Xequecal wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Oh, so now it's just music and video games that if WalMart doesn't stock its not profitable and therefore not produced or sold. Shut the **** upo you goalpost moving moron. I can recognize this as bullshit even **** drunk. Haven' you ever her of Best Buy? They have more game and muysic space than Wal Mart all by themselves.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_40/241-Wal-Mart-RulesI'm not moving the goalposts. That's just an example, I never said my points apply to video games only. The fact is there are plenty of examples today and throughout history where private industry has gotten production of products quashed despite the fact that they would (probably) have been profitable if actually produced. I'm not sure what you would call that, if not censorship.
I'd call it business. You're still moving the goalposts all over the place. The fact of the matter is that there is a thing called opportunity cost, and no store, not even one as big as Wal Mart (either in corporate size, or the typical size of one of its establishments) can stock every conceiveable product. Similarly, if there really is demand for something, it mot likely will be sold somewhere even if not at a major chain.
Your historical examples before modern transportation methods for goods became commonplace, and before the massice expansion in available products since WWII, and even in the last 20 years, don't really hold this up. Like I pointed out, you can find **** that's highly esoteric for sale, and even rather depraved. Just because it isn't in a major chain doesn't mean it's being "censored".
Again, opportunity cost. Even Wal-Mart has only so much shelf space and only so much money to spend on purchasing and transporting products. They simply cannot stock every conceiveable product.
More importantly, "censorship" has decided moral connotations, even if its strict definition does not contain them. It is customarily accepted as a rule of thumb in the typical morality of this country that most forms of censorship are morally questionable at best and reprehensible at worst (leaving aside debates over what forms might be acceptable or to what degree). In part, this is because when one says the word "censorship", the images it instantly brings to mind is a
government at some level censoring something and backing it with the form of law, and punishment for disobediance.
By attempting to stretch the definition to include business decisions on what to sell or not sell, you are really attempting to create a
moral equivalency between Wal Mart's actions and those of government censorship. Indeed, there is really not a whole lot of other reason for pursuing this line of reasoning; without that justification it becomes merely another semantic nitpick;
who cares if Wal-Mart is censoring things if there is not something inherently negative about censorship, legal, or the
de facto type you alledge here.
Yet the fact is that Wal-Mart cannot A) stop anyone from producing anything, B) stop anyone from selling anything nor C) impose criminal sanctions on anyone. Yet, according to your line of reasoning, Wal-Mart has a moral obligation to stock and sell every conceievable product, because failing to do so is "censoring" it, despite the fact that Wal Mart cannot do any of the things that the government can; which are in fact the things that give censorship a bad name in the first place.
This is your argument taken to the logical conclusion; we can skip right over the accusations of "Strawman!" because you didn't think this all the way through. I know you didn't say it; this is me pointing out where your argument must logically lead. The fact of the matter is that you are attempting to impose an outrageous standard of conduct on Wal Mart to avoid accusations of "censorship". You are further justifying that by claiming they are the same because they may have similar net results some of the time (you have yet to establish to what degree, if any), while totally ignoring that one involves use of the force of law to impose a standard on everyone, while another is simply the end result of the interplay of market forces resulting from the shareholders of Wal Mart desiring a return on their investment. They have a right to a return on their investment. Simialarly, you have a right to read despicable smut if you wish, not interfered with by the government. You do not have a right to have Wal Mart stock it for your convenience in purchasing it.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
