Of course. I never said otherwise...

Well, the impression I got was that it just wasn't a very good movie and that's why it didn't perform well.

I read all of it, but it was pretty confusingly worded. Couple that with the first part of the sentence which directly contradicted the rest, and I had a hard time figuring out what you actually meant. No worries though, as you cleared it up.

Voting with your wallet is absolutely a legitimate way to voice your opinion! I'm just confused, are you now saying that you don't really mind? Because that wasn't the impression I got first.

Maybe I should remind you that it was you who first replied to my comment. I'm not changing the subject at all - everything I've written here has been connected to what I originally started discussing with Mummelman, which you joined in on when you replied to me. If the only thing you wanted to say is that there will be fewer grid girl jobs now than before, then we don't need to have this discussion. We agree. There absolutely will be fewer grid girl positions as a result if this. What I view as the essence of this discussion is if that is a problem or not.

Could you explain how it's a poor argument?

Not everything I write is a direct response to something you've said. Surely that's understandable. When I say "as long as the follow laws and regulations", I do that to cover all bases. Because a company isn't always in their right to fire someone. I try to be precise in my wording, so I included that, if not, the statement would be incomplete. It was never meant as an implication that you meant otherwise. And it has nothing to do with pivoting the argument to something else.

I didn't equate grid girls to telegraphists. I did however draw a comparison because some sides are similar (ie. neither job is "banned", just that companies evaluate that the position isn't worth it for whatever reason. In the telegraphist case, that reason was technological advancement, in F1's case, it appears to be an assessment of societal norms and what the public likes and dislikes. I already explained this).

Oh, it absoluely will lead to fewer positions for grid girls. But I don't see the problem with that. Demand for any job can go up and down. So? I'm not beating around the bush. What's with the passive-agressiveness?

Every for-profit business ultimately makes every decision based on what they evaluate as being in their best interest (maybe with the exception of some privately owned businesses where the owner(s) attempt to use their business as a vehicle for change. SpaceX probably belongs in that category, or at least did belong there. If Formula 1 belongs in that category, then this becomes a different discussion, because then F1 wasn't pressured by outside groups to do this.)

This includes F1. Of course they might be mistaken in their evaluation, as obviously no company makes only flawless decisions. So there absolutely is a possibility that this will end up hurting F1 financially, but the F1 owners wouldn't make this decision unless they thought it would benefit them.

Yup, it is totally fair for you to disagree and criticize F1's decision. I haven't said otherwise. Even though I don't agree with said criticism, you are free to do criticize as much as you want, and if enough people share your sentiment, F1 might have to reconsider their decision.

However, as I pointed out already, you decided to go with a false equivalence in which I explained how that wasn't a good refutation. It was an apples to oranges comparison. In addition, I directly addressed your response to Mummelman, so I certainly did not make a non sequitor.

Because that wasn't what I was arguing about and I don't cover all bases for the sake of it. You don't need to cover all bases if you know what the focus of the conversation is. Just address the arguments directly.

However, you haven't exactly proved that F1 deemed grid girls aren't 'worth it'. You can cite 'societal norms' as the reason, but that's such a vague reason as opposed to the telegraphist example where the reason was specific, i.e. it was because of the technological advances of the telephone. It doesn't take 3 seconds to realize that the difference between the reasons of both situations greatly contrast in terms of specificity. What are these 'societal norms' exactly? How do we know that F1's perception of these 'societal norms' are not the result of external pressure?

If you want to provide a good example, then you need to provide one that is almost identical, not just one that happens to have a few similarities.

It limits the options for those who are let go and hits them financially, as well. It takes time for them to find another job and who knows if that will pay as well as their original job. That may hinder them from advancing their careers and moving up. New jobs don't just pop out of thin air.

In addition, I don't see how me being passive-aggressive is relevant to the conversation. If you're uncomfortable, then that's the nature of debate and plus, I would be breaking the rules if I were to actually be aggressive.

You realize that you don't need to repeat the same argument. I said already that once is good enough. Plus, you don't know definitively that F1 wasn't pressured by outside groups. As long as the probability is not 0%, then we need to acknowledge that it is possibility and therefore, the decision may not be a purely financial one. Rather, it may be because of F1's fear of PR backlash with money as their secondary, downstream concern. However, if F1's fear is unfounded, then the decision would also not be a sound one financially. As long as F1 continues to not elaborate on their vague reasons, this possibility shall remain on the table.

I can say with confidence that we agree on this part.

However, as I pointed out already, you decided to go with a false equivalence in which I explained how that wasn't a good refutation. It was an apples to oranges comparison. In addition, I directly addressed your response to Mummelman, so I certainly did not make a non sequitor.

Because that wasn't what I was arguing about and I don't cover all bases for the sake of it. You don't need to cover all bases if you know what the focus of the conversation is. Just address the arguments directly.

However, you haven't exactly proved that F1 deemed grid girls aren't 'worth it'. You can cite 'societal norms' as the reason, but that's such a vague reason as opposed to the telegraphist example where the reason was specific, i.e. it was because of the technological advances of the telephone. It doesn't take 3 seconds to realize that the difference between the reasons of both situations greatly contrast in terms of specificity. What are these 'societal norms' exactly? How do we know that F1's perception of these 'societal norms' are not the result of external pressure?

If you want to provide a good example, then you need to provide one that is almost identical, not just one that happens to have a few similarities.

It limits the options for those who are let go and hits them financially, as well. It takes time for them to find another job and who knows if that will pay as well as their original job. That may hinder them from advancing their careers and moving up. New jobs don't just pop out of thin air.

In addition, I don't see how me being passive-aggressive is relevant to the conversation. If you're uncomfortable, then that's the nature of debate and plus, I would be breaking the rules if I were to actually be aggressive.

Aura7541 said: 

Plus, you don't know definitively that F1 wasn't pressured by outside groups. As long as the probability is not 0%, then we need to acknowledge that it is possibility and therefore, the decision may not be a purely financial one. Rather, it may be because of F1's fear of PR backlash with money as their secondary, downstream concern. However, if F1's fear is unfounded, then the decision would also not be a sound one financially. As long as F1 continues to not elaborate on their vague reasons, this possibility shall remain on the table.

For it to be a false equivalence, I do believe I would have to equate them, correct? And I did not equate them - I drew a comparison between one specific point. The comparison was sufficient to illustrate that specific point. No need to be so pedantic about it!

I'd love to adress your arguments directly, if you had made any. Throughout our entire debate, you've made one statement that we both agree on (ie. this will lead to a net loss in available positions for grid girls), and the rest has been some meta-discussion where you try to build strawmen from what I've said.

I don't have to cover all bases, I choose to. That I'm precise in my wording doesn't detract from my arguments, so I don't understand why you take issue with it.

It surely is a result of external pressure. I don't think I've said otherwise? But ultimately, the leaders are the oens calling the shots and should be held accountable.

As for my comparison, I've already explained how it was sufficient to illustrate that specific part of my argument. You say I don't have to cover all bases with my arguments, yet you are being awfully pedantic when I don't.

Losing your job sucks for anyone, including these former grid-girls, but that doesn't do anything to either legitimize nor illegitimize F1's decision, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

Of course it was because they feared bad PR! But the only reason a company worries about bad PR is because they ultimately worry that it might affect their income. F1 may be mistaken in their evaluation, so this move might end up losing them money, but given that F1 chose to stop with grid girls, I assume that they thought that was also a financially sound decision.

However, I find it to be a weak example to support your point. All I'm saying is that you should find another example that is more comparable because connecting two situations because of one similarity is not advisable, in my opinion.

I made my points, but in response, you went to a different topic and asked a question that wasn't related to what I was saying. You also didn't say that you agreed with my point until much later (if I am wrong, then show me in the linked comment where you said you agreed with my point), but you had no problem going with the mockery route with the "boohoo". Perhaps, I should've made it clear that I was only specifically addressing the the paragraph of the comment that I originally responded to.

In addition, I already stated that your initial response was a non sequitor, but you took the liberty to continue the conversation. Whether I made strawmen arguments or not (in which I didn't, btw) is less relevant considering that you continued veering off my original point that you did not say that you agreed to until much later.

It's fairly obvious that F1 deemed grid girls to not be 'worth it', but the reasoning is not as obvious because the reasoning was rather vague.

And I explained how that comparison is flawed. Just because there are similarities doesn't mean that the reasons behind those similarities are the same.

This is a strawman fallacy. Look at my initial reply. I did not say anything about how F1's decision is illegitimate. As a I said, I was responding to a specific part of your response to Mummelman, but again, it was my fault that I didn't specify earlier.

Which begs the question of what are these 'societal norms' F1 is referring to? Is the hypothetical source of the perceived backlash representative of the F1 audience or is this a fringe minority that is not even part of the target audience? We definitely agree on the fact that F1 thought that the decision they made is a financially sound decision. However, I argue that they did not carefully deliberate over their decision and F1's lack of elaboration over their reasons suggests their unscrupulousness.

Did you not understand the point I made due to that comparison not being an identical situation? In that case, it wasn't a good enough example because it didn't get my point across to you, but it's hardly a false equivalence fallacy either way.

I asked that question to understand if you disagreed with the general point of my post or not. Given that you didn't answer directly to that question, you just said it was malformed (I think because you misunderstood - the "they" I was referring to was F1, not the grid girls), I really had no idea of telling what you thought.

A non sequitur (with two Us btw) is an invalid argument (ie. statements that aren't supported by the underlying logic). If I made an invalid argument, you should point out where my logic fails, not just say it is so. I did not explicitly say that I agreed to your statement because it was just that, a statement. It wasn't your opinion, it was a fairly trivial factual statement. Of course there will be fewer choices for those grid girls to work as grid girls in the future when one of the major players removes the position. Did I have to specify that I agreed to that?

As for me veering off course, with the exception of that question in my first reply to you (which I asked to understand what your standpoint was to begin with), nearly everything I've said has been in direct response to something you said...

I agree that their explanation was vague but I can't answer to what they have said. But you did say to me (and I quote): "you haven't exactly proved that F1 deemed grid girls aren't 'worth it' ", so I adressed that. I obviously can't prove wether the position actually is worth it, that would be nigh-impossible, and I'm not saying that isn't.

For it to be a strawman, I have to refute an argument that you didn't actually make, in addition to claiming you made that argument. I did neither, at least that was never my intention, I just pointed out that it was irrelevant  that it will impact their personal lives and economy (because that is a factual statement, and what person of sound mind debates about facts? Facts are by definition true.)

Yes, F1's decision might not have good enough foundations based on what their audience wants. Once again, I haven't said otherwise.

(though I'm still in favor of getting rid of grid girls regardless, because I don't see the use of female models in a motorsport tournament)

Anyway, this meta-debate is getting tireing (though it has been interesting). I think we've reached the end point, unless you have more things you want to say.

I understood the point, but I already said it wasn't a good point and you've also agreed to that. So you should ask yourself, why was it not good enough?

However, your question was just that: a non sequitor. My original point was that there would be less positions and then, you followed up with should I force F1 to accommodate grid girls against its will. The most I did was disagreeing with F1's decisions. I did not mention anything about forcing F1 to keep grid girls employed. In addition, I already explained where your logic failed earlier, though it could be because I did not make it clear that I was responding to a specific part of your comment that I replied to.

Regardless, you don't go to "There are now less positions unless Formula E opens more of them" to "So we should just force F1 to keep grid girls?". That is very Cathy Newman-esque.

I will point back to my first paragraph and I will posit another question. What point is there other than they lost the "choice"? Saying "look at these two situations and this one similarity they share" does not particularly answer the "so what?" question. What makes that particular similarity so relevant? Is it because of the reasons behind the losing of "choice"?

However, you brought up the part where my point doesn't do anything to legitimize or illegitimate F1's decision. I didn't bring that part up until you did. If you do not deem that to be a strawman fallacy, then it sure was a rather off-topic quip.

 Good, we at least agree on the first part. In response to the second part, that is your subjective opinion. Grid girls are also responsible for sponsoring brands, not just the racers and their cars. And this racer makes a good point. Most, if not all, adverts use attractive people, both men and women, to promote their products. Grid girls are no exception.

How can a question be a faulty argument? It wasn't an argument to begin with, it was a question. Hence it can't be a non sequitur (an argument not supported by the logic presented), because it isn't was never an argument to begin with. Claiming otherwise doesn't make sense. So no, it was decidedly not a non sequitur.

I've never heard of Cathy Newman.

Does there have to be another point other than that they both lost the "choice? That specific part was relevant because choice was an important focus in the discussion. In your orignial reply to me, you even wrote (bold and italics added by me): "Choices still exist, but there are less of them available"

It was an off-topic quip in reply to your off-topic statement. Fair game.

Yes, the second part is my subjective opinion. I did write "I'm still in favor of". You are free to disagree.