| Aura7541 said: 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. |
Yes, that entire statement was my subjective opinion, but you went ahead and assumed that there was no objective backing to it, without asking me.
| Aura7541 said:
"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. |
Okay, I'll rephrase: "The group of people that dislike grid girls is sufficiently large that F1 chose to get rid of them"
| Aura7541 said:
"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? |
Back to the pedantry. The statement "grid girls don't participate in the actual sport being performed" is not alone grounds for removal of grid girls, it is in combination with other things. Ie. had the grid girls participated in the sport in some fashion, it would be difficult to remove them regardless of anything else. That is not the case though.
| Aura7541 said:
"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? |
Non-essential: adjective, "not absolutely necessary".
Meaning, the cost of having grid girls is a cost that isn't necessary to perform the sport. It has nothing to do with percentages (I really can't for the life of me figure out how on earth you managed to drag arbitrary percentages into this. It literally has no connection with what I said). Your entire paragraph here makes no sense. Evidently, grid girls are not absolutely necessary when F1 are removing them....
So no, the statement is absolutely objectively true.
| Aura7541 said:
"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. |
There's no "but". Both your statement and my statement is correct. Like I said, the difference lies in how you and I weigh those statements in importance. I think it's more important that people that have more to do with the actual sport get to participate in some fashion, inspiring the next generation of Formula racing drivers.
