We are arguing in circles. Basically my definition of censorship (aside from government censorship and beeping/blurring stuff out) is just trying to prevent people from accessing certain materials (not counting material that is owned by you, or keeping your kids out of stuff).Zhukov said:Says the guy trying to bring abortion into it.WhiteNachos said:We're not talking about the government, we were never talking about the government but instead talking about private citizens. Stop trying to derail the conversation.
I feel we are arguing in circles.
a) Tell me, is the following an accuration summary of the situation at hand?
"A group of people did not like the content of GTA5 and appealed to a retailer of the game to discontinue selling it. The retailer agreed to do so."
b) Could you define "censorship" to me in your own words?
c) Can you explain how your definition of censorship fits the situation described.
Different stokes I guess, honestly the medieval fantasy Witcher/Souls/Dragon Ages games could all disappear and I wouldn't shed a tear, but since I know other people actually like them I'd be a little sad to see them gone.kingthrall said:Just throwing my peace-meal comment out there; GTA in general sucked after gta2. Waste of money if you asked me, so they can take of shelves or whatever has no appeal to me anyway. If they start taking Witcher 3 or something like that off due to nudity ect, yeh then Ill be grabbing torches and pitchforks.
If you're getting pissed off, maybe you should try having a better argument than "neither of us have facts."Signa said:You're not even trying to argue, I think you're trying to piss me off by calling me a liar or irrelevant.
Man, the stories about Australia were right!Loonyyy said:You think the vagwolves are bad, you haven't seen the clitsharks. And the goddamn areobats. They take down their share of planes and boats.
It's too late for us. Save yourself.
Again, that's not how discussion works. My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree. That makes me right by the facts, not because facts are irrelevant.Zachary Amaranth said:If you're getting pissed off, maybe you should try having a better argument than "neither of us have facts."Signa said:You're not even trying to argue, I think you're trying to piss me off by calling me a liar or irrelevant.
Again, that's not how logic works. My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree. That makes me right by the facts, not because facts are irrelevant.
See, I don't get why you'd accuse e of trying to piss you off by saying you were lying, then make a statement that's completely false. My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.Signa said:My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree.
I also added that they collect data. This is the only other affirmative stance I have taken. Is this the one you're demanding evidence for? The use of PoS systems in large retailers? I don't think so, but otherwise, you're dishonestly saying I don't have evidence for something I'm not saying.Zachary Amaranth said:I did not take the position that they did do their homework, only that it's ridiculous to assume they didn't without evidence.
See, I don't get why you'd accuse me of lying by saying you were truthful, then make a statement that's completely dumb. My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.Zachary Amaranth said:See, I don't get why you'd accuse e of trying to piss you off by saying you were lying, then make a statement that's completely false. My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.Signa said:My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree.
If I'm wrong, if you do have evidence, then you were being dishonest when you said you didn't know. Either way, you were dishonest at some point, so I'm not sure that helps you or why you think calling you on dishonesty (which you had to misrepresent to get there) is an attempt to piss you off.
Edit: Also, the simplest solution would be for you to be honest.
To repeat:
I also added that they collect data. This is the only other affirmative stance I have taken. Is this the one you're demanding evidence for? The use of PoS systems in large retailers? I don't think so, but otherwise, you're dishonestly saying I don't have evidence for something I'm not saying.Zachary Amaranth said:I did not take the position that they did do their homework, only that it's ridiculous to assume they didn't without evidence.
You know, if you don't have a real argument, you could just not reply. Or be honest and say you were wrong to make those claims.Signa said:My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.
You know, if you don't have to add to the discussion, you could just not reply. Or be honest and say you were wrong not talk about the elephants in the room.Zachary Amaranth said:You know, if you don't have a real argument, you could just not reply. Or be honest and say you were wrong to make those claims.Signa said:My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.
I thought the elephant in the room was that you misrepresented me and then accused me of trying to piss you off.Signa said:Or be honest and say you were wrong not talk about the elephants in the room.
Quite frankly, I don't know anymore. Just watch Total Biscut on the issue and you have my point of view on this whole thing. I don't think there was anything he said in his video that I disagreed with.Zachary Amaranth said:I thought the elephant in the room was that you misrepresented me and then accused me of trying to piss you off.Signa said:Or be honest and say you were wrong not talk about the elephants in the room.
You could have simply not replied.Signa said:Just stop quoting me unless you having something interesting to say. I'm getting bored of this.
But I feel obligated to respond.Zachary Amaranth said:You could have simply not replied.Signa said:Just stop quoting me unless you having something interesting to say. I'm getting bored of this.
And quite frankly, if you need to tell me to watch someone else's videos to find your opinions, I don't care what you think. That goes doubly for TB, who I wouldn't watch anyway. But you misrepresented the situation and me, which is the only reason this went on as long as it did. If you don't like that, then simply don't do it. It's that easy.