Blog Post #42 - Analyzing Context

In this blog I will be answering some questions from our textbook in reference to my chosen public argument.

Bair, Royce. "Starfish-one is not like the others". 7/22/2001 via Flickr
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?
1. There is too much whipping in the sport and it must be better regulated.
2. Whipping is a necessary aspect but some control is needed.
3. Whipping should be completely removed from the sport.
2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?
1. To what degree do we regulate the way a jockey drives a horse. There is a line between encouragement and abuse and it needs to be defined.
2. The public detests seeing the horses whipped and removing it from the sport would increase public acceptance.
3. The use of a crop is necessary for safety reasons. It is one of only a few tools available to jockeys for steering, correcting and keeping the animals at task. To remove it would only put the jockeys and animals in more danger.
3. What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?
1. There must be some regulation to ensure abuse does not happen.
2. The safety and welfare of the jockeys and horses is paramount.
3. For the sport to grow, the public must view it favorably.
4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?
1. The horse. Is it an animal or is it a creature that deserves rights.
2. The line between encouragement and abuse.
3. What is necessary for safety and what is jockey error.
4. Whipping is the encouragement many horses need to win.
5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?
1. Other than the animal protection groups, none the perspective ask anything of their audiences. There is no call to rally or move to change. The majority are comfortable restating the issue, throwing out a couple of possible solutions but never a "this is how we solve it".
6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?
1. There is no proof that whipping, especially in the last 400-meters of a race, does anything to positively affect the horse.
2. The crop is a necessary tool for jockeys to maintain safety with their mounts.
3. Veteran jockeys do not rely on the whip like apprentice jockeys do.
4. Tougher regulation across the states would decrease the number of incidences and improve public relations.
5. Establishing penalties for violators that make a difference would cause repeat offenders to stop their activities.
7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?
1. People who's livelihood relies on their horses finishing in races will not want to change as it may cause their horses to lose.
2. The betting public won't bet on jockeys who do not whip. This is from a view that whipping is trying.
3. The majority of the industry is made up of old timers. To them, change is bad. "We've done it this way for 70 years."
4. Enforcing the rules requires addition stewards and judges, money out of the pockets of the purses and track owners.
5. Without proper enforcement of the rules, repeat offenders will continue to repeat.
6. Without stiff enough penalties, repeat offenders will continue to repeat.
7. Anything that can be said to keep from changing. This industry is mired in the nostalgia of what it once was. Change is a chaotic, painful process that nobody wants to go through.