I’m going to assume that with your sarcasm you understood my point.
I thought I did, but from your latest post, I’m not sure. I’ll explain.
I frankly am quite skeptical about anyone owning a television and being able to control it’s use to the extent that nothing is ever viewed which, for example, I wouldn’t let in my house in the form of a book.
That’s why I assumed that your earlier post referred to a compromise in content.
In your more recent post, however, you seem to be making the point that the only content allowed in your home would be consistent with what I would allow in mine, only through a different medium.
To this, I respond that there’s so little of this type of programming available on television (to my second-hand current knowledge) that, certainly as a child grows a little older, there would not be any benefit, regarding preventing unmonitored viewing, to allowing the child to watch TV at home. (You would also have to lock up the TV when you’re not home to monitor, which is impractical and has other negatives as well.
It is also forbidden to allow oneself exposure to temptation (chaza”l make statements such as “??? ????????? ??????”, and “?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????”) unless given no option (“???? ???? ??????”). (There are ????? about this, based on ????? in several places.)
So to my understanding, owning a television was declared forbidden by the ?????? for these reasons, despite the theoretical possibility that anything viewed on it in a particular home is “kosher”.