Well, it is by definition not a non sequitur. That's not about what I think. You can say it was a loaded question if you felt that way, but it's not a non sequitur. And once again, I thought it was unneccesary to say that I agree with a factual statement.

Is it the memed interview where the reporter says "So what you're saying is-" time and time again? I saw it on 9Gag. I don't really see the similarity. She tried to create strawmen by putting words in the guy's mouth that he hadn't actually said. I didn't assign you an opinion, I asked for one.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8729343

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8729351

The focus was very much on choice being taken away. I pointed out that the choice is still available and that nothing stops them from doing so, other than the specific  jobs at F1 not existing anymore. Similar to how the telegraphist jobs don't exist anymore. The reason those two jobs don't exist anymore is different. But the essence is that the choice hasn't been removed by a higher authority, it was removed because F1 didn't deem it important enough to keep, like phone companies deemed that telegraphists weren't important enough to keep (once again, looking past the different reasons for those two decisions, as that is besides the point). (and we've both agreed that clearly F1 didn't deem them important enough to keep - wether F1 was right in that assumption is a different matter).

Also, I find it ironic that you are now asking me to be more specific, because just a few posts ago you told me I didn't have to cover all bases!

When I said I saw no problem with the reduction of positions, it was in relation to the overall decision. Anyone losing their job on an individual level is a tragedy, yet it's an inevitability. I can of course empathize with those who lost their jobs, but I don't think F1 did anything terrible. People losing their job is a part of life, unfortunately.

But yes, your statement wasn't off-topic per se. It was just inconsequential, as it followed trivially from the fact that people lost their job. Hence it was unneccesary. Do we need to specify that people are financially impacted from losing their jobs? Of course not. That's obvious. That was what I was trying to say with my "off-topic quip", but here I've clarified further as I clearly didn't get that point across.

Uhm. You say I hold my stance based on a subjective opinion. What is your basis for that claim? You haven't asked me to give you any reasons, but you just assume I don't have any? Wonderful.

"Large groups of people dislike the practice of grid girls" is an objective statement.

"Grid girls don't participate in the actual sport being performed" is an objective statement.

"Grid girls represent a non-essential cost to the tournament" is an objective statement.

"The job grid girls does can be performed by other people with more relations to the actual sport" is an objective statement.

In the end, there are several observations for and against both stances, and which stance you end up on is based on your subjective importance you give to each. We clearly put importance on different things, but you don't have to attempt to mock my opinion as being only "based on a subjective opinion" when that is a baseless claim.

However, a loaded question is when you ask a question that pertains an unjustified assumption. I don't need to point out the rather large shift from what I initially started off with and the question you ended up asking. And I said Newman-esque. Your off-topic question had a resemblance to her style, but that does not necessarily mean that the comparison is one-to-one.

Yes, and I also pointed out that that's more of an observation which isn't necessarily an argument. I'm a bit surprised that you have not addressed that part. It's more of "Hey, these two things have this similarity" and that's about it.

I see covering all bases as like going spreadshot. It has a wide general range as opposed to a pinpoint focus on one thing. If that is the incorrect interpretation, then my bad.

Fair enough.

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

As a result, I thought it was necessary to deem "I don't see the use of female models in a motorsports tournament" as a subjective statement. Because in your own admission, the phrase that preceded this statement was subjective. In addition, "I don't see" is limited to your perspective. That also raises flags for subjectivity.

In contrast, I used an actual racer as a reference for my statement as she has seen with her own eyes what grid girls do. As a result, I deem her observations to have more value because for one thing, she is actually on the race track and makes these direct observations.

"Large groups of people dislike the practice of grid girls" is an objective statement? Many problems with this one. What is defined as "large"? 1 million? 2 million? Without context, "large" is uninformative. In fact, "More people like the practice of grid girls than those who dislike the practice" is an objective statement that is supported by something recordable.

"Grid girls don't participate in the actual sport being performed" is an objective statement? Well, so do the people watching the races, but they, too, have some monetary value even though they are not participating. Since you like to make comparisons based on one similarity, should F1 ban spectators, too?

"Grid girls represent a non-essential cost to the tournament" is an objective statement. What numbers do you have to justify this conclusion? What defines as non-essential? 5%? 10%? Why is XX% considered non-essential? You also said that F1 may have made the wrong decision, which would make this statement untrue, wouldn't it not?

"The job grid girls does can be performed by other people with more relations to the actual sport" is an objective statement. But a lot of products tend to be advertised by attractive people and grid girls are no exception to the rule. That's also an objective statement.

You accuse me of mocking your arguments, but right now, you are very knee-jerky with these rather random example objective statements where some of them are not as objective as you claimed.

Yes, that entire statement was my subjective opinion, but you went ahead and assumed that there was no objective backing to it, without asking me.

Okay, I'll rephrase: "The group of people that dislike grid girls is sufficiently large that F1 chose to get rid of them"

Back to the pedantry. The statement "grid girls don't participate in the actual sport being performed" is not alone grounds for removal of grid girls, it is in combination with other things. Ie. had the grid girls participated in the sport in some fashion, it would be difficult to remove them regardless of anything else. That is not the case though.

Non-essential: adjective, "not absolutely necessary".

Meaning, the cost of having grid girls is a cost that isn't necessary to perform the sport. It has nothing to do with percentages (I really can't for the life of me figure out how on earth you managed to drag arbitrary percentages into this. It literally has no connection with what I said). Your entire paragraph here makes no sense. Evidently, grid girls are not absolutely necessary when F1 are removing them....

So no, the statement is absolutely objectively true.

There's no "but". Both your statement and my statement is correct. Like I said, the difference lies in how you and I weigh those statements in importance. I think it's more important that people that have more to do with the actual sport get to participate in some fashion, inspiring the next generation of Formula racing drivers.

Because your own perspective is limited in comparison to what I had which limits your statement's ability to main objectivity.

What constitutes as "sufficiently large"?

That's not pedantry. I was merely poking fun of your propensity to make comparisons due to one similarity.

You make a good point, but I would also like to point out that it's difficult to cite the lack of participation in the actual motorsport as the main reason for the removal of grid girls (not what you're arguing before you start accusing me of strawmanning).

That is your subjective opinion and I'll explain why. Firstly, this was your original objective statement: "Grid girls represent a non-essential cost to the tournament". Then, you proceeded to make a subjective interpretation of what non-essential means.

As I said already, grid girls also hold sponsoring duties. They are another avenue for companies to advertise their products. I would assume that these companies have to pay F1 money to advertise their products since the grid girls are employees of F1. While they do not perform the sport, they still make monetary contributions to F1. You may retort that my interpretation of non-essential is subjective, too, but F1 is a company and a company's main goal is profits, which leads to my next paragraph.

Percentages or raw numbers are important because they are purely objective metrics. They give no room for opinions. I showed that grid girls can be necessary in terms of bringing revenue to F1 via companies wanting to advertise their products. So for you to prove that they are "not absolutely necessary" (by my interpretation that is based on objective fact, btw), you need to show that the returns grid girls make are miniscule. Perhaps show me that over the past 5 years, the revenue they bring in are dropping YOY each year. That is an exemplary example of an objective metric that I cannot possibly argue around. You can call that pedantry (and frankly, you're throwing it as a buzzword at this point) or play the "I really can't for the life of me" card, but as long you throw adjectives around and make very subjective interpretations, you are not helping your argument.

And I think as long as the grid girls bring in good returns for sponsors and their employer, then I see no problem. And before you go "Well, F1 decided that grid girls aren't worth it", I point back to my previous two paragraphs. Plus, you also admitted that F1 made the wrong call, so there's that.

You're gonna have to explain this further. How is my perspective limited?

You'll have to ask F1. It was by definition sufficiently large for F1 to make that decision, given that F1 did make that decision. Unless you are questioning the definition of "sufficiently".

Actually I didn't make any subjective evaluation about what non-esential means. I used the oxford dictionairy definition. You can argue that any interpretation of a word is subjective, but then we can just throw everything out the window because all these words are useless.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/non-essential

And that makes it very simple. By the standard definition of non-essential, grid girld are indeed non-essential.

The rest of your paragraph is useless because it's based on a false assumption about what the word non-essential actually means. If you want to make up your own definition anytime a word doesn't suit your argument, go ahead, but I'm not gonna bother replying in that case.

You are certainly not helping your argument by making up a new definition of a word because the actual one doesn't fit with what you're trying to say.

Do you have any data for the returns grid girls bring in, as opposed to grid kids? As far as I could find, this data isn't publicly available, so you stand on the same grounds as me here. Besides, I haven't said removing grid girls is neccesarily more profitable for F1. I just think (based on my subjective evaluation of publicly available objective facts) that it's better for the long-term health of the sport. By long term health I mean amount of participants in the sport and amount of viewers of the sport.

This is just straight up false. I've said seceral times that F1 might have made the wrong call financially. They might also have made the right call financially. -There is currently no way to know, and it'll likely take a few years to judge what impact this has, if any. I've never said that it was the wrong call, nor have I claimed with certainty that it is the right call financially.

And there will ever be girls/boys wanting to sell and buy sex.

It is even funnier that several SJW will preach over it and fight it in their country and then do sexual tourism in 3rd world country.

Because you only speak for yourself on the first example 'objective statement'. The objective statement I gave cited a primary source, in contrast.

Then your use of sufficient does not make your statement objective unless we have an empirical measure of what "sufficient" is. I ask you how do we evaluate whether something is "sufficient" and your response is to ask F1. Not good enough.

Well, you're certainly not helping your argument by throwing false accusations of me making up a new definition when my thesis was about the application of the definition, not about the definition itself. I'm surprised that you are unable to distinguish the difference between the two thing.

The Oxford definition of non-essential is objective, but that doesn't make your use of the term objective. This is along the lines (but not exactly) of an ad hoc fallacy. I also did not make up a false assumption of what non-essential means. I argued that how you used the word is not correct with the reason being that you limited the use of the term to whether grid girls participate in the sports or not. In other words, you were being pedantic (your absolutely favorite word). In contrast, I argued that grid girls are potentially not non-essential from a business standpoint as F1 is indeed a business and a company's ultimate goal is to make profit. For someone who preached about "covering all bases", you are not practicing what you're preaching.

Anyways, it was why I made that long paragraph about percentages and raw numbers. Maybe I made it too irrational to ask for actual hard numbers. However, we can, at least, find public statements from F1 about the decline of financial return from grid girls if they are indeed non-essential business-wise. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to the steady decline on the financial returns from grid girls over the past few years, we have regrettably decided to end the practice in F1". In this example, while there are no hard numbers, but F1 has cited a YOY decline in the financial contributions from grid girls to F1 as the reason. Of course, that is not the case in reality. They just cited... "societal norms".

I point to my previous paragraph.

Yeah, I dun goofed at that part, lol. I meant to say that you said F1 might have potentially made the wrong call. I apologize.

What? I only speak for myself on the first "objective statement"? Which one was that? I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Is it the "I don't see the use of female models in a motorsport tournament" statement? I've never claimed that is an objective stateme, it explicitly states "I don't see". In fact I've told you several times that that was a subjective statement (as if that was necessary).

Seriously, what is it you are referring to here?

I said it was sufficient for F1. If my sentence had ended after sufficient, you'd have a point, but it didn't. Did F1 make the decision to get rid of grid girls based on pressure from external groups? Yes. Ergo that external group was sufficiently large (large enough) to get F1 to make that decision. We don't need an empirical measure on how large that group is, beause my statement was that it was large enough that F1 made that decision. Which it neccesarily is, since F1 made that decision.

We have an empirical measure of that - did F1 decide to remove grid girls? The empirical answer is yes. Ergo the group opposing grid girls was sufficiently large to get F1 to decide to remove grid girls. I thought that was self-evident? It's a logical necessity.

I have empirical evidence proving that grid girls aren't absolutely necessary for either:

F1 decided to get rid of grid girls. Ergo they aren't absolutely necessary, not for business, nor for the sport.

Further evidence: The world endurance championship got rid of grid girls in 2015. Conclusion - grid girls are not absolutely neccesary, anyway you cut it. Do they provide some benefit? Possibly, but that benefit is empirically non-essential as several formula racing tournaments don't have them.

https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/wec-getting-rid-of-grid-girls-for-all-events-including-le-mans/

Let me get this straight - do you think grid girls are absolutely necessary to have a formual racing tournament? Can you not have a formula racing tournament without grid girls?

Are you not only speaking for yourself when you say "I don't see"? Wouldn't that make your perspective limited since it's limited to you?

And I also pointed that the opposing group is larger than the external group that pressured F1 as a counter-objective statement. So if you call the external group "sufficiently large", what does that make the opposing group? Don't you see how the puzzle pieces do not fit together?

I will quote part of my previous response: "However, we can, at least, find public statements from F1 about the decline of financial return from grid girls if they are indeed non-essential business-wise. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to the steady decline on the financial returns from grid girls over the past few years, we have regrettably decided to end the practice in F1". In this example, while there are no hard numbers, but F1 has cited a YOY decline in the financial contributions from grid girls to F1 as the reason. Of course, that is not the case in reality. They just cited... "societal norms"."

The link you provided also does not offer the kind of example statement I given out. Instead, the article mainly focused on stereotypes, scantily clad women, and objectification of women. The article also makes it sound like the WEC is making a political statement with the phrase"the FIA-run WEC takes a stand against the controversial tradition". I do not see a direct quote from the WEC either, so I would assume like F1, it also got pressured from an external group that is "sufficiently large", but potentially smaller than the opposing group which puts the "sufficiently large" part into question. If you provide a statement from the WEC saying that they found that the financial contributions grid girls make to the WEC have been declining over the past few years (or something similar), then I will gladly concede your point.

I will also decline to answer your questions because the debate is about economical necessity, not about practicality, hence making your questions off-topic.

Have I claimed otherwise? My opinion is my opinion, but what makes "my perspective" more limited than yours?

The group in support of grid girls is evidently not sufficiently large to make F1 keep them. They may be larger, but that doesn't make my statement not objective - it just means F1 puts unequal importance to the two groups. Perhaps the group in support of grid girls is larger, but support them less adamantly, so they on average care less. Either way, that the group was sufficiently large to make F1 remove grid girls is empirically true and an objective statement. 

In addition - http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11231936/scrapping-grid-girls-divides-opinion-but-returns-f1-to-the-frontpages

Sky sports's poll show a larger group supporting F1's decision to remove grid girls.

The link was just as a source that WEC did indeed stop having grid girls in 2015. Whatever opinions they've written in addition is irrelevant. WEC hasn't had grid girls since 2015. WEC is a formula racing tournament. Conclusion - grid girls aren't neccesary to have a formula racing tournament.

I've demonstrated that there exists tournaments that don't have grid girls. That alone proves that grid girls aren't necessary. It's not complicated. Formula racing tournaments that don't have grid girls exist. Thus Grid girls aren't necessary to have a formula 1 tournament. You can try and spin all you like, but that's a fact.

Anyway, luckily for me, the end result is that F1 made their decision in favour of the view I support