TAsunder wrote:And that's clueless... how?
"Let them eat tivo."
TAsunder wrote:What's almighty Marvell's solution? Or even, what's almighty Marvell's opinion on TV habits? Oh right, he has none.
TAsunder wrote:Do you actually own a TV? Tell us the truth, for once. You are in fact one of the TV snobs mentioned in this thread, aren't you?
TAsunder wrote:It's only a matter of time before you actually find a point in your word diarrhea. You are slowly admitting that you look down on everyone who watches TV. I mean you've already assumed that DVR is a pejorative insult and that you are above any discussions of TV habits (but not, apparently, above insulting people who discuss TV habits - real classy).
TAsunder wrote:Yes, it is possible to reduce the amount your life is affected by corporations and marketting by purchasing a product whose purpose is to allow you to skip commercials and pause television. And it is also possible to reduce the amount of TV you watch doing the same. Even if you watch the exact same TV shows, you are in fact watching less tv (about 66% as much tv) since you can skip commercials, thereby watching only 40 minutes of a 60 minute time slot.
Marvell wrote:I'll simply affirm that I no more 'look down on everyone who watches TV' than I 'look down on everyone who uses a screwdriver.' TV is a thing - it has no inherent moral qualities outside of how it is used by people.
TAsunder wrote:Most likely the real majority of people participating are the sort that have their thumbs up their anus and go around telling everyone how they don't watch tv because it's brainless fodder for drooling idiots, instead they go to the cinema - where inevitably they watch the latest michael bay film and hail it a masterpiece. Sometimes they read novels instead. Novels like the latest harry potter novel, you know, real high art type stuff.
Marvell wrote:My only intention was to point out how much of a stupid asshole you were being in constructing this pitiful strawman and propping it up with indefensible rhetorical flourishes like 'most likely' and 'inevitably.' I did this solely because I dislike it when people are stupid assholes (while I will cheerfully cop to being an asshole, my not being stupid exempts me from charges of hypocrisy). The whole TV turnoff week thing is of minimal interest to me, and was always neither here nor there.
TAsunder wrote:I don't think the word "strawman" means what you think it means. The section you quoted was not offered as an argument I was claiming TV turn off week's group was making. There was no intent to refute anything either. In fact, the only portion that could even conceivably be labelled a strawman would be the "brainless fodder for drooling idiots" part, and only then if attributed to the group advocating tv turn off week.
Furthermore, even if you want to assume that the quoted portion is a supporting argument for my opinion, it is more of an Ad Hominem argument. Maybe you have grown so lazy in your knee jerk logical fallacy terminology that everything is a strawman argument? Who knows.
But that's typical of your posts. 0% substance, 100% snobbery. When was the last time you actually contributed any substance to a thread? Substance doesn't include saying nothing eloquently, by the way.
So I go to this cocktail party, and one of the guests asks what I do for a living. I say that I teach television production, and produce documentaries for Public TV.
The guest says, with infinite condescension, "I don't watch TV; I read."
To which I reply:
"Have a ball."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest