I especially enjoy the people in the comment section pointing to Barbaro as the the ultimate example of animal cruelty and negligence by owner/trainer etc. Tough to muster up an argument with that level of intelligence.

First Steve, I did not say and would not say YOU lack perspective. But if you wish to take this personally then that's your choice. Your argument that it is socially productive will boil down to one thing in the vast majority of people's minds, "money for some people."

I'm sorry that does not resonate in these cases. I concur with others you will not change some activists mind. To the general public outside of that group? You may change some with your argument. You may.

What would be more effective is showing that the industry as a whole does everything possible to treat these animals well, that those that don't are dealt with severely, and that the animals well being is number one, not money.

Can the industry show that today? I don't know what most lay people would say to that. Maybe it doesn't matter, but either the industry controls the message or PETA and their friends will.

When I juxtapose these 2 statements I can only come to the conclusion that you are trolling us. Typical Internet argument when you get called out blame the target of the argument as not understanding what you said. I would think 99% of us would come to the same conclusion Steve did.If I am wrong please explain how statement 1 didnt explicitly say Steve lacked prespective on this issue.

Telling (and demonstrating to) lay people (critics among the lay people) that we're doing everything to protect the horses doesn't work because they implicitly believe that the very act of using horses for sport/entertainment is byzantine, cruel and should end.

It's simplistic to view my argument ('racing is comprised of lifestyle choice careers that constitute a socially viable industry worth billions') as equating to 'you're saying it makes money so it's OK'. My argument is more defined than that.

Racing doesn't have to be defensive when presenting the case that the animals are tools for the welfare and greater good of humans. That's why they're on earth. To serve us. We should be as humane as possible utilizing their service. I don't like to characterize horses as livestock per se, but they are beasts of burden.

Anyone arguing that racing shouldn't exist will further advocate for total emancipation of animals in the food or consumer good chain. In this discussion, you're 100% for or against. I'm sorry that I haven't evolved to a higher plain that puts the animals ahead of humanity.

To be clear that I am not trolling, then by all means if my wording implies or appeared to imply Steve lacked perspective then I certainly apologize. I do not believe that Steve lacks perspective. I should have left it at misguided.

Clearly I'm in the minority here so I won't belabor this. Have a great week everyone.