Download my PG13 edits is all of Season 1

[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.