Asger Jon Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 So I need you all to go ahead and sign this petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/amazon-uk-withdraw-a-title-which-endorses-beating-children-from-4-months-of-age#share
Asger Jon Posted July 31, 2013 Author Posted July 31, 2013 Signed. I can't even put my anger and frustration into words. I feel the same, which explains the very few words in my original post.
MysterionMuffles Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 You should mention this during a call in show for everyone to sign, I oughta sign and I need to see the summary's on the site to see how bad it is.
carlip Posted August 16, 2013 Posted August 16, 2013 Limiting a companies right to sell material created under someone else's right to free speech? No thanks. I thought we were about free market principles, don't like it? Don't buy it. Get other people to not buy it and soon it won't exist. There is no point in producing something that people do not want to consume. The material might be objectionable, but how do you know there isn't a group of child abusers who are aiming at banning the kind of ideas we follow?
dazed and confused Posted August 16, 2013 Posted August 16, 2013 Limiting a companies right to sell material created under someone else's right to free speech? No thanks. I thought we were about free market principles, don't like it? Don't buy it. Get other people to not buy it and soon it won't exist. There is no point in producing something that people do not want to consume.The material might be objectionable, but how do you know there isn't a group of child abusers who are aiming at banning the kind of ideas we follow? there's nothing anti-freemarket about showing you're unhappy with what a company is doing.
nathanm Posted August 16, 2013 Posted August 16, 2013 Signing such a petition may in practice have the same non-effect as voting, protesting or lobbying the government for a change in policy, but the big difference is that there's no violence involved. If the petitioners win it is because someone at Amazon made a decision to pull the book, not because the Amazon SWAT Team is going to back it up with guns. (I envision a khaki uniform with orange and green accents) The free market means you really do have the power to complain, in the state system they just pretend you do. I agree that it seems a bit whiny to do the petition thing rather than just plain 'ol don't buy it, but it's much more vocal. It's a moral objection to the contents, not just don't sell this cause I don't like the prose.
Existing Alternatives Posted August 16, 2013 Posted August 16, 2013 I’m torn on this: both @Carlip and @Nathanm make sense. Amazon carries a lot of morally objectionable material. We do have an option of not buying. Or, maybe even buying it, studying it and leaving a constructive review for all those abusers-to-be to see. At the same time, they constantly do pull all kinds of books because this or that group complained, so petitioning could be actually effective. The only problem with that, is that after this book there will be another and another after that, are you prepared to continuously scan the shelves at Amazon (and every other bookseller out there) for future petition-worthy material?
g0at Posted August 16, 2013 Posted August 16, 2013 Amazon already has a way to give feedback on this... Why don't we all just leave reviews of the book, with 1 star? That would make the biggest impact on people buying this product.
actions Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 When you start signing petition for freedom of speech to not be allowed for one thing, how can you object personally and say but it's ok "for this...and this...and that..." - the answer is you can't,,,,Yes it's unfortunate they sell books that give advice to do things that are detrimental to a child, however there are also books on other things that we could also add to this list, but I prefer to keep my right to freedom of speech, for what is left of it.
Magenta Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 Limiting a companies right to sell material created under someone else's right to free speech? No thanks. I thought we were about free market principles, don't like it? Don't buy it. Get other people to not buy it and soon it won't exist. There is no point in producing something that people do not want to consume. The material might be objectionable, but how do you know there isn't a group of child abusers who are aiming at banning the kind of ideas we follow? Petitioning is the free market at work. It is a way to peacefully advocate change. The act of asking removes no one's rights, guns remove rights and no guns are involved here. We're not asking the government to shoot people who disagree with us, we're asking a voluntary business to not voluntarily associate with child abuse. Voluntary association is the free market. Amazon carries a lot of morally objectionable material. We do have an option of not buying. We also have the option of asking Amazon to not promote/associate with child abuse. There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem with that, is that after this book there will be another and another after that, are you prepared to continuously scan the shelves at Amazon (and every other bookseller out there) for future petition-worthy material? Petitioning for the removal of one child abuse book does not mean one is obligated to petition all child abuse books.
actions Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 Technically speaking Amazon is not a "voluntary business", as that type of business is seen as a nonprofit organization. I feel the most effective way for people that would like to be involved is to do as g0at suggested, and leave 1 star reviews. On the flip side of things, it's important to note two things: 1) The seller has the right to dispute a review if it's "abusive or it contains threats." 2) A smart seller can use the negative reviews to his advantage and create more awareness to his work, leading to more books sold if done right.
Magenta Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 Technically speaking Amazon is not a "voluntary business" Are you forced to purchase their product at gunpoint?
actions Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 That's an obvious answer, however I was pointing out that Amazon is not setup as a voluntary business as per the definition of "voluntary business." I was merely pointing out that your assumption of that company being voluntary is not "technically" correct, merely just trying to educate you. For your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_sector http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association
FiddlertheLeper Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 When you start signing petition for freedom of speech to not be allowed for one thing, how can you object personally and say but it's ok "for this...and this...and that..." - the answer is you can't,,,,Yes it's unfortunate they sell books that give advice to do things that are detrimental to a child, however there are also books on other things that we could also add to this list, but I prefer to keep my right to freedom of speech, for what is left of it. Can you advise someone to commit a crime if your an expert (like a Accountant advising you to "cook" your books or some such thing) there are already precedents for people who are in positions of authority on a subject having to advise Legally accepted things (which law is suppose to in some way reflect or represent morality) and not use their authority to advise illegal things. Now hitting your children is still legal, i am aware of this, but it is not moral, nor should it be legal. I signed the petition based on the fact that these are people who claim to be authorities on the way to raise your children, advising people to do things scientifically shown to be harmful to their children, this to me falls under the same moral umbrella or area, as if a cop advised you to assualt/rob/kill someone you had a problem with, instead of advising you to follow the law and resolve it legally. I'm not saying the two are the same, but i am saying that the same principle, that those in a position of authority are required to give best practice advise (in other words they are not suppose to be able to advise you to do things they know to be wrong, or that will be detrimental to you) This does not mean they don't have the right to say they support the hitting of children, or believing in it themselves. But if they claim to be Authorities on parenting, (which by writing a book on how to parent, they are implicitly doing if not explicitly) so to me, they should be held to the same standard. They should be required to stay current on the studies and science of parenting, and if they want to advise spanking or hitting, they should be required to have a disclaimer saying "studies have shown spanking/hitting/yelling/etc may be harmful to the development of your child and their mental health going forward" I don't want them censored, i just want them to have to be honest when they are writing a book telling people how they should do something to get the best results, if these were fiction books, or books not claiming to have systems to raise good children, i would have no problem. With how important parenting is, and how important children are, this is to me important enough to have these sorts of requirments, now i know setting a precedent like that has the possibility (maybe even the surety) of turning into a form of censorship or invasion of our rights to free speech. I just want the same kind of thing we have with food or equipment, if something can be shown scientifically to be harmful, then anyone advocating it in a product, should be required to have at the very least a disclaimer about this, with information about how to find the studies/science that shows it, so parents can make an informed choice if they wish.
Existing Alternatives Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 Apparently, one of the books on the petition list “To Train Up a Child” was an “inspiration” to a number of recent children’s deaths. Particularly the death of Hana Williams. In the book’s description on Amazon, they are pretty up-front about their methods of teaching the child “obedience.” So, this book will only appeal to those already in the “child abuse” camp. Another scary tidbit is that they do not “advocate” abuse in anger, but rather cold, systematic, pre-meditated approach. We also have the option of asking Amazon to not promote/associate with child abuse. There's nothing wrong with that. Petitioning for the removal of one child abuse book does not mean one is obligated to petition all child abuse books. There is absolutely nothing wrong with petitioning, and there is obviously no obligation on our part. My concern here is more about the efficiency of such actions. These books exist because there is a market for them. And this is just one book that may or may not be pulled. Furthermore, there are other book outlets out there (albeit, Amazon being the largest one) for that type of nonsense to be disseminated.
Shqiptar Posted August 27, 2013 Posted August 27, 2013 I am fine with Amazon allowing them to remain, however they have shown they do not truly care about free speech by removing other books when people complained enough. Either way I won't sign because I don't mind what kind of books people make no matter how sick they are.
ALinTokyo Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 A private company banning their book does not take away the authors' freedom of speech. They can still pursue other avenues, publishers, and go down to their local park with a bullhorn to spread their message if they wish. I've signed the petition.
gwho Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 amazon sells a lot of books.cherry picking fallacy.why get mad at amazon for selling them? get mad at the writer. you're opening a can of worms. you're also exercising democracy, rather than UPB.Even so, he has to right to say what he wants.
PatrickC Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 When you start signing petition for freedom of speech to not be allowed for one thing, how can you object personally and say but it's ok "for this...and this...and that..." - the answer is you can't,,,,Yes it's unfortunate they sell books that give advice to do things that are detrimental to a child, however there are also books on other things that we could also add to this list, but I prefer to keep my right to freedom of speech, for what is left of it. Just wanted to point out that freedom of speech is an entirely statist led idea. It has nothing to do with voluntaryism.
Recommended Posts