| Teeqoz said: 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. |
However, a loaded question is when you ask a question that pertains an unjustified assumption. I don't need to point out the rather large shift from what I initially started off with and the question you ended up asking. And I said Newman-esque. Your off-topic question had a resemblance to her style, but that does not necessarily mean that the comparison is one-to-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! |
Yes, and I also pointed out that that's more of an observation which isn't necessarily an argument. I'm a bit surprised that you have not addressed that part. It's more of "Hey, these two things have this similarity" and that's about it.
I see covering all bases as like going spreadshot. It has a wide general range as opposed to a pinpoint focus on one thing. If that is the incorrect interpretation, then my bad.
|
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. |
Fair enough.
|
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. |
To directly quote you, "Yes, the second part is my subjective opinion. I did write "I'm still in favor of". You are free to disagree."
As a result, I thought it was necessary to deem "I don't see the use of female models in a motorsports tournament" as a subjective statement. Because in your own admission, the phrase that preceded this statement was subjective. In addition, "I don't see" is limited to your perspective. That also raises flags for subjectivity.
In contrast, I used an actual racer as a reference for my statement as she has seen with her own eyes what grid girls do. As a result, I deem her observations to have more value because for one thing, she is actually on the race track and makes these direct observations.
"Large groups of people dislike the practice of grid girls" is an objective statement? Many problems with this one. What is defined as "large"? 1 million? 2 million? Without context, "large" is uninformative. In fact, "More people like the practice of grid girls than those who dislike the practice" is an objective statement that is supported by something recordable.
"Grid girls don't participate in the actual sport being performed" is an objective statement? Well, so do the people watching the races, but they, too, have some monetary value even though they are not participating. Since you like to make comparisons based on one similarity, should F1 ban spectators, too?
"Grid girls represent a non-essential cost to the tournament" is an objective statement. What numbers do you have to justify this conclusion? What defines as non-essential? 5%? 10%? Why is XX% considered non-essential? You also said that F1 may have made the wrong decision, which would make this statement untrue, wouldn't it not?
"The job grid girls does can be performed by other people with more relations to the actual sport" is an objective statement. But a lot of products tend to be advertised by attractive people and grid girls are no exception to the rule. That's also an objective statement.
You accuse me of mocking your arguments, but right now, you are very knee-jerky with these rather random example objective statements where some of them are not as objective as you claimed.
