Amazon Censorship Expands

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by rhadin

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.

Any business within the US has every right to sell or not sell what they want. It does not matter if it is the small local mom and pop bookstore or Amazon, free enterprise allows any business of any size to sell, buy, or trade whatever they want to, without requirements or having to be FORCED to buy, sell or trade anything. Personal rights and freedoms also extend to free enterprise freedom to buy, sell or trade what you want to, no requirements.

Amazon does not have to, should not be required to, and is most definitely NOT OBLIGATED to simply because of their size.

[elcreative]

Tompe... the only thing that you said that wasn't true was "You can only prove mathematical things" which is what my statement referred to and also said that it was beside the point.

AGP... where did I denounce Wikipedia... I'm out of this discussion... if people can't be bothered to read what was written... I said Wiki was mostly accurate... you want to disagree with that then feel free, it's your right but that won't make it's entire content true... What I'm trying to get over to you and Tompe is a simple thing... information sources are not necessarily perfect... by all means quote sources but don't necessarily believe all you're told... the daft thing about this picking at my comments is that I said Tompe was probably correct...

[kennyc]

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...

And you're just being disagreeable. Wikipedia is generally accurate, certainly as much so as most other sources and moreso than Fox News.

[elcreative]

Pot calling kettle... and what's the big thing with Fox news... I (and a lot of other people) live in parts of the world other than the US so Fox news is a meaningless noise as a comparison (tho' from the usage that might be an accurate description).

Originally Posted by kennyc

And you're just being disagreeable. Wikipedia is generally accurate, certainly as much so as most other sources and moreso than Fox News.

[gtriever]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And you're just being disagreeable. Wikipedia is generally accurate, certainly as much so as most other sources and moreso than Fox News.

I call BS on this.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Tompe... the only thing that you said that wasn't true was "You can only prove mathematical things" which is what my statement referred to and also said that it was beside the point.

AGP... where did I denounce Wikipedia... I'm out of this discussion... if people can't be bothered to read what was written... I said Wiki was mostly accurate... you want to disagree with that then feel free, it's your right but that won't make it's entire content true... What I'm trying to get over to you and Tompe is a simple thing... information sources are not necessarily perfect... by all means quote sources but don't necessarily believe all you're told... the daft thing about this picking at my comments is that I said Tompe was probably correct...

I wasn't picking at your comments, I was disagreeing with your sentiment, with the effect of what you argued, not what you used as a disclaimer.

On being critical to sources, I have made a living from that for years, (although most my income nowadays come from audio production) and I tap into other people's lack of ability to be critical when doing PR work or damage control, so I think I have that part pretty well down. But thank you for your concern about my ability to be critical. As I implied, it's really not critical thinking to dismiss something, simply because it's on the web, the tv, the radio or whatever, and yes, wikipedia is generally trustworthy, but each article on there should still be subject to source critique - especially the ones where a company's products are mentioned. They sometime are verbatim copies of press releases.

As always, you have to ask the question "Who would gain?". In this instance, it's quite difficult imagining anyone gaining from saying there exists no such things, unless we invoke some sort of conspiracy to the whole thing.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by gtriever

I call BS on this.

Actually, every comparative analysis I have seen show that Wikipedia has just as few or many errors as "official" works trying to be as objective as possible.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by gtriever

I call BS on this.

Is that the disagreeable part or the Fox Media not being truthful part?

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

[elcreative]

At no point did I dismiss something just because it was on the web, just that, like anything else, it should be viewed critically... dammit, we agree!!!!

Originally Posted by AGB

I wasn't picking at your comments, I was disagreeing with your sentiment, with the effect of what you argued, not what you used as a disclaimer.

On being critical to sources, I have made a living from that for years, (although most my income nowadays come from audio production) and I tap into other people's lack of ability to be critical when doing PR work or damage control, so I think I have that part pretty well down. But thank you for your concern about my ability to be critical. As I implied, it's really not critical thinking to dismiss something, simply because it's on the web, the tv, the radio or whatever, and yes, wikipedia is generally trustworthy, but each article on there should still be subject to source critique - especially the ones where a company's products are mentioned. They sometime are verbatim copies of press releases.

As always, you have to ask the question "Who would gain?". In this instance, it's quite difficult imagining anyone gaining from saying there exists no such things, unless we invoke some sort of conspiracy to the whole thing.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Pot calling kettle... and what's the big thing with Fox news... I (and a lot of other people) live in parts of the world other than the US so Fox news is a meaningless noise as a comparison (tho' from the usage that might be an accurate description).

I introduced Fox when I said this:

Originally Posted by AGB

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

Of course, then Screwball joined in, and since his sources according to himself are mainly Fox News and the Drudge Report, well, there you have it.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by elcreative

At no point did I dismiss something just because it was on the web, just that, like anything else, it should be viewed critically... dammit, we agree!!!!

LOL, okay then

Edit: Btw, I'm not an American either.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AGB

LOL, okay then

Edit: Btw, I'm not an American either.

We're being over-run!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by mboothe

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

I would. I stayed out of the pedophile book discussion, because I'm not sure what I think of instruction manuals for crimes (although I do own a set of books called "How To Kill," vols 1-5), and can understand the problems with distributing books that tell people how to commit crimes and evade the law; I'm not sure that some felonies should be more acceptable to publish about than others. But fiction is not instruction manuals; novels that contain depictions of crimes aren't instructing or encouraging people to commit those crimes. (If they are, murder mysteries should be removed from the shelves.)

I read erotica, including gay erotica, including books with sexual activities that would be illegal or immoral in real life. I could offer solid psychological and sociological reasons for the existence of these books and the importance of exploring these themes in literature; I'm not going to clutter the thread with that because I suspect that the people who think "those are icky topics and anyone who reads them is a vile pervert" aren't going to be persuaded otherwise, because they're not basing those opinions on anything rational, just their own gut revulsion at the topic itself. Everyone else doesn't need the explanation, because the real issue isn't "is this, or is it not, Real Art and therefore justifiable" but "should one segment of society be allowed to tell another what they can enjoy reading?"

In this case, Amazon is banning books with themes of gay rape. If they're not also banning books with themes of heterosexual rape, that's likely very illegal. (Discrimination by sexual orientation is illegal in many US states.) And there are a great many heterosexual romance novels that are founded on rape--she's abducted by a tall, dark stranger, who ravages her for weeks, and she gradually grows to love him anyway.

If those are not next on the list to be banned, then Amazon is not removing "objectionable content," but showing its bigotry and reinforcing the notion that gay sex is somehow less moral than straight sex.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by kennyc

We're being over-run!

Beware, we're coming by boat and will rape, pillage and take your women. Next thing you know, you will have Copenhagenville, Oslotown and Malmö as new names for your three biggest Cities. New Yorkers would be used to that by now (the renaming, that is, not the rape and pillaging).

[AGB]

It has come to our attention that parts of the invasion force is crying foul at the terms of the invasion, and this has let to several written complaints.
So after consulting the Ombudsman, we have decided to even the playing field a bit, so parts of our troops will be killing the woman and raping the guys. The pillaging is non-negotiable, though.

When boarding the boats, people should look up the mast. If it's colourful, you're in the killing-the-women boats, if the sail is uniformly rusty brown, you're in the killing-the-men boat. Allowances are made to shift boats at dedicated stops along the way. Those stops will allow you to sample both sides if you so wish.