urknighterrant: Maybe you've heard of the supreme court? Miami Herald vs. Tornillo would make a good start, but there are a number of times editorial control of corporate media has been upheld. Of course anyone who believes in Freedom of the Press would take that as read without a citation.
But that's not really relevant.
You're not asserting a logical argument. You're asserting a moral one. You're asserting that GOG is attacking your freedom if they don't sell hate. I am asserting that it is YOU who are failing to respect GOGs freedom to run their privately held business whose owners still have REAL skin in the game (and employees that depend on them) in the way they feel is right.
That is not a logical argument. It's a moral one. I simply don't buy your contention that GOG has some kind of moral obligation to sell a murder simulator if they don't want to, be it because they fear public backlash, government censorship (which does exist in markets that GOG serves), or just plain bad press; or be it because it simply defies their moral and/or religious sensibilities.
Your freedom is not more important than theirs.
Your freedom stops at the end of MY nose. You have no right to assert control over me or my property, and you are quite right that there are many bad laws on the books that do this. They force me to put political ads I don't support on my billboards, they tell me what color I can paint my house and big my windows can be. They tell me where I can build my business and even who I can and can't hire.
Yes... There are many examples on the books of your idea of "freedom", and they are bad laws.
That is not the case here.
"You're not asserting a logical argument. You're asserting a moral one. You're asserting that GOG is attacking your freedom if they don't sell hate. I am asserting that it is YOU who are failing to respect GOGs freedom to run their privately held business whose owners still have REAL skin in the game (and employees that depend on them) in the way they feel is right."
If GOG doesn't sell Hatred, then they are supporting censorship. < - Logic. And censorship not only attacks my freedom but the freedom for everyone else too so this isn't just about me. <- Logic. And censorship can be used as a dangerous weapon by malevolent people who want to destroy freedom. <- Logic. Just open a history book and you'll see this. So those who truly love freedom hate censorship.<- Logic. So if a store supports censorship then that is a misuse of freedom and I find it disgusting. <- Morals. Where is it written that in order to love freedom, I have to love every despicable act done due to people having the freedom to do what they want to do? I'm not failing to respect anyone's freedom. I simply have no respect for actions that support censorship. Not respecting someone's actions = not respecting their freedom is the product of a retarded mind.
" Your freedom is not more important than theirs. "
Who said my freedom is more important than theirs?
"Your freedom stops at the end of MY nose."
Good, I wouldn't want it any other way because the same freedom benefits me too. It prevents control freaks from turning me into a puppet with strings attached.
"You have no right to assert control over me or my property, and you are quite right that there are many bad laws on the books that do this. "
No shit, Sherlock. I never said I have the right to control you or your property but I have the right to judge you as a idiot, for example. I also have a right to see you as disgusting or evil and not want to do business with you. I have the right to say you are being immoral for supporting censorship. That is freedom of speech. Just like I have the right to judge GOG and not do business with them anymore if I don't want to. Freedom cuts both ways... But hopefully, they will do the moral thing, take a stand against censorship, be reasonable and sell Hatred.
I grow tired of debating with you because all you seem to do is unleash straw man after straw man, trying to make it look like, I believe only I should have freedom and nobody else should but that is not the case.
GoG deciding not to sell it doesn't mean they support censorship. It means they don't want to sell it. you can assert any idea you want on that that supports your argument, but the truth is that they already choose not to sell a LOT of games. A bunch of indie devs have approached and been denied already. Refusing to sell this game could be a simple business decision (should they choose not to) of dollars and cents. But you want to make it about censorship since that fits your agenda that the world is out to punish you and people like you for being a "free thinker."
Sometimes, things just are what they are without some political motivation behind it. Sometimes it's a financial decision, and sometimes a PR one. I wouldn't fault GoG for refusing to sell this game based on "too controversial" and not wanting groups to crusade against them so that they can stay in business. They make those decisions based on not wanting to fire their employees and pack up shop regardless of the "censorship" that is may seem to support because simply put they have to do what's in their best interests to stay afloat first and foremost before they can completely stick to their guns. It's why they have regional pricing now despite the backlash from it, because principles don't always pay the bills.
