The following refutation and analyze its parts. "Opponents of RTÜK claim that censorship limits and also controls the way people feel and think. They argue that such an institution contradicts the ideals of democracy. This idea is flawed because organizations such as RTÜK do not aim to control what people watch, but rather aim to “regulate” what is being shown on the screen. This is because people need to be protected from the negative influence of certain programs. For example, children need protection unless they are continuously monitored by their parents who are cautious of the potential harms of TV viewing. Undoubtedly, no parent would want their children to be exposed to violent murder scenes on TV as “such programs may breed violence in children starting from very early ages” (Nell, 1999, p.12). Therefore, if parents, as in the case of working parents, do not have time and energy to protect their children from violent images on the screen, this should be done by an outside control organism, which is RTÜK in Turkey. Is this control of thought? Is this control of feelings? Definitely, it is not. Moreover, it is not only in Turkey that institutions such as RTÜK exist. Many democratic countries all over Europe have similar regulations as every society operates on some rules and regulations. Hence, it is not correct to link these regulations to the concept of democracy anyway. This is not an issue of democracy. It is an issue concerning the common good of the society, and RTÜK serves the common good of our society. "

Now answer the following question : Does the arguer here acknowledge any valid idea or part of the opposing claims, or does he refute them all considering all of them incorrect