TV
Kathryn Orlinsky
TV is a very hot topic. Personally, I think that people who advocate for
unlimited TV happen to have families that are not adversely affected by
TV. This is not true of all families. I know from personal experience
that TV can adversely affect young children. And yes, I've done
extensive experiments with both unlimited, limited and no TV at all.
but I haven't seen it be true for a young child (under age 6). From
what I've seen, a young child is more likely to watch enough TV to make
himself restless and miserable and still never want to shut it off.
Yes, you need to have freedom to find your natural pattern, but it
doesn't have to be at age two! I didn't watch any TV during my senior
year of high school because I was so busy. It didn't make any
difference how much TV I had watched in earlier years.
I know many people will strongly disagree with me. That's fine. But as
I said, I suspect that their children do not become apathetic, miserable
whiners after watching TV.
--
Kathy Orlinsky
mailto:kathyorlinsky@...
unlimited TV happen to have families that are not adversely affected by
TV. This is not true of all families. I know from personal experience
that TV can adversely affect young children. And yes, I've done
extensive experiments with both unlimited, limited and no TV at all.
> Put it on and let it stay on for a full year. No, two years. The reason heI disagree with this. This might be true for an adult or older child,
> cannot limit himself is because you're limiting him. There is no way for him
> to find his natural patterns if you're there either demanding or cajoling
> him away from the TV.
but I haven't seen it be true for a young child (under age 6). From
what I've seen, a young child is more likely to watch enough TV to make
himself restless and miserable and still never want to shut it off.
Yes, you need to have freedom to find your natural pattern, but it
doesn't have to be at age two! I didn't watch any TV during my senior
year of high school because I was so busy. It didn't make any
difference how much TV I had watched in earlier years.
I know many people will strongly disagree with me. That's fine. But as
I said, I suspect that their children do not become apathetic, miserable
whiners after watching TV.
--
Kathy Orlinsky
mailto:kathyorlinsky@...
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 11:08:49 AM, kathyorlinsky@... writes:
<< I didn't watch any TV during my senior
year of high school because I was so busy. It didn't make any
difference how much TV I had watched in earlier years. >>
Would it have mattered how much you had watched at two?
My kids use TV as they use CD players and cassette players, the radio, record
player.
(I'm assuming there aren't families here who limit the use of those things.)
The TV might be on or not, and the kids are still playing with Lego, drawing,
making little figures, dressing dolls, playing with cats and dogs, whatever.
It's background sometimes. Sometimes it's big focus. We watched a video
yesterday called Mr. Rice's Secret. Three people watched it, one came in
near the end and asked lots of questions. Nobody was told "sit" or "quiet."
It was a thing to pay attention to or not, but it DID draw attention, and it
drew attention because it was fascinating. And we discussed predictions
about what would happen, and why, and what it would mean, and what was
realistic, and what's good about treasure hunt stories (a favorite of boys
for centuries), and then it was over and we scattered. No reports (except
I'm telling you guys, but only because it's illustrative of a point), no
responsibility, just the advantages of adding to each person's store of ideas
and experience.
-=- But as
I said, I suspect that their children do not become apathetic, miserable
whiners after watching TV. -=-
Eeek.
No, mine never have.
But if they were miserable and whining, I'd not blame the TV, but would see
what would cheer them up and make them feel better. Maybe the apathy and
misery came first and TV was soothing to them.
And if the whining followed someone ELSE turning the TV off, rather than the
children themselves turning it off, I contend that the TV did not in any way
cause the whining.
I would do more than whine if someone snatched a novel out of my lap and tore
the end off and destroyed it. Yet I've seen parents say "TURN IT OFF RIGHT
NOW" about tv or video games, with no thought that they might be doing that
very thing to children they claim to love!
Sandra
<< I didn't watch any TV during my senior
year of high school because I was so busy. It didn't make any
difference how much TV I had watched in earlier years. >>
Would it have mattered how much you had watched at two?
My kids use TV as they use CD players and cassette players, the radio, record
player.
(I'm assuming there aren't families here who limit the use of those things.)
The TV might be on or not, and the kids are still playing with Lego, drawing,
making little figures, dressing dolls, playing with cats and dogs, whatever.
It's background sometimes. Sometimes it's big focus. We watched a video
yesterday called Mr. Rice's Secret. Three people watched it, one came in
near the end and asked lots of questions. Nobody was told "sit" or "quiet."
It was a thing to pay attention to or not, but it DID draw attention, and it
drew attention because it was fascinating. And we discussed predictions
about what would happen, and why, and what it would mean, and what was
realistic, and what's good about treasure hunt stories (a favorite of boys
for centuries), and then it was over and we scattered. No reports (except
I'm telling you guys, but only because it's illustrative of a point), no
responsibility, just the advantages of adding to each person's store of ideas
and experience.
-=- But as
I said, I suspect that their children do not become apathetic, miserable
whiners after watching TV. -=-
Eeek.
No, mine never have.
But if they were miserable and whining, I'd not blame the TV, but would see
what would cheer them up and make them feel better. Maybe the apathy and
misery came first and TV was soothing to them.
And if the whining followed someone ELSE turning the TV off, rather than the
children themselves turning it off, I contend that the TV did not in any way
cause the whining.
I would do more than whine if someone snatched a novel out of my lap and tore
the end off and destroyed it. Yet I've seen parents say "TURN IT OFF RIGHT
NOW" about tv or video games, with no thought that they might be doing that
very thing to children they claim to love!
Sandra
[email protected]
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:07:20 -0800 Kathryn Orlinsky
<kathyorlinsky@...> writes:
to go swimming? Play in the sand box? Play in a big bowl of bread
dough? Help bake cookies? Help eat cookies? Dig for dinosaur bones in
the yard?
When there are really fun things to do and someone fun to do them with, a
little kid will never ALWAYS choose TV.
A kid who's restless and miserable after watching TV all day is probably
restless and miserable because no one wanted to do anything more fun than
sit. Probably restless and miserable because all the fun people were
busy doing something else and all he could think of was TV.
Deb L
<kathyorlinsky@...> writes:
> FromNever want to shut it off to go to the park? Never want to shut it off
> what I've seen, a young child is more likely to watch enough TV to
> make
> himself restless and miserable and still never want to shut it off.
to go swimming? Play in the sand box? Play in a big bowl of bread
dough? Help bake cookies? Help eat cookies? Dig for dinosaur bones in
the yard?
When there are really fun things to do and someone fun to do them with, a
little kid will never ALWAYS choose TV.
A kid who's restless and miserable after watching TV all day is probably
restless and miserable because no one wanted to do anything more fun than
sit. Probably restless and miserable because all the fun people were
busy doing something else and all he could think of was TV.
Deb L
zenmomma *
>>I suspect that their children do not become apathetic, miserablewhiners after watching TV.>>
My kids don't become apathetic, miserable whiners after any activity. Ever.
It would never occur to me to use those terms to describe their behavior.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, BTW. Far from it. But I think that the words we
use to describe someone else, tend to reveal an lot about our own biases.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 12:11:27 PM, PSoroosh@... writes:
<< The
railroads of the world? >>
Oh!
There was one on PBS once about the last run of a rail line in India. I
hadn't known it would be on, just turned the TV on and it grabbed me. By the
end, others in my house had come by and gotten stuck too.
They were saying (and it's probably still true) that in India they made parts
for old 19th century steam engine trains, and they keep them running!
Instead of getting newer trains, they just keep those in operation and once a
year they dress them up (looked like paintings of them dressing elephants up
for parades) with garlands of flowers and flags and paint and stuff. It was
SO COOL!!! But this one train and rail line, up a mountain to a particular
town, was being shut down, and so they documented it. It was HUGELY
world-expanding and breathtaking. It was not ugly. It didn't try to get me
to buy anything, but if anything made me aware that some things cannot in any
way be bought, and some parts of history MUST fade away, against the best
efforts of those who would maintain a train over 100 years old (I don't
remember how old that particular one was), and that to see video, with sound,
of the train with people on it, with the commentary of regular riders, of old
men who had worked their whole lives with/on it--THAT is something I would
not have had without TV.
Sandra
<< The
railroads of the world? >>
Oh!
There was one on PBS once about the last run of a rail line in India. I
hadn't known it would be on, just turned the TV on and it grabbed me. By the
end, others in my house had come by and gotten stuck too.
They were saying (and it's probably still true) that in India they made parts
for old 19th century steam engine trains, and they keep them running!
Instead of getting newer trains, they just keep those in operation and once a
year they dress them up (looked like paintings of them dressing elephants up
for parades) with garlands of flowers and flags and paint and stuff. It was
SO COOL!!! But this one train and rail line, up a mountain to a particular
town, was being shut down, and so they documented it. It was HUGELY
world-expanding and breathtaking. It was not ugly. It didn't try to get me
to buy anything, but if anything made me aware that some things cannot in any
way be bought, and some parts of history MUST fade away, against the best
efforts of those who would maintain a train over 100 years old (I don't
remember how old that particular one was), and that to see video, with sound,
of the train with people on it, with the commentary of regular riders, of old
men who had worked their whole lives with/on it--THAT is something I would
not have had without TV.
Sandra
Earth Witch
I think if a parent is describing their child that way
and the child's behavior is negative, it has a lot
more to do with their relationship than the tv. I say
this from experience. I once decided we should pitch
the tv because the boys were behaving 'badly' and I
needed something to blame. The truth is, they were
not being bad, they were not whining or fighting
because of the tv. They were doing it because of
things going on within our family. They were not
bouncing off the walls because they watched 2 hours of
Magic School Bus and Digimon, they were doing it
because they needed to get some energy out.
Blaming the tv for 'bad' behavior is the same as
blaming music for kids killing each other. Or blaming
a book for causing a kid to become a satanist. If
kids are doing negative things, there is a reason that
probably goes a lot deeper than too much tv.
Kitrina
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
and the child's behavior is negative, it has a lot
more to do with their relationship than the tv. I say
this from experience. I once decided we should pitch
the tv because the boys were behaving 'badly' and I
needed something to blame. The truth is, they were
not being bad, they were not whining or fighting
because of the tv. They were doing it because of
things going on within our family. They were not
bouncing off the walls because they watched 2 hours of
Magic School Bus and Digimon, they were doing it
because they needed to get some energy out.
Blaming the tv for 'bad' behavior is the same as
blaming music for kids killing each other. Or blaming
a book for causing a kid to become a satanist. If
kids are doing negative things, there is a reason that
probably goes a lot deeper than too much tv.
Kitrina
> I know many people will strongly disagree with me.__________________________________________________
> That's fine. But as
> I said, I suspect that their children do not become
> apathetic, miserable
> whiners after watching TV.
>
> --
> Kathy Orlinsky
> mailto:kathyorlinsky@...
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
Pam Hartley
----------
From: Kathryn Orlinsky <kathyorlinsky@...>
To: AlwaysLearning <[email protected]>
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] TV
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002, 10:07 AM
I know many people will strongly disagree with me. That's fine. But as
I said, I suspect that their children do not become apathetic, miserable
whiners after watching TV.
----------
My children have certainly done their share of miserable, apathetic whining.
When Brit was 4, I spent about six weeks convinced that I was up for Worst
Mommy of the Year because the child could not NOT burst into tears 430 times
per day, every day, with or without perceivable provocation.
To the best of my fuzzy memory, she was not watching any more or less TV
during that time.
Then my friend Paula sent me a book called "Your Four Year Old" and I read
it and a huge weight was lifted as I read that four year olds do this. <g>
It didn't let me off the hook for making sure that her environment was safe
and pleasant, but it let me be much calmer inside that it was not something
hideous I was doing to her, and that helped us both a lot.
Michael-Anne turned 4 in October, and is occasionally weepy, which is
strange and bizarre behavior for her, and so I changed some things around
that I could change (she wants to stay home a lot, so Wally and I have made
it a priority to let her have that option as much as possible) and I'm
paying attention to what she seems to need and we're waiting it out.
If I eat carrots and then get in the car and have an accident, it does not
mean that carrots cause traffic accidents. If my child watches TV and is
whiney and miserable, the fault is not necessarily with the TV.
And even if I was convinced it was the TV, I would not arbitrarily banish or
limit it. I would have absolutely no way of knowing how much TV that child
could handle on a given day, or when that ability changed to less or more. I
would try, however, to help them identify what they were feeling and see
what we could do to make it better. There are lots of options along "make it
better" other than "get rid of the TV".
The problem with this whole argument of "well, your children are just
different than mine" is that it can be given to anything -- I know several
women who were convinced they didn't have enough milk to breastfeed: did
that make all of them, or most of them, or ANY of them right? Probably not.
But I got the, "well, I'm just different than you" speech.
Children (and people, and things living and not) are all different, but IMHO
that doesn't excuse parental interference in a child's search of balance.
Part of unschooling is trust, and that includes in our house trusting them
to find their own checks and balances, with what help we adults can provide
that doesn't interfere with or over-ride or ignore their own knowledge of
themselves.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: Kathryn Orlinsky <kathyorlinsky@...>
To: AlwaysLearning <[email protected]>
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] TV
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002, 10:07 AM
I know many people will strongly disagree with me. That's fine. But as
I said, I suspect that their children do not become apathetic, miserable
whiners after watching TV.
----------
My children have certainly done their share of miserable, apathetic whining.
When Brit was 4, I spent about six weeks convinced that I was up for Worst
Mommy of the Year because the child could not NOT burst into tears 430 times
per day, every day, with or without perceivable provocation.
To the best of my fuzzy memory, she was not watching any more or less TV
during that time.
Then my friend Paula sent me a book called "Your Four Year Old" and I read
it and a huge weight was lifted as I read that four year olds do this. <g>
It didn't let me off the hook for making sure that her environment was safe
and pleasant, but it let me be much calmer inside that it was not something
hideous I was doing to her, and that helped us both a lot.
Michael-Anne turned 4 in October, and is occasionally weepy, which is
strange and bizarre behavior for her, and so I changed some things around
that I could change (she wants to stay home a lot, so Wally and I have made
it a priority to let her have that option as much as possible) and I'm
paying attention to what she seems to need and we're waiting it out.
If I eat carrots and then get in the car and have an accident, it does not
mean that carrots cause traffic accidents. If my child watches TV and is
whiney and miserable, the fault is not necessarily with the TV.
And even if I was convinced it was the TV, I would not arbitrarily banish or
limit it. I would have absolutely no way of knowing how much TV that child
could handle on a given day, or when that ability changed to less or more. I
would try, however, to help them identify what they were feeling and see
what we could do to make it better. There are lots of options along "make it
better" other than "get rid of the TV".
The problem with this whole argument of "well, your children are just
different than mine" is that it can be given to anything -- I know several
women who were convinced they didn't have enough milk to breastfeed: did
that make all of them, or most of them, or ANY of them right? Probably not.
But I got the, "well, I'm just different than you" speech.
Children (and people, and things living and not) are all different, but IMHO
that doesn't excuse parental interference in a child's search of balance.
Part of unschooling is trust, and that includes in our house trusting them
to find their own checks and balances, with what help we adults can provide
that doesn't interfere with or over-ride or ignore their own knowledge of
themselves.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
I don't care if anybody else watches tv. I don't care if they think we're
warped or evil or just stupid, either, because we DO watch it and love it.
But - this is a discussion list and those who declare that they think it is
better for kids to not have any tv or to have strict limits placed on their
viewing time or that most of tv programming is ugly are going to have to then
bear with hearing why other people think they're wrong.
And if people don't let their kids watch tv at home - I think it is fine to
choose to miss out on something - life is full of choices and things we have
to give up to do something else. I've never walked into someone else's house,
with no tv, and sermonized at them about the dangers of not having a tv even
though I think they're missing out on really really worthwhile stuff and
limiting their options as to how to learn about lots of cool things
needlessly out of misplaced fear of tv.
But I've had people shame MY kids about watching tv ("Oh, your parents let
you watch tv?" Said in an appalled tone of voice. "I'm surprised about that.
I didn't think they were that kind of parents.").
And I've had PLENTY of people preach at me about the evils of tv - it happens
frequently in the attachment parenting/homeschooling kinds of circles I hang
out in. They always recommend books I've already read - books I read years
ago and I've tested out the claims of those books against the realities of
what I see with my own eyes and observe in my own family and other families
I'm close enough to so that I can really know what is going on with those
kids. I just don't see all those harmful effects of tv watching that are
predicted. My kids have unlimited tv and they are voracious readers,
intelligent, with passonate interests in all kinds of subjects and busy with
many wonderful activities and have not ended up depressed couch potatoes with
short attention spans or an inability to focus. And my kids are not little
anymore - they are 17, 14, and 11, so I think we're okay and I'm no longer
afraid to come right out and say, "Yeah, we watch tv and we enjoy it."
When people have sig lines like this: "tv, the drug of the nation... " --- I
think it is apparent who is doing the "judging".
S'okay - maybe your kids will grow up and go to college and spend every day
in the activity center watching soap operas and, yes, looking like they're
drugged. I can pretty much guarantee my kids will never do that - they've
learned to be far more discriminating about what they watch.
I'm serious - I walk through the student activity center where there are
always b'zillions of college students sitting, slack-jawed, with their eyes
glued to the screen, watching soaps. But I suppose they don't actually "have"
a tv, anyway, technically, so they're probably just fine <G>.
--pam
warped or evil or just stupid, either, because we DO watch it and love it.
But - this is a discussion list and those who declare that they think it is
better for kids to not have any tv or to have strict limits placed on their
viewing time or that most of tv programming is ugly are going to have to then
bear with hearing why other people think they're wrong.
And if people don't let their kids watch tv at home - I think it is fine to
choose to miss out on something - life is full of choices and things we have
to give up to do something else. I've never walked into someone else's house,
with no tv, and sermonized at them about the dangers of not having a tv even
though I think they're missing out on really really worthwhile stuff and
limiting their options as to how to learn about lots of cool things
needlessly out of misplaced fear of tv.
But I've had people shame MY kids about watching tv ("Oh, your parents let
you watch tv?" Said in an appalled tone of voice. "I'm surprised about that.
I didn't think they were that kind of parents.").
And I've had PLENTY of people preach at me about the evils of tv - it happens
frequently in the attachment parenting/homeschooling kinds of circles I hang
out in. They always recommend books I've already read - books I read years
ago and I've tested out the claims of those books against the realities of
what I see with my own eyes and observe in my own family and other families
I'm close enough to so that I can really know what is going on with those
kids. I just don't see all those harmful effects of tv watching that are
predicted. My kids have unlimited tv and they are voracious readers,
intelligent, with passonate interests in all kinds of subjects and busy with
many wonderful activities and have not ended up depressed couch potatoes with
short attention spans or an inability to focus. And my kids are not little
anymore - they are 17, 14, and 11, so I think we're okay and I'm no longer
afraid to come right out and say, "Yeah, we watch tv and we enjoy it."
When people have sig lines like this: "tv, the drug of the nation... " --- I
think it is apparent who is doing the "judging".
S'okay - maybe your kids will grow up and go to college and spend every day
in the activity center watching soap operas and, yes, looking like they're
drugged. I can pretty much guarantee my kids will never do that - they've
learned to be far more discriminating about what they watch.
I'm serious - I walk through the student activity center where there are
always b'zillions of college students sitting, slack-jawed, with their eyes
glued to the screen, watching soaps. But I suppose they don't actually "have"
a tv, anyway, technically, so they're probably just fine <G>.
--pam
Jessica Kelly
wow, you seem really passionate about this, and you also seem to have some really
bad experiences with non-tv-ers. please just know that not all non-tv-ers feel
the need to preach to you about tv or any of your lifestyle choices, not all of
us judge you for those choices, and not all of us ban/shelter our children from
tv in other peoples homes (my son has seen tv in other people's homes, but he
finds it boring and has never asked to watch it at home). the choice to toss the
tv is simply that -- a choice -- and one that we think is appropriate for our
home and family. frankly, even if we wanted to watch tv, i don't even know when
we'd find the time, as i can't ever imagine it winning a popularity contest over
reading or biking or crafting, etc. btw, the "drug of the nation" is not my sig
line. i just included it in my post because it's a popular line (from both a
speech and a song), and it seemed appropriate to the subject at hand.
PSoroosh@... wrote:
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
bad experiences with non-tv-ers. please just know that not all non-tv-ers feel
the need to preach to you about tv or any of your lifestyle choices, not all of
us judge you for those choices, and not all of us ban/shelter our children from
tv in other peoples homes (my son has seen tv in other people's homes, but he
finds it boring and has never asked to watch it at home). the choice to toss the
tv is simply that -- a choice -- and one that we think is appropriate for our
home and family. frankly, even if we wanted to watch tv, i don't even know when
we'd find the time, as i can't ever imagine it winning a popularity contest over
reading or biking or crafting, etc. btw, the "drug of the nation" is not my sig
line. i just included it in my post because it's a popular line (from both a
speech and a song), and it seemed appropriate to the subject at hand.
PSoroosh@... wrote:
> But I've had people shame MY kids about watching tv ("Oh, your parents let--
> you watch tv?" Said in an appalled tone of voice. "I'm surprised about that.
> I didn't think they were that kind of parents.")...
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[email protected]
>>just know that not all non-tv-ers feelthe need to preach to you about tv or any of your lifestyle choices, not all
of
us judge you for those choices, <<
>>btw, the "drug of the nation" is not my sigline. i just included it in my post because it's a popular line (from both a
speech and a song), and it seemed appropriate to the subject at hand.<<
But it isn't at all judgmental, of course.
--pam
Jessica Kelly
Just a final thought. There seem to be a lot of defensive comments around this
issue. I'm curious as to why whenever I say simply that I don't eat meat -- a
single, simple sentence, lacking judgemental adjectives of any kind -- I find
myself offending people who a) assume that I'm judging negatively their choice to
eat meat and b) feel the need to tell me in detail (and often a combative tone)
why they think that meat-eating is good (or at least not bad) for you. I've found
the same thing happens when I say that I don't drink (at least not much, at least
not anymore <g>) or that I don't smoke. Now I see the same kind of defensive
responses regarding the justification of tv viewing, which some of us may find to
be, like drinking or meat-eating, not the healthiest choice available. I think we
can learn from these posts to communicate less defensively. In fact, I wonder if
the judgemental adjective "ugly" had not been used, if this whole flood of
pro-tv-justification would have been avoided? I certainly hope so...
Also, I'd like to repeat someone else's comment regarding the AAP -- a pretty
conservative group -- which can provide references and resources regarding the
negative effects of TV viewing on little minds. I believe they also suggest that
TV can be too stimulating or distracting for "spirited" kids. Therefore, given
that advice, please don't treat those of us who avoid the tube as luddites who are
trying to shelter our kids from "beautiful" entertainment. We've just found
better things to do -- "better" in terms of OUR families -- just our families --
not necessariliy YOUR families. So let's not be like the toxic MIL mentioned
throughout these posts. Let's respect each others' choices.
Peace.
--
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
issue. I'm curious as to why whenever I say simply that I don't eat meat -- a
single, simple sentence, lacking judgemental adjectives of any kind -- I find
myself offending people who a) assume that I'm judging negatively their choice to
eat meat and b) feel the need to tell me in detail (and often a combative tone)
why they think that meat-eating is good (or at least not bad) for you. I've found
the same thing happens when I say that I don't drink (at least not much, at least
not anymore <g>) or that I don't smoke. Now I see the same kind of defensive
responses regarding the justification of tv viewing, which some of us may find to
be, like drinking or meat-eating, not the healthiest choice available. I think we
can learn from these posts to communicate less defensively. In fact, I wonder if
the judgemental adjective "ugly" had not been used, if this whole flood of
pro-tv-justification would have been avoided? I certainly hope so...
Also, I'd like to repeat someone else's comment regarding the AAP -- a pretty
conservative group -- which can provide references and resources regarding the
negative effects of TV viewing on little minds. I believe they also suggest that
TV can be too stimulating or distracting for "spirited" kids. Therefore, given
that advice, please don't treat those of us who avoid the tube as luddites who are
trying to shelter our kids from "beautiful" entertainment. We've just found
better things to do -- "better" in terms of OUR families -- just our families --
not necessariliy YOUR families. So let's not be like the toxic MIL mentioned
throughout these posts. Let's respect each others' choices.
Peace.
--
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jessica Kelly
touche. i wasn't trying to be judgemental, tho. i thought most people would be
familiar with the line, and it was a weak attempt at humor. apologies for any
offense on this apparently very touchy issue.
PSoroosh@... wrote:
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
familiar with the line, and it was a weak attempt at humor. apologies for any
offense on this apparently very touchy issue.
PSoroosh@... wrote:
> >>btw, the "drug of the nation" is not my sig line. i just included it in my--
> post because it's a popular line (from both a speech and a song), and it
> seemed appropriate to the subject at hand.<<
>
> But it isn't at all judgmental, of course.
>
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Pam Hartley
----------
Just a final thought. There seem to be a lot of defensive comments around
this
issue. I'm curious as to why whenever I say simply that I don't eat meat --
a
single, simple sentence, lacking judgemental adjectives of any kind -- I
find
myself offending people who a) assume that I'm judging negatively their
choice to
eat meat and b) feel the need to tell me in detail (and often a combative
tone)
why they think that meat-eating is good (or at least not bad) for you.
----------
If you came to my house and I offered you a ham sandwich and you told me,
"Oh, no thanks, I don't eat meat" you would not find me defensive. I
wouldn't grill you because frankly, I don't care, and I'd offer you
something else.
If you came to my house and I offered you a ham sandwich and you told me,
"Oh, no thanks, I don't eat meat. I love animals." I would be mildly
irritated. In my younger days, I might have said, "Me too, they're mighty
tasty." <g> But these days, I refrain from being too annoying to guests,
even if they annoy me first.
----------
I've found
the same thing happens when I say that I don't drink (at least not much, at
least
not anymore <g>) or that I don't smoke.
Now I see the same kind of defensive
responses regarding the justification of tv viewing, which some of us may
find to
be, like drinking or meat-eating, not the healthiest choice available. I
think we
can learn from these posts to communicate less defensively. In fact, I
wonder if
the judgemental adjective "ugly" had not been used, if this whole flood of
pro-tv-justification would have been avoided? I certainly hope so...
----------
There's a context issue here. The first poster on this thread wrote
(paraphrasing) that she wanted to talk about TV and limiting or not and
unschooling and that her son would watch TV all the time, never quitting,
unless she controlled it.
When people argue with that, it's not the same thing as calmly declining a
ham sandwich in my kitchen. It's asking for opinion, and opinion gets
debated. This is not an unhealthy dynamic.
----------
Also, I'd like to repeat someone else's comment regarding the AAP -- a
pretty
conservative group -- which can provide references and resources regarding
the
negative effects of TV viewing on little minds. I believe they also suggest
that
TV can be too stimulating or distracting for "spirited" kids. Therefore,
given
that advice, please don't treat those of us who avoid the tube as luddites
who are
trying to shelter our kids from "beautiful" entertainment. We've just found
better things to do -- "better" in terms of OUR families -- just our
families --
not necessariliy YOUR families. So let's not be like the toxic MIL
mentioned
throughout these posts. Let's respect each others' choices.
----------
I have no power to make you change your mind or lifestyle. I can give you my
opinion and that's it. I promise I will respect your choices by NOT mailing
you a television. Other than that, this is a discussion list and discussions
sometimes involve disagreement. It is not personal -- most of the time I'm
hopelessly lost on who-posted-what by the time I'm four posts in.
Respect doesn't mean we all have to just agree to disagree the second a
controversial topic comes up.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Just a final thought. There seem to be a lot of defensive comments around
this
issue. I'm curious as to why whenever I say simply that I don't eat meat --
a
single, simple sentence, lacking judgemental adjectives of any kind -- I
find
myself offending people who a) assume that I'm judging negatively their
choice to
eat meat and b) feel the need to tell me in detail (and often a combative
tone)
why they think that meat-eating is good (or at least not bad) for you.
----------
If you came to my house and I offered you a ham sandwich and you told me,
"Oh, no thanks, I don't eat meat" you would not find me defensive. I
wouldn't grill you because frankly, I don't care, and I'd offer you
something else.
If you came to my house and I offered you a ham sandwich and you told me,
"Oh, no thanks, I don't eat meat. I love animals." I would be mildly
irritated. In my younger days, I might have said, "Me too, they're mighty
tasty." <g> But these days, I refrain from being too annoying to guests,
even if they annoy me first.
----------
I've found
the same thing happens when I say that I don't drink (at least not much, at
least
not anymore <g>) or that I don't smoke.
Now I see the same kind of defensive
responses regarding the justification of tv viewing, which some of us may
find to
be, like drinking or meat-eating, not the healthiest choice available. I
think we
can learn from these posts to communicate less defensively. In fact, I
wonder if
the judgemental adjective "ugly" had not been used, if this whole flood of
pro-tv-justification would have been avoided? I certainly hope so...
----------
There's a context issue here. The first poster on this thread wrote
(paraphrasing) that she wanted to talk about TV and limiting or not and
unschooling and that her son would watch TV all the time, never quitting,
unless she controlled it.
When people argue with that, it's not the same thing as calmly declining a
ham sandwich in my kitchen. It's asking for opinion, and opinion gets
debated. This is not an unhealthy dynamic.
----------
Also, I'd like to repeat someone else's comment regarding the AAP -- a
pretty
conservative group -- which can provide references and resources regarding
the
negative effects of TV viewing on little minds. I believe they also suggest
that
TV can be too stimulating or distracting for "spirited" kids. Therefore,
given
that advice, please don't treat those of us who avoid the tube as luddites
who are
trying to shelter our kids from "beautiful" entertainment. We've just found
better things to do -- "better" in terms of OUR families -- just our
families --
not necessariliy YOUR families. So let's not be like the toxic MIL
mentioned
throughout these posts. Let's respect each others' choices.
----------
I have no power to make you change your mind or lifestyle. I can give you my
opinion and that's it. I promise I will respect your choices by NOT mailing
you a television. Other than that, this is a discussion list and discussions
sometimes involve disagreement. It is not personal -- most of the time I'm
hopelessly lost on who-posted-what by the time I'm four posts in.
Respect doesn't mean we all have to just agree to disagree the second a
controversial topic comes up.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nancy Wooton
on 1/28/02 2:46 PM, Jessica Kelly at wordup@... wrote:
Nancy
> touche. i wasn't trying to be judgemental, tho. i thought most people wouldIsn't the cliche "The Plug-in Drug," not "the drug of the nation"?
> be
> familiar with the line, and it was a weak attempt at humor. apologies for any
> offense on this apparently very touchy issue.
Nancy
[email protected]
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:40:51 -0800 Jessica Kelly <wordup@...>
writes:
allow my children to do X." This is a list of unschoolers. If you're
chosing to control your child's learning, don't post about it on an
unschooling list and expect a lot of support.
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
writes:
> Just a final thought. There seem to be a lot of defensive commentsI think the difference is between saying "I don't do X" and "I don't
> around this issue.
allow my children to do X." This is a list of unschoolers. If you're
chosing to control your child's learning, don't post about it on an
unschooling list and expect a lot of support.
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Jessica Kelly
True, tho I don't remember saying that I didn't allow my child to do
something. We don't watch TV, as a family, and that's our family's choice.
However, if my son asked to watch TV (he's seen it at others' homes but has
never shown interest or asked for it at home), I would neither encourage nor
discourage him -- but I would watch with him, and we would discuss what we
were watching.
freeform@... wrote:
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
something. We don't watch TV, as a family, and that's our family's choice.
However, if my son asked to watch TV (he's seen it at others' homes but has
never shown interest or asked for it at home), I would neither encourage nor
discourage him -- but I would watch with him, and we would discuss what we
were watching.
freeform@... wrote:
> I think the difference is between saying "I don't do X" and "I don't--
> allow my children to do X." This is a list of unschoolers. If you're
> chosing to control your child's learning, don't post about it on an
> unschooling list and expect a lot of support.
>
> Dar
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 3:00:57 PM, PSoroosh@... writes:
<< My kids have unlimited tv and they are voracious readers,
intelligent, with passonate interests in all kinds of subjects and busy with
many wonderful activities and have not ended up depressed couch potatoes with
short attention spans or an inability to focus. And my kids are not little
anymore - they are 17, 14, and 11 >>
I know Pam's kids. I've known them for years. And what she says is true.
When I'm at their house, there's not much TV watching going on, until maybe
after a long day of running around doing tons-of-fun things some flop
exhausted in front of (usually) a musical. And days when they don't have
company from out of town there's probably more TV.
Same here, sometimes.
At the moment there is one TV on. Holly is playing Harvest Moon on a Super
Nintendo. She's in the last season of a game she has purposely "played
wrong," to see what will happen if you leave your dog at someone else's
house, give gifts to characters other than your wife, give your wife weeds
instead of eggs, etc. She's learning. It's not a simple matter of asking
someone what will happen. She's invested hours in playing a game wrong. I
think it's fascinating, and more educational than playing it right (whch she
and the boys have all done already, more than once).
Sandra
<< My kids have unlimited tv and they are voracious readers,
intelligent, with passonate interests in all kinds of subjects and busy with
many wonderful activities and have not ended up depressed couch potatoes with
short attention spans or an inability to focus. And my kids are not little
anymore - they are 17, 14, and 11 >>
I know Pam's kids. I've known them for years. And what she says is true.
When I'm at their house, there's not much TV watching going on, until maybe
after a long day of running around doing tons-of-fun things some flop
exhausted in front of (usually) a musical. And days when they don't have
company from out of town there's probably more TV.
Same here, sometimes.
At the moment there is one TV on. Holly is playing Harvest Moon on a Super
Nintendo. She's in the last season of a game she has purposely "played
wrong," to see what will happen if you leave your dog at someone else's
house, give gifts to characters other than your wife, give your wife weeds
instead of eggs, etc. She's learning. It's not a simple matter of asking
someone what will happen. She's invested hours in playing a game wrong. I
think it's fascinating, and more educational than playing it right (whch she
and the boys have all done already, more than once).
Sandra
Jessica Kelly
I think debating is very positive, but I'm not convinced that some of the
responses here have to do more with defensive justification than the simple
presentation of facts and opinions. Of course I'm new to the list, and I'm
perhaps overly sensitive. Also, per your paraphrase, I do see why that content
would raise unschooling hackles, as there's little about unschooling that should
condone limits or controls. And yes, of course "respect" doesn't mean
"agreement," but I do find the use of so many modifiers (ugly, beautiful,
wonderful, awful, etc, etc) to be judgemental and less than respectful to
others' views, and that's really all I was trying to point out.
Pam Hartley wrote:
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
responses here have to do more with defensive justification than the simple
presentation of facts and opinions. Of course I'm new to the list, and I'm
perhaps overly sensitive. Also, per your paraphrase, I do see why that content
would raise unschooling hackles, as there's little about unschooling that should
condone limits or controls. And yes, of course "respect" doesn't mean
"agreement," but I do find the use of so many modifiers (ugly, beautiful,
wonderful, awful, etc, etc) to be judgemental and less than respectful to
others' views, and that's really all I was trying to point out.
Pam Hartley wrote:
> ------------
>
> There's a context issue here. The first poster on this thread wrote
> (paraphrasing) that she wanted to talk about TV and limiting or not and
> unschooling and that her son would watch TV all the time, never quitting,
> unless she controlled it.
>
> When people argue with that, it's not the same thing as calmly declining a
> ham sandwich in my kitchen. It's asking for opinion, and opinion gets
> debated. This is not an unhealthy dynamic.
>
> ----------
> Also, I'd like to repeat someone else's comment regarding the AAP -- a
> pretty
> conservative group -- which can provide references and resources regarding
> the
> negative effects of TV viewing on little minds. I believe they also suggest
> that
> TV can be too stimulating or distracting for "spirited" kids. Therefore,
> given
> that advice, please don't treat those of us who avoid the tube as luddites
> who are
> trying to shelter our kids from "beautiful" entertainment. We've just found
> better things to do -- "better" in terms of OUR families -- just our
> families --
> not necessariliy YOUR families. So let's not be like the toxic MIL
> mentioned
> throughout these posts. Let's respect each others' choices.
> ----------
>
> I have no power to make you change your mind or lifestyle. I can give you my
> opinion and that's it. I promise I will respect your choices by NOT mailing
> you a television. Other than that, this is a discussion list and discussions
> sometimes involve disagreement. It is not personal -- most of the time I'm
> hopelessly lost on who-posted-what by the time I'm four posts in.
>
> Respect doesn't mean we all have to just agree to disagree the second a
> controversial topic comes up.
>
> Pam
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jessica Kelly
Here's the link to the AAP statements regarding Children, Adolescents,
and Television (RE0043):
--> http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html
--
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
and Television (RE0043):
--> http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html
--
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 3:47:38 PM, wordup@... writes:
<< I think we
can learn from these posts to communicate less defensively. In fact, I
wonder if
the judgemental adjective "ugly" had not been used, if this whole flood of
pro-tv-justification would have been avoided? I certainly hope so... >>
Not if someone was comparing TV to alcoholism or chain smoking, no.
Not if someone compared not having a TV to being a vegetarian for health
reasons.
The argument doesn't hold. The analogy isn't valid.
In any debate situation, analogies have to work and points need to be
defensible.
Sandra
<< I think we
can learn from these posts to communicate less defensively. In fact, I
wonder if
the judgemental adjective "ugly" had not been used, if this whole flood of
pro-tv-justification would have been avoided? I certainly hope so... >>
Not if someone was comparing TV to alcoholism or chain smoking, no.
Not if someone compared not having a TV to being a vegetarian for health
reasons.
The argument doesn't hold. The analogy isn't valid.
In any debate situation, analogies have to work and points need to be
defensible.
Sandra
Jessica Kelly
Perhaps the analogy doesn't hold for you. For me, I find anything that
promotes passive, sedentary behavior a health risk, especially considering the
amount of heart disease in the U.S. and the geometric increase of morbid
obesity in children over the past couple of decades. We have a great amount
of heart disease in our family, and therefore, for us, we do perceive the
choice to avoid television a health issue. Again, this is a personal issue.
For some people drinking does not lead to alcoholism, and for some people
tv-viewing doesn't lead to less than optimal physical health, and for some,
smoking is not an addictive habit, but that doesn't mean that we as
individuals and families shouldn't do what we feel is best for the health of
our families. If that includes avoiding the TV, something that would be
approved of by the majority of pediatricians (and most alternative healers,
I'd think), why is that so surprising to some of us?
SandraDodd@... wrote:
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
promotes passive, sedentary behavior a health risk, especially considering the
amount of heart disease in the U.S. and the geometric increase of morbid
obesity in children over the past couple of decades. We have a great amount
of heart disease in our family, and therefore, for us, we do perceive the
choice to avoid television a health issue. Again, this is a personal issue.
For some people drinking does not lead to alcoholism, and for some people
tv-viewing doesn't lead to less than optimal physical health, and for some,
smoking is not an addictive habit, but that doesn't mean that we as
individuals and families shouldn't do what we feel is best for the health of
our families. If that includes avoiding the TV, something that would be
approved of by the majority of pediatricians (and most alternative healers,
I'd think), why is that so surprising to some of us?
SandraDodd@... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/28/02 3:47:38 PM, wordup@... writes:--
>
> << I think we
> can learn from these posts to communicate less defensively. In fact, I
> wonder if
> the judgemental adjective "ugly" had not been used, if this whole flood of
> pro-tv-justification would have been avoided? I certainly hope so... >>
>
> Not if someone was comparing TV to alcoholism or chain smoking, no.
>
> Not if someone compared not having a TV to being a vegetarian for health
> reasons.
>
> The argument doesn't hold. The analogy isn't valid.
>
> In any debate situation, analogies have to work and points need to be
> defensible.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 5:47:52 PM, wordup@... writes:
<< Now I see the same kind of defensive
responses regarding the justification of tv viewing, which some of us may
find to
be, like drinking or meat-eating, not the healthiest choice available. >>
eh. I drink socially, eat meat, don't smoke, and don't go to church.
I responded to the "tell me something of value you get from it" post. I
really don't care if someone in particular doesn't watch tv, doesn't read
Discover, doesn't believe in Santa Claus, or prefers milk chocolate to dark.
To each her or his own.
I also don't feel the need to justify my choice. Just sharing what I found
of value in it.
Okay - I lied about the dark chocolate part. I will never understand anyone
who doesn't adore it over the light variety.
Sharon
<< Now I see the same kind of defensive
responses regarding the justification of tv viewing, which some of us may
find to
be, like drinking or meat-eating, not the healthiest choice available. >>
eh. I drink socially, eat meat, don't smoke, and don't go to church.
I responded to the "tell me something of value you get from it" post. I
really don't care if someone in particular doesn't watch tv, doesn't read
Discover, doesn't believe in Santa Claus, or prefers milk chocolate to dark.
To each her or his own.
I also don't feel the need to justify my choice. Just sharing what I found
of value in it.
Okay - I lied about the dark chocolate part. I will never understand anyone
who doesn't adore it over the light variety.
Sharon
[email protected]
<< I think debating is very positive, but I'm not convinced that some of the
responses here have to do more with defensive justification than the simple
presentation of facts and opinions. >>
"Defensive justification" is what you're calling experienced unschooling
families sharing their actual experiences, rather than their theoretical
constructs.
<<Of course I'm new to the list...>>
And new to unschooling, maybe. I think several of the people on the list are
new to unschooling. I don't want to try to say "only people who've
unschooled for a year or more..." or "only those with kids over the age of
five should post," but those with less experience should probably do more
reading and less writing at first, at least.
Sandra
responses here have to do more with defensive justification than the simple
presentation of facts and opinions. >>
"Defensive justification" is what you're calling experienced unschooling
families sharing their actual experiences, rather than their theoretical
constructs.
<<Of course I'm new to the list...>>
And new to unschooling, maybe. I think several of the people on the list are
new to unschooling. I don't want to try to say "only people who've
unschooled for a year or more..." or "only those with kids over the age of
five should post," but those with less experience should probably do more
reading and less writing at first, at least.
Sandra
Ariadna Solovyova
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Jessica Kelly wrote:
give a link, you're supposed to give a full quote. (Who made up that rule,
by the way? I never heard of it on other lists.)
So, I'm quietly disappearing. Too many arbitrary rules on this list, for
my taste; and one person (Sandra) seems to decide which topics are fit
for discussion. She says transferring values to your children is not a
good topic for unschoolers to discuss. All 150 people on the list seem to
agree. Who am I to argue?
Oh, and I do apologize for all those words like "ugly" and "beautiful".
They'll probably soon be banned from the English language and replaced by
"visually challenged" and "perceptorily advantaged". Good Russian doesn't
have that problem yet.
I and other non-tv-ers might have been too judgmental, but pro-tv-ers,
mainly Sandra, made a lot more ad hominem attacks (also known as personal
insults). Whoever wants to, can go through those posts and count them. I
have not insulted anyone's logic a single time (altho I did wonder about
it a little).
No hard feelings, though. Really. Just mild sadness.
Cheers!
Ari
> Here's the link to the AAP statements regarding Children, Adolescents,Uh oh, Sandra is going to discipline you. You're not supposed to just
> and Television (RE0043):
>
> --> http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html
> --
> Jessica Kelly
give a link, you're supposed to give a full quote. (Who made up that rule,
by the way? I never heard of it on other lists.)
So, I'm quietly disappearing. Too many arbitrary rules on this list, for
my taste; and one person (Sandra) seems to decide which topics are fit
for discussion. She says transferring values to your children is not a
good topic for unschoolers to discuss. All 150 people on the list seem to
agree. Who am I to argue?
Oh, and I do apologize for all those words like "ugly" and "beautiful".
They'll probably soon be banned from the English language and replaced by
"visually challenged" and "perceptorily advantaged". Good Russian doesn't
have that problem yet.
I and other non-tv-ers might have been too judgmental, but pro-tv-ers,
mainly Sandra, made a lot more ad hominem attacks (also known as personal
insults). Whoever wants to, can go through those posts and count them. I
have not insulted anyone's logic a single time (altho I did wonder about
it a little).
No hard feelings, though. Really. Just mild sadness.
Cheers!
Ari
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 4:26:43 PM, wordup@... writes:
<< Here's the link to the AAP statements regarding Children, Adolescents,
and Television (RE0043):
--> http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html >>
Scanning the several pages, i found this:
<<Discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years, and
encourage more interactive activities that will promote proper brain
development, such as talking, playing, singing, and reading together.>>
There is not a person here who has not said that give a choice kids will want
to be doing something up and out, interacting with people, riding ponies,
going somewhere.
That statement does not say forbid. It says find something better.
Sandra
<< Here's the link to the AAP statements regarding Children, Adolescents,
and Television (RE0043):
--> http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html >>
Scanning the several pages, i found this:
<<Discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years, and
encourage more interactive activities that will promote proper brain
development, such as talking, playing, singing, and reading together.>>
There is not a person here who has not said that give a choice kids will want
to be doing something up and out, interacting with people, riding ponies,
going somewhere.
That statement does not say forbid. It says find something better.
Sandra
Pam Hartley
Including reading? Making bead bracelets? Drawing? Conversation?
Do you require your children to be in motion all the time so as not to
promote passive, sedentary behavior?
Television does not necessarily lead to fat unhealthy kids. Mine, for
example, are neither.
Pam
----------
From: Jessica Kelly <wordup@...>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] TV
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002, 3:30 PM
Perhaps the analogy doesn't hold for you. For me, I find anything that
promotes passive, sedentary behavior a health risk
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Do you require your children to be in motion all the time so as not to
promote passive, sedentary behavior?
Television does not necessarily lead to fat unhealthy kids. Mine, for
example, are neither.
Pam
----------
From: Jessica Kelly <wordup@...>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] TV
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002, 3:30 PM
Perhaps the analogy doesn't hold for you. For me, I find anything that
promotes passive, sedentary behavior a health risk
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 4:41:00 PM, sharonve@... writes:
<< I also don't feel the need to justify my choice. Just sharing what I
found
of value in it. >>
But by sharing what you found of value in it, you did justify it.
<<Okay - I lied about the dark chocolate part. I will never understand
anyone
who doesn't adore it over the light variety.>>
I don't mind, though, because then I have someone to give milk chocolate away
to and there's more of the good stuff for me.
Sandra
<< I also don't feel the need to justify my choice. Just sharing what I
found
of value in it. >>
But by sharing what you found of value in it, you did justify it.
<<Okay - I lied about the dark chocolate part. I will never understand
anyone
who doesn't adore it over the light variety.>>
I don't mind, though, because then I have someone to give milk chocolate away
to and there's more of the good stuff for me.
Sandra
Nancy Wooton
on 1/28/02 3:40 PM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:
(although she is on my San Diego one). Check out
http://joyfulhnds.tripod.com/joyfulhandsunschoolingsite/id1.html
I find the juxtaposition of unschooling with the anti-TV article amusing:
the arguments against TV are all based on school performance. I couldn't
read the vegan stuff, since I'd just fed my kids turkey dogs and was eating
a chicken sandwich; that much irony gives me tummyache.
Nancy (enjoying the joust <g>)
> And new to unschooling, maybe. I think several of the people on the list areSandra, I'm sending this offlist because the site owner isn't on your list
> new to unschooling. I don't want to try to say "only people who've
> unschooled for a year or more..." or "only those with kids over the age of
> five should post," but those with less experience should probably do more
> reading and less writing at first, at least.
>
> Sandra
(although she is on my San Diego one). Check out
http://joyfulhnds.tripod.com/joyfulhandsunschoolingsite/id1.html
I find the juxtaposition of unschooling with the anti-TV article amusing:
the arguments against TV are all based on school performance. I couldn't
read the vegan stuff, since I'd just fed my kids turkey dogs and was eating
a chicken sandwich; that much irony gives me tummyache.
Nancy (enjoying the joust <g>)
Nancy Wooton
on 1/28/02 3:51 PM, Nancy Wooton at Felicitas@... wrote:
I haven't done that in years!
Nancy
> Sandra, I'm sending this offlistoops.
I haven't done that in years!
Nancy
Pam Hartley
----------
Uh oh, Sandra is going to discipline you. You're not supposed to just
give a link, you're supposed to give a full quote. (Who made up that rule,
by the way? I never heard of it on other lists.)
----------
It wasn't presented as a rule, it was presented as a request for a full
quote.
----------
So, I'm quietly disappearing. Too many arbitrary rules on this list, for
my taste; and one person (Sandra) seems to decide which topics are fit
for discussion. She says transferring values to your children is not a
good topic for unschoolers to discuss. All 150 people on the list seem to
agree. Who am I to argue?
----------
Er, you'll have to make up your mind: if Sandra decides which topics are fit
for discussion, it doesn't matter whether all 150 people on the list agree.
Since she doesn't decide this (and as a moderator of the list I'd have been
informed if she had decided it, so I could start deleting posts that were
off-topic) your supposition is inaccurate.
__________
I and other non-tv-ers might have been too judgmental, but pro-tv-ers,
mainly Sandra, made a lot more ad hominem attacks (also known as personal
insults). Whoever wants to, can go through those posts and count them. I
have not insulted anyone's logic a single time (altho I did wonder about
it a little).
__________
I didn't see Sandra call anyone a big boogerhead, and since it IS part of my
job to notice that, I hope someone will point to the post where she did it.
Arguing that you're being illogical in an example or a post doesn't equal an
insult, it equals a debate, a discussion, an exchange of views. It's very
easy to avoid having your feelings hurt in debate: don't debate. It takes
two at least, so if you shrug, say "I don't want to debate" and then don't,
and go comfortably on believing what you believe, it's no big deal.
Also, I do have to say that starting to accuse specific people of attacking
IS an attack, and attacks aren't tolerated on this list. So please don't.
Argument of ideas is fine, saying that Sandra or anyone else is personally
insulting you, or making rules for the list that she's not, or dragging 150
unwilling pawns with her, is not playing nice.
If you replace Sandra's name with your own name in the parts you wrote
above, and imagine someone else had sent it out publicly with your name
instead of hers throughout, you'll understand clearly what I mean by
attacking people. Not acceptable.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Uh oh, Sandra is going to discipline you. You're not supposed to just
give a link, you're supposed to give a full quote. (Who made up that rule,
by the way? I never heard of it on other lists.)
----------
It wasn't presented as a rule, it was presented as a request for a full
quote.
----------
So, I'm quietly disappearing. Too many arbitrary rules on this list, for
my taste; and one person (Sandra) seems to decide which topics are fit
for discussion. She says transferring values to your children is not a
good topic for unschoolers to discuss. All 150 people on the list seem to
agree. Who am I to argue?
----------
Er, you'll have to make up your mind: if Sandra decides which topics are fit
for discussion, it doesn't matter whether all 150 people on the list agree.
Since she doesn't decide this (and as a moderator of the list I'd have been
informed if she had decided it, so I could start deleting posts that were
off-topic) your supposition is inaccurate.
__________
I and other non-tv-ers might have been too judgmental, but pro-tv-ers,
mainly Sandra, made a lot more ad hominem attacks (also known as personal
insults). Whoever wants to, can go through those posts and count them. I
have not insulted anyone's logic a single time (altho I did wonder about
it a little).
__________
I didn't see Sandra call anyone a big boogerhead, and since it IS part of my
job to notice that, I hope someone will point to the post where she did it.
Arguing that you're being illogical in an example or a post doesn't equal an
insult, it equals a debate, a discussion, an exchange of views. It's very
easy to avoid having your feelings hurt in debate: don't debate. It takes
two at least, so if you shrug, say "I don't want to debate" and then don't,
and go comfortably on believing what you believe, it's no big deal.
Also, I do have to say that starting to accuse specific people of attacking
IS an attack, and attacks aren't tolerated on this list. So please don't.
Argument of ideas is fine, saying that Sandra or anyone else is personally
insulting you, or making rules for the list that she's not, or dragging 150
unwilling pawns with her, is not playing nice.
If you replace Sandra's name with your own name in the parts you wrote
above, and imagine someone else had sent it out publicly with your name
instead of hers throughout, you'll understand clearly what I mean by
attacking people. Not acceptable.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]