3 ms·

I think a reasonable argument can be made that the books they pulled are entirely about unscientific cures and the Bible is about much more than just the line y

I think a reasonable argument can be made that the books they pulled are entirely about unscientific cures and the Bible is about much more than just the line you quoted.

Hamuko 8y ago
Where do you draw the line though?
- sofal 8y ago
  The comment you responded to literally gave an argument about where the line could be drawn. Do you not agree? I see this "where do you draw the line?" question asked a lot, and it seems that the usual intended purpose of it is to somehow give weight to the idea that it's too hard to draw a line somewhere and therefore we should maybe not even make the attempt. The fact is that there is an entire legal system we have set up to "draw the lines" on a huge number of ethical issues, and on top of that we have a whole world of extralegal organizational policies that can be argued back and forth. If you think there should not be any laws or policies concerning public safety on a particular issue, make an argument for it. Just because it is difficult to write policy or laws that take into account the right balance of freedom and safety doesn't mean we give up entirely.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  Wherever you want. That's the beauty of being a private commerce platform like Amazon. It is your platform, you can do anything your heart desires, including remove products you don't like.
- Paul-ish 8y ago
  Wherever you have the most positive impact for your customers. Removing the bible from Amazon wont stop idiots from abusing it, the bible already has reach that exceeds Amazon. Removing pseudoscience health books from Amazon delegitimizes those books and reduces the harms they cause.
- alxlaz 8y ago
  It's hard to say. What's not hard to say is that crap like “Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” belongs on the other side of the line. Stuff like this baffles me. Like, yes, it's hard to say where you draw the line between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad), but no one (who is also sane) wonders where you draw the line when discussing Hitler. (Yes, I know about Godwin's law. I'm not being hyperbolic here, I think this is a good comparison.)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

I think a reasonable argument can be made that the books they pulled are entirely about unscientific cures and the Bible is about much more than just the line you quoted.

Hamuko 8y ago

Where do you draw the line though?

sofal 8y ago
The comment you responded to literally gave an argument about where the line could be drawn. Do you not agree? I see this "where do you draw the line?" question asked a lot, and it seems that the usual intended purpose of it is to somehow give weight to the idea that it's too hard to draw a line somewhere and therefore we should maybe not even make the attempt. The fact is that there is an entire legal system we have set up to "draw the lines" on a huge number of ethical issues, and on top of that we have a whole world of extralegal organizational policies that can be argued back and forth. If you think there should not be any laws or policies concerning public safety on a particular issue, make an argument for it. Just because it is difficult to write policy or laws that take into account the right balance of freedom and safety doesn't mean we give up entirely.
enraged_camel 8y ago
Wherever you want. That's the beauty of being a private commerce platform like Amazon. It is your platform, you can do anything your heart desires, including remove products you don't like.
Paul-ish 8y ago
Wherever you have the most positive impact for your customers. Removing the bible from Amazon wont stop idiots from abusing it, the bible already has reach that exceeds Amazon. Removing pseudoscience health books from Amazon delegitimizes those books and reduces the harms they cause.
alxlaz 8y ago
It's hard to say. What's not hard to say is that crap like “Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” belongs on the other side of the line. Stuff like this baffles me. Like, yes, it's hard to say where you draw the line between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad), but no one (who is also sane) wonders where you draw the line when discussing Hitler. (Yes, I know about Godwin's law. I'm not being hyperbolic here, I think this is a good comparison.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]