| Teeqoz said: 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! |
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'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. |
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.
| 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. |
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.
DonFerrari cleared the external pressure part with me, so my bad if I missed something.
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.
|
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. |
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.
|
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. |
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.
