Aura7541 said:
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. |
Well, it is by definition not a non sequitur. That's not about what I think. You can say it was a loaded question if you felt that way, but it's not a non sequitur. And once again, I thought it was unneccesary to say that I agree with a factual statement.
Is it the memed interview where the reporter says "So what you're saying is-" time and time again? I saw it on 9Gag. I don't really see the similarity. She tried to create strawmen by putting words in the guy's mouth that he hadn't actually said. I didn't assign you an opinion, I asked for one.
Aura7541 said:
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. |
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8729343
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8729351
The focus was very much on choice being taken away. I pointed out that the choice is still available and that nothing stops them from doing so, other than the specific jobs at F1 not existing anymore. Similar to how the telegraphist jobs don't exist anymore. The reason those two jobs don't exist anymore is different. But the essence is that the choice hasn't been removed by a higher authority, it was removed because F1 didn't deem it important enough to keep, like phone companies deemed that telegraphists weren't important enough to keep (once again, looking past the different reasons for those two decisions, as that is besides the point). (and we've both agreed that clearly F1 didn't deem them important enough to keep - wether F1 was right in that assumption is a different matter).
Also, I find it ironic that you are now asking me to be more specific, because just a few posts ago you told me I didn't have to cover all bases!
Aura7541 said:
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. |
When I said I saw no problem with the reduction of positions, it was in relation to the overall decision. Anyone losing their job on an individual level is a tragedy, yet it's an inevitability. I can of course empathize with those who lost their jobs, but I don't think F1 did anything terrible. People losing their job is a part of life, unfortunately.
But yes, your statement wasn't off-topic per se. It was just inconsequential, as it followed trivially from the fact that people lost their job. Hence it was unneccesary. Do we need to specify that people are financially impacted from losing their jobs? Of course not. That's obvious. That was what I was trying to say with my "off-topic quip", but here I've clarified further as I clearly didn't get that point across.
Aura7541 said:
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. |
Uhm. You say I hold my stance based on a subjective opinion. What is your basis for that claim? You haven't asked me to give you any reasons, but you just assume I don't have any? Wonderful.
"Large groups of people dislike the practice of grid girls" is an objective statement.
"Grid girls don't participate in the actual sport being performed" is an objective statement.
"Grid girls represent a non-essential cost to the tournament" is an objective statement.
"The job grid girls does can be performed by other people with more relations to the actual sport" is an objective statement.
In the end, there are several observations for and against both stances, and which stance you end up on is based on your subjective importance you give to each. We clearly put importance on different things, but you don't have to attempt to mock my opinion as being only "based on a subjective opinion" when that is a baseless claim.
