I took part in a radio debate a couple of years ago and the host kept putting two arguments forward that I thought i rebutted but he wouldn't accept my reasoning.
The first point was that he kept saying it was the thin 'edge' of the wedge. (I told him it was 'thin end,' but he accused me of nit-picking). Therefore, if we ban jumps, eventually the flats would be banned. I tried to point out that this sort of thin end argument most of us learned about in Year 10 English as being an arguing technique not really based on reality. I explained, for example, that whilst i was opposed to jumps, i wasn't opposed to the flats and that I was sure many were of the same opinion as me.
He wouldn't cop that and kept suggesting that there was some sort of green/left/political conspiracy to ban jumps which would then move onto ban flats.
Secondly he kept saying that if we banned jumps then we would have to destroy every jumps horse straightaway and that it would be a mass slaughter of beautiful animals. I was tempted to suggest that it would be better than getting old and then dying in agony under a tarp on a cold day in Warrnambool (a fate which I hope happens to none of us!!)
However, I tried to suggest that this wouldn't be necessary if we slowly reduced the numbers of horses specifically bred for racing. If there were less, and jumping was banned, then clearly fewer numbers of horses would die at the jumps and an alternative would need to be found for those whose racing days were over. ie. ban jumps, reduce breeding, less horses, less death, less 'disposal.'
Unfortunately he thought I was arguing against the laws of nature and biology. It's like he considered horses to like wild rabbits screwing away uncontrollably so we had to do something with them, like putting them over the jumps. (The horses not the rabbits)
So he basically dismissed my arguments and got back to the old conspiracy theories about out of work dole bludgers being a rent-a-crowd.
I tried, Lord knows I tried.
