Aura7541 said:
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. |
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.
Aura7541 said:
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. |
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...
Aura7541 said:
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. |
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.
| Aura7541 said: 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. |
Okay, we've been through this. I didn't say the reasons behind those similarities were the same. I used it to illustrate one specific point - they both lost the "choice" to continue their job. But alas, given how we are still discussing it, I clearly wasn't specific enough, since it led to this much misunderstanding.
Aura7541 said:
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. |
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.)
Aura7541 said:
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. |
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.
