The Dweezie makes me think...
Once again, something that my friend Dweezie says stimulates my head guts. Though this is a bit off topic it spawns from her dedication that banning things is an unacceptable methodology. Beware ye landlubber! Here be tangents.
So as many of you may know, I am a decidedly pacifistic individual. No, that does NOT mean that I have no deep, intestinal, gutwrenching desire to pinch the head off of the douchebag that pulls into the neighbors driveway at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning and decides that then would be the perfect time to impress the ladies with the train horn he installed on his extended-cab, diesel powered, idiot-machine, 4 by 4. And by all means, when my 6'4" 285 pound self walks over with a very malice-filled visage, I'm not so concerned that he is made aware of my dedication to not harming another human being. I simply have decided the be stubbornly realistic about situations and the true nature of their outcomes. I quote Gordon Sumner, "I've never seen a military solution where you didn't always end up with something worse."
Which brings me back to Dweezie's topic of banning. I feel that, much like violence and war, banning is a shortcut answer that really never solves the problem in the slightest. It merely pushes it into another form. Banning literature or words doesn't make these things disappear. My child will learn to curse like a sailor from any number of sources. Instead of making him believe that he will inadvertently summon some form of demon by muttering the occasional curse, I prefer to correct him whenever he repeats something he's heard and inform him that such language is simply course and unappealing. Banning without explanation will do nothing to solve the situation, yet explanation requires confrontation with the object of displeasure. In the instance of vulgar language, I will attempt to explain and raise my child to be a gentleman, which in a broad definition means someone who always attempts to take the comfort of others into consideration before acting. Which means, if he gets the message, he will not drop the f-bomb in front of grandma as that would make her absolutely uncomfortable.
Education and open, consistant, communication is the only key to dealing with objects subject to banning. Cute little commercials about frying eggs and McNuts the drug dog never made me feel inclined to avoid the use of heroin. No, I steered clear of that one for an entirely different reason. I was a big fan of Alice in Chains in the 90's and after listening to the Dirt album a few times and contemplating the lyrics, I realized that this crap was indeed something that I never wanted to be introduced to.
That's right, Alice in Chains...my anti-drug. Of course, I did partake of a few lesser evils here and there but thanks to Layne Staley's addiction and subsequent artistic tapestry of anguish, heroin was almost at the top of the list just under "drink a glass of underarm sweat" and "eat a hot bag of maggots". No banning, prohibition, or mind control necessary. Imagine that, a well educated human making the correct decision.
I'm done.
G'night.
So as many of you may know, I am a decidedly pacifistic individual. No, that does NOT mean that I have no deep, intestinal, gutwrenching desire to pinch the head off of the douchebag that pulls into the neighbors driveway at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning and decides that then would be the perfect time to impress the ladies with the train horn he installed on his extended-cab, diesel powered, idiot-machine, 4 by 4. And by all means, when my 6'4" 285 pound self walks over with a very malice-filled visage, I'm not so concerned that he is made aware of my dedication to not harming another human being. I simply have decided the be stubbornly realistic about situations and the true nature of their outcomes. I quote Gordon Sumner, "I've never seen a military solution where you didn't always end up with something worse."
Which brings me back to Dweezie's topic of banning. I feel that, much like violence and war, banning is a shortcut answer that really never solves the problem in the slightest. It merely pushes it into another form. Banning literature or words doesn't make these things disappear. My child will learn to curse like a sailor from any number of sources. Instead of making him believe that he will inadvertently summon some form of demon by muttering the occasional curse, I prefer to correct him whenever he repeats something he's heard and inform him that such language is simply course and unappealing. Banning without explanation will do nothing to solve the situation, yet explanation requires confrontation with the object of displeasure. In the instance of vulgar language, I will attempt to explain and raise my child to be a gentleman, which in a broad definition means someone who always attempts to take the comfort of others into consideration before acting. Which means, if he gets the message, he will not drop the f-bomb in front of grandma as that would make her absolutely uncomfortable.
Education and open, consistant, communication is the only key to dealing with objects subject to banning. Cute little commercials about frying eggs and McNuts the drug dog never made me feel inclined to avoid the use of heroin. No, I steered clear of that one for an entirely different reason. I was a big fan of Alice in Chains in the 90's and after listening to the Dirt album a few times and contemplating the lyrics, I realized that this crap was indeed something that I never wanted to be introduced to.
That's right, Alice in Chains...my anti-drug. Of course, I did partake of a few lesser evils here and there but thanks to Layne Staley's addiction and subsequent artistic tapestry of anguish, heroin was almost at the top of the list just under "drink a glass of underarm sweat" and "eat a hot bag of maggots". No banning, prohibition, or mind control necessary. Imagine that, a well educated human making the correct decision.
I'm done.
G'night.