Television is Bad For You

@Vasska,

Just one thing to add --

The RMS Lusitania was a BRITISH ship. It was NOT an American ship.

It was NOT sent to German waters -- it was sunk off the coast of Ireland.

While you're absolutely right that its sinking was used politically (after all only 148 of its 1198 dead were American), it was NOT deliberately sent as a pawn to draw an attack from Germany.

It was a civilian passenger ship. But Germany presumed (probably accurately) that it was carrying military material, and that's why it was targeted.

But this was hardly the straw that broke the camel's back. The Lusitania didn't lead to the US entering WWI any more than the 'Boston Massacre' led to the American Revolution. Read about the Zimmerman telegram -- that was what really did it in the end.

But as you know many major movements and events in history begin with people's attitudes being changed by something. The Boston Massacre changed a lot of attitudes towards the British (with the help of propagandists like Sam Adams). The sinking of the Lusitania changed a lot of attitudes towards Germany (with the help of Wilson and others). And 9/11 was a much bigger event than the 148 American dead on the Lusitania or the 5 or 10 dead in the Boston massacre. Even if there had been no propagandizing of 9/11 at all, it would STILL be the major event in America in the last generation.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Just one thing to add --
The RMS Lusitania was a BRITISH ship. It was NOT an American ship.

True, however it was on it's journey home from America to Europe, Carrying as you said at least 148 American passengers. I however find it strange that the fact that a fellow countrymen dies, people always have to make a show of it. If Germany sunk a Dutch ship I would find it disturbing but would not get polarized by the fact that Dutch people were on the ship, many people however do this strangely enough.

Quote:

It was NOT sent to German waters -- it was sunk off the coast of Ireland.

It was wartime, German-American people had put out a warning that the ship was liable for destruction, which you can see here. It's the same thing of organizing tourist tours in Baghdad during the American Invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

While you're absolutely right that its sinking was used politically (after all only 148 of its 1198 dead were American), it was NOT deliberately sent as a pawn to draw an attack from Germany.

War is profitable for many people, the Iraqi war proved my point recently.
The destruction of the RMS Lusitania polarized America against Germany while it could be seen as collateral damage. I wont be sorry for a group of people who voluntarily went into the war zone. It was send into a warzone and without any form of protest, thus deliberately given up for destruction. If i were to organize the tourist tours in Baghdad during the American Invasion of Iraq i would be stopped immediately.

Quote:

It was a civilian passenger ship. But Germany presumed (probably accurately) that it was carrying military material, and that's why it was targeted.

The Lusitania was carrying ammunition, and it was right for Germany, in war times, to investigate and/or destroy the ship. America would not have done otherwise.

Quote:

But this was hardly the straw that broke the camel's back. The Lusitania didn't lead to the US entering WWI any more than the 'Boston Massacre' led to the American Revolution. Read about the Zimmerman telegram -- that was what really did it in the end.

It did polarize America, and made the probability of going into war greater. Maybe the Zimmerman telegram was the final straw, but only because of everything that happened before, including, but not limited to the Lusitania. Something like a telegram would not cause war. I however will look into it. Besides there is still controversy about the Lusitania.

Quote:

But as you know many major movements and events in history begin with people's attitudes being changed by something. The Boston Massacre changed a lot of attitudes towards the British (with the help of propagandists like Sam Adams). The sinking of the Lusitania changed a lot of attitudes towards Germany (with the help of Wilson and others). And 9/11 was a much bigger event than the 148 American dead on the Lusitania or the 5 or 10 dead in the Boston massacre. Even if there had been no propagandizing of 9/11 at all, it would STILL be the major event in America in the last generation.

I'm not stating 9/11 has not been an major event, for it is the first real attack from other countries, or terrorist groups in recent history on American soil. I however find 9/11 to be overused as propaganda and used to push fear upon the American people, as well to polarize America to go to war.

2 Replies

@Vasska,

Quote:

Something like a telegram would not cause war.

Unless that telegram is one from Germany trying to convince Mexico to invade the US, so that Mexico could reclaim lands lost in the Mexican-American War.

0 Replies

@Vasska,

Vasska,

With all due respect you tried to make a point using historical facts that you were grossly wrong about, and now that these errors have been pointed out you're still awkwardly trying to find a way to fit your point onto the actual facts. I don't want to dwell on details, but I find your understanding of the historical events to be insufficient to justify the conclusions you draw from them.

At any rate, it's irrelevant whether Germany thought it was justified in sinking the Lusitania -- after all, the American and British blockades of Germany's ports were bar none the deciding factor in the outcome of WWI, so there's nothing particularly surprising about the sinking of the Lusitania -- except that it was a passenger boat. Then again Germany even in WWI showed little regard for civilian lives.

The Lusitania is the exact historical equivalent in WWI that Harpers Ferry was before the Civil War, and that the Boston Massacre was before the American Revolution. If you're not familiar with these events in American History you should read about them. These were all events that were seminal in that attitudes became galvanized towards hostility as a result. These events were used for propaganda, but in the end were merely part of a chain in the mass movement of human attitudes that eventually led to war -- and wars that absolutely would have happened anyway in all three cases. If it hadn't been these events, it would have been something else.

No, the telegram itself didn't cause the war. But it was nearly as good as a declaration of war by Germany. The US was already helping the British / French / Russian cause by 1917, and for Germany to try to get Mexico to invade Texas was the last straw in a string of events that began with (or probably before) the Lusitania.

As for your quote:

Quote:

I won't be sorry for a group of people who voluntarily went into a war zone.

That's a ridiculous and horrible thing to say. There were 1100 dead British noncombatants on that boat -- and they were going home. Your own country has borne the brunt of enough death among civilian noncombatants that I'd expect more sympathy.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Vasska,

With all due respect you tried to make a point using historical facts that you were grossly wrong about, and now that these errors have been pointed out you're still awkwardly trying to find a way to fit your point onto the actual facts. I don't want to dwell on details, but I find your understanding of the historical events to be insufficient to justify the conclusions you draw from them.

I already acknowledged that my first facts were wrong, however not all of my facts thereafter have been disproved. Anyway we are completely incompatible for we both take a different approach to History, and we can argue about this all the time. You might find me grossly wrong and feel like I'm trying to save my argument, i however do not feel that way, call it ignorance if you want.

Quote:

At any rate, it's irrelevant whether Germany thought it was justified in sinking the Lusitania -- after all, the American and British blockades of Germany's ports were bar none the deciding factor in the outcome of WWI, so there's nothing particularly surprising about the sinking of the Lusitania -- except that it was a passenger boat. Then again Germany even in WWI showed little regard for civilian lives.

Neither do any other countries in war. Stalin killed many people and America has been murdering in Korea, Vietnam and present day Iraq/Afghanistan.

Quote:

The Lusitania is the exact historical equivalent in WWI that Harpers Ferry was before the Civil War, and that the Boston Massacre was before the American Revolution. If you're not familiar with these events in American History you should read about them. These were all events that were seminal in that attitudes became galvanized towards hostility as a result. These events were used for propaganda, but in the end were merely part of a chain in the mass movement of human attitudes that eventually led to war -- and wars that absolutely would have happened anyway in all three cases. If it hadn't been these events, it would have been something else.

As you say, attitudes can be changed quickly and efficiently; war is big business for many (powerful) people and downright wanted by them. I'm not saying every event was masterminded by these people, but if something happened why not take advantage of it.

Quote:

That's a ridiculous and horrible thing to say. There were 1100 dead British noncombatants on that boat -- and they were going home. Your own country has borne the brunt of enough death among civilian noncombatants that I'd expect more sympathy.

Lets face it; I'm the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed you are the one who supports one without. You would not go into a war zone, and European waters in 1917 were war zone, whether these people were innocent or not does not matter. You would not go into Iraq as a citizen because you know it's dangerous.

You should not see me as a coldblooded or mass murderer as Hitler exposed himself since 1941 till his death in April 1945, for i am not.

You should see me as someone who sees violence and murder, as used in the proper form that is needed to achieve the goal, to be helpful at hand to reshape the way things are, human life can be disposed of if needed in this progress if really needed. I do not agree of the way Hitler or Staling handled this killing by selecting religion or race if you were thinking that.
Whether you agree with this would be another discussion, but as I think you would react you would pity me for such a world view and hope I will turn around someday.

2 Replies

@Vasska,

Quote:

Lets face it; I'm the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed you are the one who supports one without. You would not go into a war zone, and European waters in 1917 were war zone, whether these people were innocent or not does not matter. You would not go into Iraq as a citizen because you know it's dangerous.

So damn the fisherman who fished those European waters, and depended on going into that warzone for survival? Who made their living in that war zone long before war came?

0 Replies

@Vasska,

Vasska wrote:

Lets face it; I'm the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed you are the one who supports one without.

How in god's name do you have the first clue what I support?

Furthermore, to blankly say you are "the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed" implies that a bloodless revolution (like for instance the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991) is somehow inferior in principle. Some revolutions are worth the blood that gets spilled, some are not. Just depends what the outcome is. The Maoist revolution in China needlessly killed tens of millions of people.

Quote:

You would not go into a war zone, and European waters in 1917 were war zone,

Dude, the Lusitania sank in 1915, not 1917. Besides, don't overstate the degree of war in the Atlantic during WWI. The hostilities in the North Atlantic in WWI were trivial compared with WWII, where there was a major engagement between German boats and North Atlantic shipping routes, and the Lusitania sank off the coast of Ireland which was never a theater in the war. In WWI there was just a little bit of sniping here and there by U-boats, tactically and strategically meaningless.

Quote:

whether these people were innocent or not does not matter

The Geneva conventions seem to think so. Deliberate targeting of noncombatants is a war crime, and even if it wasn't codified as such in 1915 it was certainly regarded that way.

Quote:

You should not see me as a coldblooded or mass murderer as Hitler exposed himself since 1941 till his death in April 1945, for i am not.

I didn't say you were. Just because you have a view that I find callous and cruel doesn't mean I think you're a genocidaire.

Quote:

You should see me as someone who sees violence and murder, as used in the proper form that is needed to achieve the goal

You must have a strangely proprietary use of the word "murder", then. Almost everyone will buy that violence is sometimes necessary. But murder never is.

Quote:

human life can be disposed of if needed in this progress if really needed

How about your life? Or the life of your loved ones? It's easy for you to place strategic and tactical values on a certain quantum of blank faces -- but can you see yourself or your mother that simply and coldly?

Quote:

but as I think you would react you would pity me for such a world view and hope I will turn around someday.

What I pity is how little empathy you seem to have for the lives of others. Reminds me of a quote by Heinrich Himmler in which he said that he didn't care if 10,000 Russian women fell dead digging a trench for Germany so long as the trench got dug.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes,

Seen your change of tone I really got on your nerves, Sorry about that. About the issue of what you support; I made that observation from our conversations, sorry I'm not such a good judge of character as I hoped.

The topic seems to have changed from why television is bad, to video games, to world war I and II and shifting towards you finding my knowledge of the war and my world view inappropriate and lacking. I must shamefully admit some of my facts were wrong (The last error was a typo for the record), but my general view has not changed, discussing this on the next 20 pages is noting more than a waste of time for both of us, so I'd suggest we'll stop.

About the revolution; I'm not saying every revolution needs to happen and is needed. But those that happen should be done properly, destruction of the former regime is, in my opinion, needed. If this accounts to murder, than it must be this way.

My as you say it "callous and cruel" world view should be explained in greater depth and apart from this discussion. I'm writing an essay on Eugenics & Ethics in which my opinion stands on other grounds and explains my vision not only on a basis of war. This essay however still is being written and i don't know when I feel it should be ready.

1 Reply

@Vasska,

Vasska wrote:

About the revolution; I'm not saying every revolution needs to happen and is needed. But those that happen should be done properly, destruction of the former regime is, in my opinion, needed.

Not always. Remember that reuinification and reconstruction is critical after a revolution. One huge (and acknowledged) mistake the Americans have made in Iraq has been to destroy Saddam's regime and army so completely that the huge Sunni minority in the country has felt completely disenfranchised and marginalized; and the existing military and political infrastructure was destroyed as well, meaning it's had to be built from the ground up.

Some historical revolutions have succeeded without destruction of the former regime, too. The English have managed to create a government out of mini-revolutions that through time have decreased the power of monarchy and increased the power of representative government; that's happened without doing what the French or Russians did with their royal families. In the American Civil War, while the revolutionaries (the Confederate States of America) lost, not even their leaders (like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Robert E. Lee) suffered much more than losing the right to vote. Davis was imprisoned for a short time, but no one was executed, the Confederate soldiers were all repatriated, etc. Reconstruction was hard enough despite this, but if there had been harsh treatment of the south (beyond what already happened in the war) there would probably have been a generation of guerilla warfare, resistance, and perhaps another open civil war.

Quote:

If this accounts to murder, than it must be this way.

I think our problem here is the use of the word 'murder' which in general use doesn't simply mean 'homicide' -- it means unjustified or criminal homicide.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Not always. Remember that reuinification and reconstruction is critical after a revolution. One huge (and acknowledged) mistake the Americans have made in Iraq has been to destroy Saddam's regime and army so completely that the huge Sunni minority in the country has felt completely disenfranchised and marginalized; and the existing military and political infrastructure was destroyed as well, meaning it's had to be built from the ground up.

Ouch, you've got me there. I've said this 2 years ago and somehow forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me of it, and changes my opinion in a somewhat different direction.

Quote:

Some historical revolutions have succeeded without destruction of the former regime, too. The English have managed to create a government out of mini-revolutions that through time have decreased the power of monarchy and increased the power of representative government; that's happened without doing what the French or Russians did with their royal families. In the American Civil War, while the revolutionaries (the Confederate States of America) lost, not even their leaders (like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Robert E. Lee) suffered much more than losing the right to vote. Davis was imprisoned for a short time, but no one was executed, the Confederate soldiers were all repatriated, etc. Reconstruction was hard enough despite this, but if there had been harsh treatment of the south (beyond what already happened in the war) there would probably have been a generation of guerilla warfare, resistance, and perhaps another open civil war.

Saying it like this blows my theory away completely.

Quote:

I think our problem here is the use of the word 'murder' which in general use doesn't simply mean 'homicide' -- it means unjustified or criminal homicide.

Alright, homicide it is. Did know the word, failed to use it.

1 Reply

@Vasska,

Quote:

In the American Civil War, while the revolutionaries (the Confederate States of America) lost, not even their leaders (like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Robert E. Lee) suffered much more than losing the right to vote. Davis was imprisoned for a short time, but no one was executed, the Confederate soldiers were all repatriated, etc. Reconstruction was hard enough despite this, but if there had been harsh treatment of the south (beyond what already happened in the war) there would probably have been a generation of guerilla warfare, resistance, and perhaps another open civil war.

The occupying Union army was notably kind to the conquered southerners. However, that's not to say the southern states were not treated harshly after the war. Carpet baggers, anyone?

Another open civil war was simply not possible. The south lost over 15% of their fighting-age male population. Guerrilla fighting did continue for some time; the KKK was initially one such group.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

USATODAY.com - Frequent TV watching shortens kids' attention spans
USATODAY.com - Short attention span linked to TV

Both links contain full articles. From the first link:

Frequent TV watching shortens kids' attention spans

By Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY

Psychologists and media experts are concerned, but not surprised, by a landmark study suggesting that frequent TV watching by infants and toddlers may shorten their attention span by age 7.

The research, in today's Pediatrics, finds that the more television very young kids watch, the more likely they are to have trouble concentrating and to become impulsive and restless.

Site with information and opinion on the issue:
Kill Your Television TurnOffYourTV.com

And finally, the research itself:
Early Television Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems in Children -- Christakis et al. 113 (4): 708 -- Pediatrics

Every thing that is recorded on one end where T.V show's/ Movie's are made, on the other end were we see them, we see it with a difrent preception than those that make it, therefore we all are sucked into a fake world of perception, and while kid's are young they allready lack a sence of what's real and what's fake in this existance, cartoon's effect this natural proccess that has been going on from the start of man, therefore its understandable for to see effect's such as those within child's that are tryen to make sense out of this nonsense wourld...

The thing is, T.V. speak's to everyone difrently, hence we all have a difrent perception of the same T.V. show, and from that we create mental image's and add to the storie line, yet even tho we have difrent perception of it, there mainly close to one another, yet to a child, T.V. will highly effect the child's sense of what the world really is, it's effect is even greater if the child has not been teached some form's of concepts of this existance. When T.V was first released they did not think that it would have effect's on the way how children grow up and absorb infromation, mainly because there wasnt no telatubbie's back then ^^...

There is alot i can say about the matter of T.V. and Movie's and how it has effected humanity for good and for the worst. But it come's down to a simple fact, The people that made all the concept's and discoverys that has made our present as it is now, did not grow up wacthing the wiggle's or some other hypnotic baby show...

So television is a bad idea to let your little 1-9 year old grow up wacthing cartoon physics. and the people that make little kind show's like the wiggle's and some other's, manufacture perception's for the kid's to precieve, therefore there intent is to alters the child's/viewers perception, to the perception of what the world is the show is, therefore the viewer's play along as if the thing there wacthing is real. yet since there intentions are to alter the viewer's perception to the perception that they desire, that would be a form of brain washing, the term brain washing came from china look it up in websters dic...

So T.V. and movie's are for those that want to entertain them self's by pretending somthing's real when it's fake, and to do that one must alter's the view's perception of what they are view, from fake to real.

Ty Hollywood & Other's Wink

I suggest teaching your child the basic's and the very foundation of how are world's existance work's and dose not work, before letting them play around in cartoon/movie land... I call it la la land ^^

( I had to cut this short due to lack of time also i left out some issue and reason's also due to lack of time, maybe another day i will adress them, yet the main problem is stated above) ( the altering of people's perception for self gain)

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The occupying Union army was notably kind to the conquered southerners. However, that's not to say the southern states were not treated harshly after the war. Carpet baggers, anyone?

Another open civil war was simply not possible. The south lost over 15% of their fighting-age male population. Guerrilla fighting did continue for some time; the KKK was initially one such group.

Guerilla fighting was pretty minor, however, especially since Lee openly discouraged it. Yes, the south was treated roughly, though never so roughly as by Sherman's army in Georgia and the Carolinas and by Sheridan's army in the Shenandoah. But that was war, and scorched earth strategic war has been employed ever since.

But I think you're missing my point, which is that revolutions do NOT and should not be concluded with the complete destruction of the adversary. And the American Civil War is one example that demonstrates this, even though the repercussions of the war are felt to this very day.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Quote:

Guerilla fighting was pretty minor, however, especially since Lee openly discouraged it. Yes, the south was treated roughly, though never so roughly as by Sherman's army in Georgia and the Carolinas and by Sheridan's army in the Shenandoah. But that was war, and scorched earth strategic war has been employed ever since.

You are right, the guerrilla warfare was minor. Usually Sherman is called a butcher for his march through the heartland even though Sherman tried his best to keep his soldiers from mistreating the population.

Quote:

But I think you're missing my point, which is that revolutions do NOT and should not be concluded with the complete destruction of the adversary. And the American Civil War is one example that demonstrates this, even though the repercussions of the war are felt to this very day.

You are absolutely right on this point. Destroying the south would have been simply foolish.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You are right, the guerrilla warfare was minor. Usually Sherman is called a butcher for his march through the heartland even though Sherman tried his best to keep his soldiers from mistreating the population.

Sherman was a brilliant strategist, the best the North had, and he understood strategic warfare better than anyone else. The South had no one like him; they didn't have any good strategists, but that was partly because Jefferson Davis kept his generals (even including Lee) limited purely to battlefield tactics and kept strategic decisions to himself. Sherman's campaign destroyed Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, and Columbia, destroyed railroads, and burned tons of farmland; but this was the same strategic phenomenon as the allied flights bombing the Ruhr Valley's industry during WWII or the naval blockade of Germanhy during WWI. Nonetheless, Sherman is completely reviled in the South to this day.

Now from what I read, Sheridan who stormed through the Shenandoah Valley and burned all its farmland (one of the main breadbaskets for the Confederacy's Army of Northern Virginia) actually turned out to be a nearly genocidal maniac in his prosecution of the Indian Wars. Sherman seemed to be a good person, though.

By the way, I've only lived in NC for only a year, I am from Connecticut and I've lived my whole life in Connecticut, New York, and Boston, so I'm not by any means a southerner.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Sherman gets a bad rap in the south. My family is old south, and I've lived my whole life in ex-confederate states. I can understand the bias against him, but southern revisionist historians get away with all sorts of lies about the man - like Henry Kissinger gets away with lies about the Nixon administration.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I completely quit watching TV (of any kind) two years ago.

Wow! My life is so much better!!

0 Replies

@de budding,

Tv is the ultimate modern ego object.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I think it's true. Most kids are stupid little sniveling creatures anyway. Unfortunately, it works the other way as well. Kids with short attention spans watch more television too. I won't leave an exhaustive and huge post as I normally do, but yes television is bad for children. Or maybe children are bad for television. Oh, there is a toddler through adolescent recall! Ship your child in to the nearest school so their parents can sit on their asses in a cubicle and earn money only to be wasted on their child's insatiable needs. Who needs a vacation when you can watch young Billy unwrap his 20 birthday gifts only to have them all be forgotten about. Sorry, that was a little angry. But I do dislike children.

1 Reply

@Leonard,

What a great thread. I definitely agree with the previous posts in that TV presents in full the "objectivity" that our brains would create in us while reading or even listening to audio books. TV "shortcuts" this step which if habitually done makes a child(or an adult for that matter) a passive receiver instead of an active imaginer. Just observe a child watching TV. The blank stare should be enough to tell you the TV is doing much of this child's brainwork for him/her. When this same child is suddenly presented with a need to play the active imaginer part, he frustratingly abandons this work he isn't used to doing. There's your short attention span. He's being told to "make it happen" whereas he is demanding, "just give it to me in full."

Not to mention the TV draws one into the sensual and purely external "buy, buy, buy" chase. So you want to watch your program? Well, you'll have to eat some advertisements along with it. That's the deal.

0 Replies

Television is Bad For You

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know