take it to Tom so next time there would'nt be the need of a discussion.
I see no point in longs discussions here. Denounces here should be simple to decide. It IS a game. We are not deciding the future of the world.
But it is clear to me that my opinion differ - and much - from majority here.
