Amazon Censorship Expands - Page 7

mboothe · 12-31-2010, 09:37 AM

First an instruction book on how to rape children, now this. What kind of person would actually defend these books?

tompe · 12-31-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcreative

Actually Wikipedia says "generally regarded as an urban legend" then goes on to elaborate on this... now whilst probably correct, wiki quotes hardly provide definitive proof... you should also note that whilst it is easy to prove positives it is not so easy to prove negatives...

You can only prove mathematical things. For the real world you look at the evidence. I have read about this in books and other places and the Wikipedia article said the same thing I have seen in a lot of other sources. There is no known existing snuff movie and no evidence for it existing.

But of course there are a lot of movies showing real killings. But that is not what is meant by snuff movie.

tompe · 12-31-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I refuse to use wikipedia as any resource for anything and am on record here for that position.

when I was in Europe, I saw what was told to me was a snuff flick. and that is pretty much all I want to say about it

You will not read Wikipedia but you will believe anything you are told?

Wikipedia is usually correct and in this case the information was the same as I have read in a lot of other places (books, articles and so on).

elcreative · 12-31-2010, 10:11 AM

Not true but that's beside the point... your anecdotal evidence hardly proves Wiki's anecdotal evidence... that's the trouble with such things, they're anecdotal... and just because you state them as fact doesn't make them fact nor does it make them untrue, just anecdotal...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

You can only prove mathematical things. For the real world you look at the evidence. I have read about this in books and other places and the Wikipedia article said the same thing I have seen in a lot of other sources. There is no known existing snuff movie and no evidence for it existing.

But of course there are a lot of movies showing real killings. But that is not what is meant by snuff movie.

tompe · 12-31-2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcreative

Not true but that's beside the point... your anecdotal evidence hardly proves Wiki's anecdotal evidence... that's the trouble with such things, they're anecdotal... and just because you state them as fact doesn't make them fact nor does it make them untrue, just anecdotal...

What is not true?

Of course me saying something does not prove anything. I just told you my conclusion after having read the relevant literature on the subject.

elcreative · 12-31-2010, 10:14 AM

You see, you're doing it, being vague to prove your point... "a lot of other places" What's a lot 3, 6, 29, makes no odds and I don't care... Wiki is mostly accurate if properly moderated but mostly doesn't make it the fount of all knowledge, likewise "a lot of other places" doesn't make you the source of all truth... as I said before, it's anecdotal...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Wikipedia is usually correct and in this case the information was the same as I have read in a lot of other places (books, articles and so on).

elcreative · 12-31-2010, 10:16 AM

What is your question... I said, "doesn't make them fact nor does it make them untrue" which I think is a pretty clear statement...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

What is not true?

Of course me saying something does not prove anything. I just told you my conclusion after having read the relevant literature on the subject.

tompe · 12-31-2010, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcreative

You see, you're doing it, being vague to prove your point... "a lot of other places" What's a lot 3, 6, 29, makes no odds and I don't care... Wiki is mostly accurate if properly moderated but mostly doesn't make it the fount of all knowledge, likewise "a lot of other places" doesn't make you the source of all truth... as I said before, it's anecdotal...

I am not proving anything. I do not see why you think that. I am interested in the subject and have read a lot about it and I told my conclusions. You can easily find references using google.

tompe · 12-31-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcreative

What is your question... I said, "doesn't make them fact nor does it make them untrue" which I think is a pretty clear statement...

You claimed I said something that was not true. Exactly what did I claim that was not true?

AGB · 12-31-2010, 10:19 AM

Hmm, it seems elcreative is trying to muddy the waters to the point where nothing can be believed to be factual. In fact, to prove that source critique consists of dismissing any and all sources, apart from the sources that talks directly to them (as if that means they're more credible than anything else).

elcreative · 12-31-2010, 10:24 AM

I have never said you are proving anything, quite the contrary... and yes, like on any subject, there are many references via Google and they are about as reliable as anything else... one of the things the internet is really good at, is being self-referential... one person makes a claim , another states a "fact" based on that claim, three magazines pick up on the claim and so on... Your conclusions are that there are no and never have been any snuff movies... my point is that you're probably right but you stating it as an absolute is wrong, just probably right...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

I am not proving anything. I do not see why you think that. I am interested in the subject and have read a lot about it and I told my conclusions. You can easily find references using google.

rhadin · 12-31-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is a very silly discussion. Amazon are a private corporation; they are perfectly at liberty to choose to sell or not to sell any product they want, and certainly don't have to justify their decisions to anybody. Nobody has a "right" to have their book sold by Amazon.

Harry, I'm late to the discussion, but you are wrong in this instance. I agree that Amazon has a right to sell/not sell what it wants, but because it is so dominant in the marketplace, it has an obligation to be clear as to what it will/will not sell. If this was Borders making the decision, you would be 100% correct, but because it is Amazon, you are not.

Actually, censorship like this, like Amazon's recent lending program that automatically opts everyone in and was implemented secretly during the holidays when no one was watching, are excellent reasons why everyone should buy a Kindle and make Amazon even more arrogant.

In the end, the relationship between Amazon and its vendors is supposed to be governed by contractual terms that limit what each party can unilaterally do to affect the realtionship. From what I see, the terms are binding on everyone but Amazon and are so fluid at Amazon's whim that they are less contractual terms than terms of enslavement.

rhadin · 12-31-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-Thom

This would indeed be THE solution, but who's going to pay for the staff reading/browsing each and every novel to decide? Do you think the DTP still would be free to use then?

What makes you think Amazon staff are reading the books they ban after publishing? If it is just the genre/book title that is the decision factor, that is certainly knowable before publication.

AGB · 12-31-2010, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcreative

I have never said you are proving anything, quite the contrary... and yes, like on any subject, there are many references via Google and they are about as reliable as anything else... one of the things the internet is really good at, is being self-referential... one person makes a claim , another states a "fact" based on that claim, three magazines pick up on the claim and so on...

And this is why we don't refer to "the internet" as the source, but are critical towards which sources are used, no matter if they're internet based, paper based, broadcast, or whatever.

To denounce Wikipedia because it is a web based media, is like denouncing radio or tv because we have Fox and Berlusconi.

MovieBird · 12-31-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mango

I do not belive that USA actually has a language officially in the same way that we do here. English is mosly spoken and used in government....but, I don't think it is law.

The US Federal Government has no official language. There is no strict criteria for all things being done in English.

However, many State Governments have designated English as their official Language. California is one, I believe this was done in 1986 or thereabouts. Basically enforcing that state government communication and paperwork has to be in english. Which begs the question, why are some Gubernatorial debates held in languages other than English, and why does the DMV/voter's paperwork offer so many alternative languages if English is the official language?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Amazon censorship	dacattt	News	304	01-08-2011 12:58 PM
Amazon expands language support in Kindle Store	Nate the great	News	58	01-20-2010 04:46 AM
Amazon expands the $30 credit	Nate the great	News	0	09-04-2009 08:36 PM

12-31-2010, 09:37 AM	#91
mboothe Junior Member Posts: 7 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jul 2009 Device: Sony PRS-900	First an instruction book on how to rape children, now this. What kind of person would actually defend these books?

12-31-2010, 10:19 AM	#100
AGB Headbutting stupidity Posts: 1,703 Karma: 2526196 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Greater Cph Device: PRS650	Hmm, it seems elcreative is trying to muddy the waters to the point where nothing can be believed to be factual. In fact, to prove that source critique consists of dismissing any and all sources, apart from the sources that talks directly to them (as if that means they're more credible than anything else).