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:

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 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?

You understood the point? Great! Then the comparison fulfilled its purpose and was sufficient to make you understand my point! Glad we cleared that up. I'm not sure where I agreed that it wasn't a good point. I did agree that if you didn't understand my comparison, then that comparison wasn't very good, but here you just clarified that you did  understand my point so we've sorted that out!

Aura7541 said: 

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...

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.

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.

Aura7541 said: 
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.

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"?

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"

Aura7541 said: 

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.)

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.

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

Aura7541 said: 

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.

 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.

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