tv
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: S Drag-teine <dragteine@...>
I think unlimited television has its pros and cons - I wouldn't want my son
(five and half) to be able to choose to watch whatever he wanted. We are
limited because we have broadcast and we watch a lot of movies and PBS. He
is allowed to choose but within reason.
-=-=-=-
Why? What do you think he would choose if allowed to choose whatever he wanted?
Porn?
War movies?
Soap operas?
Boxing?
At five and a half?
At five, my son, who has cable in his room, chose Nick, the Disney channel, Cartoon Network, PBS,
and Animal Planet. At almost ten, those are still the things he watches.
My almost 18 year old (on Monday!) son also has free rein on his programming. He removed the TV from
his room about a year ago. He watches an occasional movie with us, loves to play Scene It, and TiVos
My Name is Earl and That 70s Show to watch when it's convenient.
They may watch anything they want. And that's what they choose.
~Kelly Kelly LovejoyConference CoordinatorLive and Learn Unschooling Conferencehttp://liveandlearnconference.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: S Drag-teine <dragteine@...>
I think unlimited television has its pros and cons - I wouldn't want my son
(five and half) to be able to choose to watch whatever he wanted. We are
limited because we have broadcast and we watch a lot of movies and PBS. He
is allowed to choose but within reason.
-=-=-=-
Why? What do you think he would choose if allowed to choose whatever he wanted?
Porn?
War movies?
Soap operas?
Boxing?
At five and a half?
At five, my son, who has cable in his room, chose Nick, the Disney channel, Cartoon Network, PBS,
and Animal Planet. At almost ten, those are still the things he watches.
My almost 18 year old (on Monday!) son also has free rein on his programming. He removed the TV from
his room about a year ago. He watches an occasional movie with us, loves to play Scene It, and TiVos
My Name is Earl and That 70s Show to watch when it's convenient.
They may watch anything they want. And that's what they choose.
~Kelly Kelly LovejoyConference CoordinatorLive and Learn Unschooling Conferencehttp://liveandlearnconference.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sylvia Toyama
Why? What do you think he would choose if allowed to choose whatever he wanted?
Porn?
War movies?
Soap operas?
Boxing?
****
Kelly -- you give the perfect answer to that question!
Recently, a friend of Andy's asked me if Andy is allowed to watch R movies (K is waldorf-homeschooled and has told Andy it's stupid to get an allowance without chorelists, but still asks me questions when his Mom isn't right close by). I answered that Andy has never asked to watch an R movie but if he did, we'd watch it if he wanted to. K didn't know what to say next. Hmm, wonder where a kid who isn't allowed to watch TV even learned about R movies?
The whole TV limit thing just seems odd now, but I remember not allowing the Simpsons once upon a time ago. My, how things change!
Sylvia
---------------------------------
What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Porn?
War movies?
Soap operas?
Boxing?
****
Kelly -- you give the perfect answer to that question!
Recently, a friend of Andy's asked me if Andy is allowed to watch R movies (K is waldorf-homeschooled and has told Andy it's stupid to get an allowance without chorelists, but still asks me questions when his Mom isn't right close by). I answered that Andy has never asked to watch an R movie but if he did, we'd watch it if he wanted to. K didn't know what to say next. Hmm, wonder where a kid who isn't allowed to watch TV even learned about R movies?
The whole TV limit thing just seems odd now, but I remember not allowing the Simpsons once upon a time ago. My, how things change!
Sylvia
---------------------------------
What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
DJ250
I have a traditionally-homeschooling friend who asked "But, tv hasn't been around that long, we don't know it's long-term effects. How can you treat it as just another resource when it's so addictive, could cause problems we don't know about yet, etc.?" She also pointed out humans learned just fine without it for thousands of years and that it seems unnatural to sit in front of a screen (computer or tv) for long periods.
Comments?
~Melissa, in MD :)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Comments?
~Melissa, in MD :)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
mmsre76
--- In [email protected], "DJ250" <dj250@...> wrote:
>It seems to me that from the historical reading I have done that reading books used to be considered a leisure activity and waste of time. Books were considered a luxury and treat. Learning on the job was the norm unless you were upper class. Now society considers books an indispensable part of learning. As for unnatural-how are schooling, books, processed food, houses, cars, clothes etc., natural? Yet most people don't worry about the long term effects of polyester on our bodies. We don't live in a "natural" society. I think it is human nature, however, to invent, try new things, entertain ourselves. I think of TV as the modern day version of people telling stories around a campfire.
> I have a traditionally-homeschooling friend who asked "But, tv hasn't been around that long, we don't know it's long-term effects. How can you treat it as just another resource when it's so addictive, could cause problems we don't know about yet, etc.?" She also pointed out humans learned just fine without it for thousands of years and that it seems unnatural to sit in front of a screen (computer or tv) for long periods.
>
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
Human beings have been on earth for a long time. Books are pretty new things too compare to how long we exist.
How do you know books will not cause problems?
It can be so addictive!
There were times in the past were books were considered bad and even banned and burned.
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
How do you know books will not cause problems?
It can be so addictive!
There were times in the past were books were considered bad and even banned and burned.
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jeff Sabo
Absolutely true, people learned for thousands of years without TV and the world has become an amazing place. And we do not know the dangers of excessive TV watching, either - of course, nor do we know the long-term dangers of anything, really.
But that's not the issue - we could spend all day arguing about whether TV is good or bad, harmful or helpful. The real question is whether or not we, as unschooling parents, should arbitrarily use our own values and fears about things top judge what is right for our children, or should we instead focus our efforts on helping them listen to their bodies and hearts so that they can make their own decisions? We can assume that TV is harmful; we can assume that they can learn without it; and we can control what they watch or how much they watch. But what is the result? A child who grows up viewing the world through our eyes, instead of having the freedom to develop their own view of the world. If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten - so if we pass down our judgments about what our kids should and shouldn't do, they'll likely grow up believing whatever they hear, and we will end up with a generation very much like our own.
Maybe that's a good thing, but I want more for my kids - I want them to see the world for the possibilities and potential it has, which means they need the tools to develop their own judgment and belief systems. So if they want to stay up all night watching Family Guy, let 'em do it - because that will help them decide for themselves what is good and bad, too much or too little.
But that's not the issue - we could spend all day arguing about whether TV is good or bad, harmful or helpful. The real question is whether or not we, as unschooling parents, should arbitrarily use our own values and fears about things top judge what is right for our children, or should we instead focus our efforts on helping them listen to their bodies and hearts so that they can make their own decisions? We can assume that TV is harmful; we can assume that they can learn without it; and we can control what they watch or how much they watch. But what is the result? A child who grows up viewing the world through our eyes, instead of having the freedom to develop their own view of the world. If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten - so if we pass down our judgments about what our kids should and shouldn't do, they'll likely grow up believing whatever they hear, and we will end up with a generation very much like our own.
Maybe that's a good thing, but I want more for my kids - I want them to see the world for the possibilities and potential it has, which means they need the tools to develop their own judgment and belief systems. So if they want to stay up all night watching Family Guy, let 'em do it - because that will help them decide for themselves what is good and bad, too much or too little.
--- On Wed, 5/13/09, DJ250 <dj250@...> wrote:
From: DJ250 <dj250@...>
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] tv
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 6:39 AM
I have a traditionally- homeschooling friend who asked "But, tv hasn't been around that long, we don't know it's long-term effects. How can you treat it as just another resource when it's so addictive, could cause problems we don't know about yet, etc.?" She also pointed out humans learned just fine without it for thousands of years and that it seems unnatural to sit in front of a screen (computer or tv) for long periods.
Comments?
~Melissa, in MD :)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
--- In [email protected], "DJ250" <dj250@...> wrote:
Here's my recent post on tv issues: http://radicalunschooling.blogspot.com/2009/04/turn-off-tv-week.html
Ren
radicalunschooling.blogspot.com
>How "natural" is it for you to be using a computer for communicating to a list of over 2,000 people who live all over the world? ;)
> I have a traditionally-homeschooling friend who asked "But, tv hasn't been around that long, we don't know it's long-term effects. How can you treat it as just another resource when it's so addictive, could cause problems we don't know about yet, etc.?" She also pointed out humans learned just fine without it for thousands of years and that it seems unnatural to sit in front of a screen (computer or tv) for long periods.
Here's my recent post on tv issues: http://radicalunschooling.blogspot.com/2009/04/turn-off-tv-week.html
Ren
radicalunschooling.blogspot.com
Robin Bentley
And humans learned just fine until someone invented the wheel.
Discovered fire. Made marks on a cave. Tamed animals. Made paper from
papyrus. Invented gunpowder. Invented the printing press. Invented the
car. Invented the telephone. Designed and flew an airplane. Discovered
penicillin. And on and on.
I expect there were objections to all these things and more, when they
were introduced. Imagine cave dwellers saying to their children "No,
you mustn't look at those scratchings on the cave wall. Stay away from
it. You must only listen to oral storytelling. People will stop
telling stories if we all scratch pictures on the walls. It's
unnatural. We don't know what the future consequences of wall-writing
will be, but they say that stuff will rot your brain!" And on and on.
Maybe she'd like to learn about the Luddites. She can watch a Dr. Who
episode on (gasp) TV or read a bit about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
She could read Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You. Or go
to Marc Prensky's site about the digital age: http://www.marcprensky.com/
Or read research about addiction that Schuyler posted over on
AlwaysLearning http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.12-health-rat-trap/
She could move back into a cave with all the comforts cave-dwelling
can offer and see how humans learned just fine thousands of years ago
(wouldn't that be an interesting unit study? <g>).
Ooh, that was fun!
Robin B.
Discovered fire. Made marks on a cave. Tamed animals. Made paper from
papyrus. Invented gunpowder. Invented the printing press. Invented the
car. Invented the telephone. Designed and flew an airplane. Discovered
penicillin. And on and on.
I expect there were objections to all these things and more, when they
were introduced. Imagine cave dwellers saying to their children "No,
you mustn't look at those scratchings on the cave wall. Stay away from
it. You must only listen to oral storytelling. People will stop
telling stories if we all scratch pictures on the walls. It's
unnatural. We don't know what the future consequences of wall-writing
will be, but they say that stuff will rot your brain!" And on and on.
Maybe she'd like to learn about the Luddites. She can watch a Dr. Who
episode on (gasp) TV or read a bit about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
She could read Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You. Or go
to Marc Prensky's site about the digital age: http://www.marcprensky.com/
Or read research about addiction that Schuyler posted over on
AlwaysLearning http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.12-health-rat-trap/
She could move back into a cave with all the comforts cave-dwelling
can offer and see how humans learned just fine thousands of years ago
(wouldn't that be an interesting unit study? <g>).
Ooh, that was fun!
Robin B.
On May 13, 2009, at 6:39 AM, DJ250 wrote:
> I have a traditionally-homeschooling friend who asked "But, tv
> hasn't been around that long, we don't know it's long-term effects.
> How can you treat it as just another resource when it's so
> addictive, could cause problems we don't know about yet, etc.?" She
> also pointed out humans learned just fine without it for thousands
> of years and that it seems unnatural to sit in front of a screen
> (computer or tv) for long periods.
>
> Comments?
>
> ~Melissa, in MD :)
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
N CONFER
"But, tv hasn't been around that long, we don't know it's long-term effects. How can you treat it as just another resource when it's so addictive, could cause problems we don't know about yet, etc.?"
So her theory is that there are problems that we don't know about yet but we should go ahead and be afraid? :)
Not here. We have TVs in every room. No deviant behavior noticed. Yet! :)
Nance
So her theory is that there are problems that we don't know about yet but we should go ahead and be afraid? :)
Not here. We have TVs in every room. No deviant behavior noticed. Yet! :)
Nance
[email protected]
In a message dated 14/05/2009 11:12:56 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Maybe she'd like to learn about the Luddites. She can watch a Dr. Who
episode on (gasp) TV or read a bit about it here:
_http://en.wikipediahttp://en.http://_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)
A word in favour of the original Luddites - a lot of historians (such as
Eric Hobsbawm, and EP Thompson) believe they wrecked machines not because
they were afraid of progress in any abstract "we don't know what the
ramifications will be" kind of way, but because they could see concrete problems in
their immediate futures - that the machines would take their jobs. They
weren't guessing about this - it was obvious. And they were right: by and
large the machines replaced their craft skills. Which means they were
probably far more rational in their ideas and actions than those who see TV as
dangerous.
Jude x
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected] writes:
Maybe she'd like to learn about the Luddites. She can watch a Dr. Who
episode on (gasp) TV or read a bit about it here:
_http://en.wikipediahttp://en.http://_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)
A word in favour of the original Luddites - a lot of historians (such as
Eric Hobsbawm, and EP Thompson) believe they wrecked machines not because
they were afraid of progress in any abstract "we don't know what the
ramifications will be" kind of way, but because they could see concrete problems in
their immediate futures - that the machines would take their jobs. They
weren't guessing about this - it was obvious. And they were right: by and
large the machines replaced their craft skills. Which means they were
probably far more rational in their ideas and actions than those who see TV as
dangerous.
Jude x
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
> A word in favour of the original Luddites - a lot of historiansYes, that's true. The word Luddite gets used to describe irrational
> (such as
> Eric Hobsbawm, and EP Thompson) believe they wrecked machines not
> because
> they were afraid of progress in any abstract "we don't know what the
> ramifications will be" kind of way, but because they could see
> concrete problems in
> their immediate futures - that the machines would take their jobs.
> They
> weren't guessing about this - it was obvious. And they were right:
> by and
> large the machines replaced their craft skills. Which means they were
> probably far more rational in their ideas and actions than those
> who see TV as
> dangerous.
fear of progress sometimes. I was thinking she might like to compare
the two: the rational vs. the irrational.
Or maybe not <g>.
Robin B.
Schuyler
Well, if you want to go with natural, you should up the number of children you have and the number who die. For 1000s of years we've had a child mortality rate that, while fluctuating, probably tends to hover at around 50% dying before 5 years old. Humans clearly haven't lived so long ever before now, so how can we possibly cope with such a thing? We were fine with that intense grief that we suffered every time a child died. All these measures that keep us living longer are harmful and addictive and could cause us problems that we don't know about yet.
It is a ludicrous argument.
Schuyler
________________________________
It is a ludicrous argument.
Schuyler
________________________________
--- In [email protected], "DJ250" <dj250@...> wrote:
>
> I have a traditionally-homeschooling friend who asked "But, tv hasn't been around that long, we don't know it's long-term effects. How can you treat it as just another resource when it's so addictive, could cause problems we don't know about yet, etc.?" She also pointed out humans learned just fine without it for thousands of years and that it seems unnatural to sit in front of a screen (computer or tv) for long periods.
--------
How "natural" is it for you to be using a computer for communicating to a list of over 2,000 people who live all over the world? ;)
Here's my recent post on tv issues: http://radicalunschooling.blogspot.com/2009/04/turn-off-tv-week.html
Ren
radicalunschooling.blogspot.com
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]