Download my PG13 edits is all of Season 1

[Osiris]

Just trying to clarify something here: isn't censorship the act of an "official" that takes away something from others that doesn't belong to him/her? With the connotation that it is no longer available in its original form.

Since DM is acting on behalf of his children, I don't think it qualifies as censorship. It falls more along the lines of parenting style. Sharing the work he did, with the owner's permission, to others who want to listen also doesn't qualify as censorship, IMO.

Censorship is more about taking away choice than it is about alteration of something in and of itself.

Actually, it's the very definition of it.

Censorship
Noun
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

A parenting style would be to NOT let your children listen to something you felt would have a negative impact on them based on language, until a time when they are old enough to understand. For all intents and purposes, the parent is taking away the choice between the unaltered work and the censored piece. By your definition, you've agreed that it's censorship.

[scbubba]

Actually, it's the very definition of it.

Censorship
Noun
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

A parenting style would be to NOT let your children listen to something you felt would have a negative impact on them based on language, until a time when they are old enough to understand. For all intents and purposes, the parent is taking away the choice between the unaltered work and the censored piece. By your definition, you've agreed that it's censorship.

A parent as an official is different than a government or organization official. The parent has authority and responsibility for his or her children and makes decisions for them until they come of age. That's not they same thing as a government, or other organization, taking away choices.

It is also a parenting style to limit access to something versus just the binary on/off decision.

I haven't agreed that it is censorship, I've agreed that parent's have the right to make choices for their children that a) are not against the law and b) that you or I don't agree with. You may not like what DM did with his edits and may not make that same choice for yourself and your family. But it is entirely legal, is not harmful or detrimental to the children's welfare, and does not take away the choice from anyone not in DM's family.

Context matters here. There are many things that I as a parent will restrict or limit for my children that the government cannot. that doesn't make it censorship. Examples are, watching movies that I think expose them to high levels of "mature" subject matter, walking alone out of the neighborhood, limiting how often they eat at fast food joints.

So, I don't think it's censorship because of the context of the parental role that DM has for his kids.

[Osiris]

A parent as an official is different than a government or organization official. The parent has authority and responsibility for his or her children and makes decisions for them until they come of age. That's not they same thing as a government, or other organization, taking away choices.

A very narrow view of the intent. Applying a hierarchical structure to the home, the official in this case is very much the parent. If you really need to hang on to your definition of censorship. But, let's not apply needless definitions or interpretations:

cen·sor [sen-ser]
noun 1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.


2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.


3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.

4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.


5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.

In this case, the parent fits both definitions of the word. You can argue that an official needs to sit in a position of authority, making laws, and so on. I'll argue--quite convincingly if you want--that the parent fits the definition. Arguing that censorship is only possible by a government agency shows me you don't understand the definition of the words themselves, and you are placing your own restrictions upon them to fit your argument. You're going to lose that argument ten out of ten times, because the English language disagrees with you.

It is also a parenting style to limit access to something versus just the binary on/off decision.

It is also a parenting style to lock a kid in a closet after beating her with a leather belt until she's bleeding.

I haven't agreed that it is censorship, I've agreed that parent's have the right to make choices for their children that a) are not against the law and b) that you or I don't agree with. You may not like what DM did with his edits and may not make that same choice for yourself and your family. But it is entirely legal, is not harmful or detrimental to the children's welfare, and does not take away the choice from anyone not in DM's family.

Can you show me where I said that what Doofusmanky has done is illegal? I'd like to re-read that.

Context matters here. There are many things that I as a parent will restrict or limit for my children that the government cannot. that doesn't make it censorship. Examples are, watching movies that I think expose them to high levels of "mature" subject matter, walking alone out of the neighborhood, limiting how often they eat at fast food joints.

So, I don't think it's censorship because of the context of the parental role that DM has for his kids.

You're right. Context does matter here. You limit a child's exposure to keeping porn away from them, from hiding the scary movies, by keeping that creepy uncle from coming to the house. You make not think it's censorship because of the context you're placing it in, but it is in fact the very definition of the word. Again, censorship is the act of censoring.

— n
1.	a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc
2.	any person who controls or suppresses the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds
3.	(in republican Rome) either of two senior magistrates elected to keep the list of citizens up to date, control aspects of public finance, and supervise public morals
4.	psychoanal See also superego the postulated factor responsible for regulating the translation of ideas and desires from the unconscious to the conscious mind
— vb
5.	to ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc)
6.	to act as a censor of (behaviour, etc)

This could not be more clear. It fits the globally accepted definition to the letter. If you feel the need to argue further that it doesn't, you're not understanding the language at all. I understand that your position is based in a reality where you make up definitions to suit your needs, but it doesn't make it correct.

[scbubba]

A very narrow view of the intent. Applying a hierarchical structure to the home, the official in this case is very much the parent. If you really need to hang on to your definition of censorship. But, let's not apply needless definitions or interpretations:


In this case, the parent fits both definitions of the word. You can argue that an official needs to sit in a position of authority, making laws, and so on. I'll argue--quite convincingly if you want--that the parent fits the definition. Arguing that censorship is only possible by a government agency shows me you don't understand the definition of the words themselves, and you are placing your own restrictions upon them to fit your argument. You're going to lose that argument ten out of ten times, because the English language disagrees with you.


It is also a parenting style to lock a kid in a closet after beating her with a leather belt until she's bleeding.

Regarding parenting style, style is a very broad term here and can thus be applied to anything a parent does. Whether or not a parent has the right to beat his kid bloody and lock him in the closet is governed by several different laws that mostly sy the parent would go to jail for doing it. Not the point that we are discussing here since we are, by my assumption, talking about legal things.

Can you show me where I said that what Doofusmanky has done is illegal? I'd like to re-read that.

I didn't say you called DM's actions illegal. I was pointing out that a person's actions would need to pass the legal test here.

You're right. Context does matter here. You limit a child's exposure to keeping porn away from them, from hiding the scary movies, by keeping that creepy uncle from coming to the house. You make not think it's censorship because of the context you're placing it in, but it is in fact the very definition of the word. Again, censorship is the act of censoring.


This could not be more clear. It fits the globally accepted definition to the letter. If you feel the need to argue further that it doesn't, you're not understanding the language at all. I understand that your position is based in a reality where you make up definitions to suit your needs, but it doesn't make it correct.

I seriously doubt that you will find many people who consider parental limiting of their own child's access to things as "censorship". I was under the impression that we were discussing the "right or wrong" aspects of what DM did. It seems we have devolved into a pedantic argument about language. You use the word censorship to, at least as far as I can tell, apply equally to a parent's interaction with his or her child and a government's interaction with the citizens it serves. I contend that they are not the same thing.

[Duffusmonkey]

If You keep calling me DM I will assume the role of Dungeon Master and force you to bend to my will.

P.S. Should I continue with my PG13 edit of Pulp Fiction? That tiny clip was almost as much work as whole episode of We're Alive.

[Osiris]

Regarding parenting style, style is a very broad term here and can thus be applied to anything a parent does. Whether or not a parent has the right to beat his kid bloody and lock him in the closet is governed by several different laws that mostly sy the parent would go to jail for doing it. Not the point that we are discussing here since we are, by my assumption, talking about legal things.

Go back. Re-read. We're talking about censorship as a moral issue. Not an issue of legality.

I didn't say you called DM's actions illegal. I was pointing out that a person's actions would need to pass the legal test here.

Again, not an argument about legality. You continue to bring up the question of whether or not is legal in order to skirt the fundamentals. It's not a question of legality. It is a question of ethics and morality.

I seriously doubt that you will find many people who consider parental limiting of their own child's access to things as "censorship". I was under the impression that we were discussing the "right or wrong" aspects of what DM did. It seems we have devolved into a pedantic argument about language. You use the word censorship to, at least as far as I can tell, apply equally to a parent's interaction with his or her child and a government's interaction with the citizens it serves. I contend that they are not the same thing.

I would be very surprised to find someone who does not consider the act of an individual taking it upon themselves to remove language from the creative work of another, with the sole intent to keep those words from reaching someone else's ears, to be censorship. People who wouldn't think it to be something else are obviously unclear as to the definition of the word.

As for you contending that the two are mutually exclusive, you are merely remaining ignorant. Can you read? I know you can. Go back and read the definitions. Your adamancy of your position is silly at this point, the facts are the facts. The act of removing the "offensive language" from the show is an act of censorship, whether or not you want to recognize in some attempt to be contrary for the sake of it does not change the intent or the definition. I can unequivocally state that you are wrong, and have supported that statement with quantifiable evidence. You have made it a matter of personal opinion. It is not. You seem to believe that only the government is capable of censoring anything. You are entirely wrong, as I have demonstrated.

I use the word censorship in it's broadest, all encompassing sense. You seem fit to dwell on a singular definition of it, showing complete disregard for its intent, its scope, and its dangers. It is simple ignorance to think in this way. I do not believe that you have an understanding of what you're speaking of, if in fact you believe that the only censorship possible rests in the hands of "the government."

[scbubba]

Go back. Re-read. We're talking about censorship as a moral issue. Not an issue of legality.



Again, not an argument about legality. You continue to bring up the question of whether or not is legal in order to skirt the fundamentals. It's not a question of legality. It is a question of ethics and morality.



I would be very surprised to find someone who does not consider the act of an individual taking it upon themselves to remove language from the creative work of another, with the sole intent to keep those words from reaching someone else's ears, to be censorship. People who wouldn't think it to be something else are obviously unclear as to the definition of the word.

As for you contending that the two are mutually exclusive, you are merely remaining ignorant. Can you read? I know you can. Go back and read the definitions. Your adamancy of your position is silly at this point, the facts are the facts. The act of removing the "offensive language" from the show is an act of censorship, whether or not you want to recognize in some attempt to be contrary for the sake of it does not change the intent or the definition. I can unequivocally state that you are wrong, and have supported that statement with quantifiable evidence. You have made it a matter of personal opinion. It is not. You seem to believe that only the government is capable of censoring anything. You are entirely wrong, as I have demonstrated.

I use the word censorship in it's broadest, all encompassing sense. You seem fit to dwell on a singular definition of it, showing complete disregard for its intent, its scope, and its dangers. It is simple ignorance to think in this way. I do not believe that you have an understanding of what you're speaking of, if in fact you believe that the only censorship possible rests in the hands of "the government."

Ok. I concede the point that it is censorship for a parent to limit, in any way, what his or her child has access or exposure to. It is the definition of the word/language/term/etc.

I disagree that it is wrong or damnable for the parent to do it, in context, just because it fits the term. My observation was that you were saying that it was wrong or damnable for the parent to do it unless the parent simply shuttered the child from exposure completely. Which I don't really understand because, by your definition, that complete shuttering would also be censorship and therefore wrong or damnable.

So, we come back to where all internet debates seem to land. You still have your opinion on the topic and I still have mine.

I have, however, been educated on the definition of censorship and for that, my friend, I thank you. :-)

[Osiris]

Ok. I concede the point that it is censorship for a parent to limit, in any way, what his or her child has access or exposure to. It is the definition of the word/language/term/etc.

I disagree that it is wrong or damnable for the parent to do it, in context, just because it fits the term. My observation was that you were saying that it was wrong or damnable for the parent to do it unless the parent simply shuttered the child from exposure completely. Which I don't really understand because, by your definition, that complete shuttering would also be censorship and therefore wrong or damnable.

So, we come back to where all internet debates seem to land. You still have your opinion on the topic and I still have mine.

I have, however, been educated on the definition of censorship and for that, my friend, I thank you. :-)

The issue that I take with the whole thing is the principle of it all. It's the simple fact that we live in a world where censorship is so unobtrusive that it's commonplace and most don't even realize that it is happening around them. I think at its core, censorship itself is evil, and has no place in a world that prides itself on tolerance and the values of acceptance. That's the world that the majority lives in (China, India, and parts of the Middle East excluded), but it's a lie. I understand shielding a child from something, but the biggest point I'm trying to get across is: if you feel your child is too young for the language, perhaps the show is not suitable to expose them to in the first place. If you're going hide a piece, hide the whole.

I do see your point, and I can understand why you might not consider it to be on par with some other forms. That's fine. You're entitled to that opinion, and it's completely valid, and reasonable. If everybody agreed, nobody would think. If everyone stops thinking, we're doomed to repeat the mistakes we've already made.

[Duffusmonkey]

Does anyone else quote Victor through out their day?

I used to live my life based on the principle of WWVD (What Would Victor Do).... Until I learned he was banging Kelly

[scbubba]

The issue that I take with the whole thing is the principle of it all. It's the simple fact that we live in a world where censorship is so unobtrusive that it's commonplace and most don't even realize that it is happening around them. I think at its core, censorship itself is evil, and has no place in a world that prides itself on tolerance and the values of acceptance. That's the world that the majority lives in (China, India, and parts of the Middle East excluded), but it's a lie. I understand shielding a child from something, but the biggest point I'm trying to get across is: if you feel your child is too young for the language, perhaps the show is not suitable to expose them to in the first place. If you're going hide a piece, hide the whole.

Liberty dies with a whimper instead of a bang. It slowly slips away as we make compromises for comfort, security, etc. that's the concern that many, if not most, people have. But a society made up of so many people of different moral & ethical standards are going to have compromises to keep it all together. The balance is the key to a free society.

I do see your point, and I can understand why you might not consider it to be on par with some other forms. That's fine. You're entitled to that opinion, and it's completely valid, and reasonable. If everybody agreed, nobody would think. If everyone stops thinking, we're doomed to repeat the mistakes we've already made.

^^^This. So very true.