Because killing 2,606 in the WTC should just be forgotten.
Because brnging sanity to how we do things is sanity... because obsessing, and citing 9-11 as an excuse for unwarranted encroachment is remembering, and not unhealthy obsession...
These mindsets are scary, and bloody idiotic to boot.
Since when did
I'm a little lost, which is the 'politically correct BS?"
An implausible **hypothetical** situation, and assuming the potential reaction creates a contradiction... is your idea of a defense?
It's nothing more than fallacy-filled tosh!
Yes, but most of us do our "reputation management" by, you know, behaving properly rather than going around trying to erase any record of our misdeeds.
Sounds like a lot of presumptions (that only the "misbehaving" use these services, that good, behaved businesses aren't/can't be targeted by bad reviewers falsely, etc.
These notions are tripe. It does happen, fairly often, people being wrongly targeted, having their reputations tarnished I mean.
Yeah, and if the car was stolen, your sister would be in jail for receiving stolen property.
Maybe I am missing something, but if you're saying the sister would be in trouble just because of the purchase, that might not be correct - if I recall, you have to have knowingly engaged in the purchase, but IANAL. (seems logical though, why get someone in trouble if they, in good faith, thought they were buying something legitimately that later turned out to be stolen?)
It's not censorship if it's done by private companies.
Every definition I have read has nothing on where the SOURCE of the action is, just on the ACTION itself. Censorship is not about who does it, but that there is an editing, a repressing of opinion - some cases, like private companies editing their journalists (to various extends) are fine, but that's not a matter of "censorship" versus "not censorship," but a question of "acceptable censoring" versus "unacceptable censoring."
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.