By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Teeqoz on 21 February 2018
Edit Thread

 

Aura7541 said:
Teeqoz said:

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.

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.

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!

Aura7541 said: 

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.

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.

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.

Aura7541 said: 

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).

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.

Given that F1 chose to get rid of grid girls, I think it's fairly obvious that they deemed they weren't worth it. If they thought they were worth it, they wouldn't have gotten rid of them.

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.

Aura7541 said: 

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?

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.

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.


Have I said that F1 wasn't pressured by outside groups? They surely were, but it was ultimately F1's decision.

Aura7541 said: 

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.

I'm not uncomfortable (if debate made me uncomfortable, expressing thoughts that vaguely seem to support feminists on VGC wouldn't be a very good idea...)

I just didn't expect that tone from you. That was clearly poor judgement on my behalf though. Noted.

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.


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.