[crc32]

> That is not healthy for anyone that wants a free open society. Consumers will vote with their wallet. Those outraged aren't the target market.

I understand you may be disappointed if you would have enjoyed this kit, but I cannot understand your logic here at all. Either:

1) Lego are adhering to a broader set of principles - acting as in a free or open society

Or

2) Lego are purely seeking to maximise profits - in which case they have determined that releasing the product will, in a broader sense, reduce profitability.

One of these two outlooks is driving the decision right?Which one do you object to?

[ganoushoreilly]

Except in this instance Lego didn't adhere to a broader since of principles, they fell under pressure from a third party group. The product wasn't allowed the chance to have the populous relate their opinion. One group, one voice, and fear of internet mob reprisal, took all of that away.

Did you support lego reducing, removing, and stoping manufacture of Police and Firemen sets? What about the White House? Where do you draw the line?

" I feel that Lego under represents bricks in non primary colors. As such they need to either remove their color or make all pieces in all colors so that I can enjoy them without being subjected to the hatefulness of harsh and cold primaries."

Where do you draw the line?

[crc32]

> fell under pressure

What kind of pressure did they fall under?

Its either a moral pressure (option 1) or a financial pressure (2) isnt it? What other kind of pressure is there?

Regarding your examples, i have no doubt that if Lego felt releasing such kits either violated their ethical standards (1) or threatened their profitability (2) they wouldnt make the kits, and that is where they (not I) presumably draw the line.