| Teeqoz said: 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. |
A question can be a faulty argument because there's a debate tactic called the Socratic Method. I assumed that you were using the Socratic Method because you seemed to want to prod my thought process. Arguments can be made while asking a question because they can inherently have a sort of slant towards an opinion or a topic. If you think it's not a non sequitur, fine. However, that does not change from the fact that it was way off topic. As I pointed out, you don't go from "There are now less positions unless Formula E opens more of them" to "So we should just force F1 to keep grid girls?". And remember, you didn't say that you agreed with my point until much later.
Watch the Channel 4 interview with Jordan Peterson and you'll know who she is.
|
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" |
So you made the comparison just because of one word? What about "choice" that makes it an important focus in the discussion? Just "choice" or the nature behind the "choices"? This is why I've been pushing for specificity because if you aren't more specific, then you're not making an argument, you're making an observation. Observations are not arguments. In contrast, interpretations of observations can be one.
|
It was an off-topic quip in reply to your off-topic statement. Fair game. |
To quote you, "you should point out where my logic fails, not just say it is so." And my statement wasn't off-topic and I'll show you why instead of just saying it. You mentioned that you saw no problem with the reduction of positions and I addressed that particular part of your statement in my response after that. So therefore, not a fair game.
|
Yes, the second part is my subjective opinion. I did write "I'm still in favor of". You are free to disagree. |
And I pointed out at some objective reasons that support the opposite position. You held your stance based on a subjective opinion. I, on the other hand, hold the opposite stance based on observations which are not subjective.
"I don't see the use of female models in a motorsports tournament" is a subjective statement.
"Grid girls are also responsible for sponsoring, not just racers and their cars." is an objective statement.
