[at-l] Re: Beating that dead horse.

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Rick wrote:
>Yes. The issue is not willingness to shoot someone

Hmm - you'd be surprised at how many people are unwilling to shoot even when 
they're armed and being shot at.  Read S.L.A. Marshall's analysis "Men 
against Fire".  It got worse in Korea and Vietnam.  It's worse yet today.


>Have you shared a range with a local law enforcement officer lately?

Yes.  And on the range, they shoot no better than I do.  On the street, 
todays "average" cop (if there is any such thing) will never draw his 
weapon.  He therefore has no real idea how he'll react if shot at.  Many of 
us 'older guys" don't have that problem.  We've been there and done that - 
and we know how we react.  To repeat the entire thought -
>The basic assumption that only the police are capable of handling guns >or 
>otherwise frustrating criminal intent is terminally flawed.


>;-). Frankly, I am more concered about judgement, however.  I see it 
>lacking all around me.

So do I - and not just with respect to guns.  Care to drive where I do?  Or 
maybe you know what I mean?  Gotta keep in mind where you live.  But the 
"lack of judgment" is, to a very large degree, attitude and lack of 
training.


>Bravo.  We are more in agreement than your realize.  My comments with 
>respect to guns are largely limited to the communal experience which is 
>hiking the AT.  WIth shared hostels and shelters.

That's one of several reasons why the Thruhiking Papers are written as they 
are.


>The difference is huge.  You were talking about real intimidation and 
>probable robbery and rape.  Opinions regarding the best uses of the Trail 
>don't fit in that same catagory, though some react as if they are.

You're welcome to disagree, but I see no difference at all in the basic 
attitudes.  There were people in Montana who saw me as an intruder, someone 
who was "different", who did things that they didn't understand - and who 
was therefore "inferior" and by extension, "not-quite-human".  There are 
those who look at Trail runners as intruders on the Trail, who are 
"different", doing things they don't understand - and are therefore, 
"inferior" - and by extension, "not-quite-human".  The same words have in 
the past described the attitudes about muslims in Serbia, "intellectuals" in 
Cambodia, Catholics in Northern Ireland, Jews in Germany, the Hmong in 
Vietnam and others.  In all cases, the differences create mistrust, 
suspicion and even darker emotions.  That is, by definition, prejudice.  
Definition --- "PREJUDICE, strictly defined, a preformed and unsubstantiated 
judgment or opinion about an individual or a group,..."   Read Thomas 
Sowell's "Preferential Policies".

With respect to runners, I saw a lot of "preformed" opinion - and I saw no 
indication that those who held those opinions were trail runners - or had 
talked to a trail runner.  In other words, the opinions were 
"unsubstantiated".

Oh - you're concerned about the "physical" part of it?  Then think about 
what I posted about terrorism -
"They are just utterly convinced that what they are doing is right, and they 
will do anything to achieve their objective".

Somewhere out there is a hiker who believes that runners are the scum of the 
Earth and the ruination of the Trail.  After all, wasn't that what WF 
taught?  And wasn't WF ALWAYS right? I heard that derisive snort - but I can 
put names to some of the people who DO believe that.  How big a step is it 
from that absolute righteous belief to indignation and physical violence as 
a runner passes that hiker on the Trail?  Why would that be so different 
from what "could" have happened in Montana?

No difference, Rick, just a different application.


>I guess my philosophy is to accept that we are all judgemental.

Yes - but I try avoid practicing self-delusion as well as judgmentalism. I 
don't always succeed, but I try.


>But everything is not comparable simply because it can be labelled 
>judgement.

It is if the potential for violence exists.

>If people keep reacting to these issues as if it all judgemetnt regarding 
>the AT is remotely akin to that of robbers and rapists who despise hikers, 
>then how can we possibly talk about things that we are passionate about?  
>By and large I would say 99.9% of the disagreement or judgement on this 
>list has to do with expressions of passion rather than prejudice.  That's 
>my take, anyway.

Yes - but no one's likely to get violent about your choice of water filter 
or your take on wind farms.  Trail running is different - because those who 
do it are a different "group".  It's "We" vs "Them".

Short story - a couple years ago - hunter gets out of his car, heads for his 
stand.  A group of PETA people beats the bejesus out of him - he spends some 
time in a hospital.  Tell me - is "animal rights" a cause that promotes 
violence to humans?  Is hiking an activity that promotes violence to 
runners?  Answer - No, in both cases.  But it happened in one case (that WAS 
a true story).  What justification is there for assuming it won't ever 
happen in the other case?  How much responsibility will anyone take for 
promoting the kind of intolerance (read - prejudice) that would lead to that 
kind of situation.

Prejudice is truly blind because those who practice it are incapable of 
seeing themselves in the mirror.

With luck, this horse is truly dead now. Otherwise we'll have to  execute 
Dead Horse Strategy #13 and declare that "no horse is too dead to beat"  
:-))

Walk softly,
Jim


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.