I think that, hour for hour, online time or video game time is better than watching television because there is that interaction. But, they also tend to be more addicting and take up more time than watching TV.
Of course, if someone is watching TV all hours of the day, that's not healthy or good at all and you have a good point. I think though, that there is more concern about RPGs and the like because it tends to be the parents who are concerned. There are of course, also older people playing, but they don't have parents who live with them worrying over that time, thus leading to the publicity.
And the parents whose kids watch way too much TV often don't notice, don't care, or are also watching too much TV right along with them. Internet surfing and game playing are more sought out by people individually instead of with family, so there is more concern because it's not quite as "normal" as TV watching.
Besides, what news station wants to tell you to stop watching them and read the articles instead?
2007-03-03 13:36:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by sparkly_chrimsa 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Agreed. Everyone in my family plays RuneScape, usually together, and we have a lot of fun doing it. We interact with each other a lot, mostly by shouting between rooms, sometimes with ingame chat, occasionally by running between rooms. It's not only social, it's healthy too (at least if we run around).
But if we sit at the TV, there's really nothing to do but sit and watch. We may discuss the movie when it is over, which can be good. I almost never watch TV programmes as they are nearly all just mind-numbing rubbish.
An individual playing a computer game alone while everyone else watches the noob-tube..... Well he's just doing nothing by himself instead of doing nothing with other people.
2007-03-03 13:32:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dharma Nature 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
For one thing , couch potatoes can't think too far in advance to do much rationalizing ..It's the radical left democrats in power who are on the Internet campaign to stifle info via the Internet . They don't have to worry much about the bias liberal media already in their pockets . It's the Internet - and the few brave souls getting word out immediately on talk radio that scares them...
Hillary Clinton is on record stating that we Americans have "too much free speech " . What kind of malarky is that coming for a presidential candidate of the Land of the Free ?
2007-03-04 06:29:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by missmayzie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, unless the internet was PURELY made for interaction with other people and not for things like YouTube and easy access pornography, then yes it would be no problem.
Then you got hackers, a chance of chatting with a con artist, and such.
2007-03-03 13:30:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by ShadowX 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that generally - people are more focused at their computers than with their TVs (unless it's a 'game") HAH.....
Really - you can get up and walk away from TV - take a break - get something to eat - whatever. It's harder to do when you're at a computer - being focused - "interacting" with a game or a person.
2007-03-03 13:34:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by longhats 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
U are actually not addicted, there are babies at school those days who're particularly addicted, like 24/7 and that they are those that drop out of school u went to varsity it particularly is consumer-friendly data that your not an addict
2016-12-18 05:10:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because the internet u cannot trust pple on,and parents or guardians don't know what there child is on these days.
2007-03-03 13:28:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The parents are probably addicted to tv themselves so they don't see a problem with it.
2007-03-03 13:32:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Vegan 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Perverts can't seduce you through the TV.
2007-03-03 13:30:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
people complain about anything.... its what we do... especially on any addictions, For people who are out of your addiction, people complain about it because they believe their addictions are better or more important. at least thats my take on it.
2007-03-03 13:30:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mark F 3
·
0⤊
0⤋