Journalist Laraine Perri has gone and done it. Perri's article, here, equates dressing one's son in camouflage with being as improper as dressing one's daughter in "hooker clothes."
I take exception to this. Particularly, if one looks at the connotations Perri derives from those adults who wear camouflage either by choice or by requirement (US Military). Perri associates those who wear camo as being persons who kill. Let's talk about that:
1. Hunters wear camo. Hunters kill animals.
- Many of these animals have few natural predators in their environments and being killed by man is the only thing keeping their numbers in check. This is far better than these animals having collisions with cars and killing people!
- Most of these hunters either eat the meat, or donate it to the poor. Either of these options is perfectly acceptable as an alternative to purchasing meat from a store or restaurant.
2. The military wears camo. The military kills people.
- The US Military kills the enemy. The enemy would kill each and every one of us, given the chance. Since I am a bit wary of being killed, I will gladly concede this "necessary evil."
- The US military does not kill innocent people. They only kill enemy combatants. By the way, if you knowingly enter into combat, you know from the outset that you have the other side trying to kill you. This is known in legal-speak as "assumption of risk" or "inherent risk associated with an activity."
But the main point is this... since when does wearing anything make you do something? The clothes do not make the man. If they did, I'd right now be in a "Super Man" outfit flying around overhead. Sounds kinda silly when you put it in those terms, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will be displayed after approval.
Approval depends on what you say and how you say it.