It's almost a given in most circles that TV is, at best, a neutral diversion from life and at worse a mind numbing insidious weapon that dumbs people down and fattens them up.
Recently, I've seen two print sources defending TV and even hailing it as a potential savior.
The first was in this month's Foreign Policy magazine
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/19/revolution_in_a_box
The second was in Super Freakonomics, which, I'm sure, is rwingett's second favorite book, right after Atlas Shrugged.
Both argued that TV has a miraculous ability to proliferate self-respect, maintain population control and inspire democratic secular government participation.
So, on the whole, should we be encouraging the expansion of TV in the poorer parts of the World or are we just hurting people's health, education and work ethic by doing so?
Originally posted by sh76Huh? Why do you sully my good name with these spurious accusations? I had never heard of 'Super Freakonomics' till now, and I'm sure you're well aware of my distaste for Ayn Rand. But I don't think TV is as bad as people make it out to be. Sure there's tons of crap on TV to choose from (like FOX News), but nobody is forcing you to watch it. You're always free to tune into PBS, or something.
It's almost a given in most circles that TV is, at best, a neutral diversion from life and at worse a mind numbing insidious weapon that dumbs people down and fattens them up.
Recently, I've seen two print sources defending TV and even hailing it as a potential savior.
The first was in this month's Foreign Policy magazine
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a ...[text shortened]... of the World or are we just hurting people's health, education and work ethic by doing so?
Originally posted by sh76I moved house in April. I never did get round to plugging the TV in here. It is in the space under the stairs in a cardboard box. One of the best things to happen to my family in 2009.
It's almost a given in most circles that TV is, at best, a neutral diversion from life and at worse a mind numbing insidious weapon that dumbs people down and fattens them up.
Recently, I've seen two print sources defending TV and even hailing it as a potential savior.
The first was in this month's Foreign Policy magazine
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a ...[text shortened]... of the World or are we just hurting people's health, education and work ethic by doing so?
Originally posted by sh76keeps the proles fat, dumb, and happy.
It's almost a given in most circles that TV is, at best, a neutral diversion from life and at worse a mind numbing insidious weapon that dumbs people down and fattens them up.
Recently, I've seen two print sources defending TV and even hailing it as a potential savior.
The first was in this month's Foreign Policy magazine
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a ...[text shortened]... of the World or are we just hurting people's health, education and work ethic by doing so?
Originally posted by sh76Anybody who's favourite book is Atlas shrugged (or Mein Kampf, come to think of it) is a moron.
It's almost a given in most circles that TV is, at best, a neutral diversion from life and at worse a mind numbing insidious weapon that dumbs people down and fattens them up.
Recently, I've seen two print sources defending TV and even hailing it as a potential savior.
The first was in this month's Foreign Policy magazine
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a ...[text shortened]... of the World or are we just hurting people's health, education and work ethic by doing so?
However, TV is neutral. Same as radio.
You can do great things with it, you can kill millions with it.