| Teeqoz said: 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. |
Because your own perspective is limited in comparison to what I had which limits your statement's ability to main objectivity.
|
Okay, I'll rephrase: "The group of people that dislike grid girls is sufficiently large that F1 chose to get rid of them" |
What constitutes as "sufficiently large"?
|
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. |
That's not pedantry. I was merely poking fun of your propensity to make comparisons due to one similarity.
You make a good point, but I would also like to point out that it's difficult to cite the lack of participation in the actual motorsport as the main reason for the removal of grid girls (not what you're arguing before you start accusing me of strawmanning).
|
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. |
That is your subjective opinion and I'll explain why. Firstly, this was your original objective statement: "Grid girls represent a non-essential cost to the tournament". Then, you proceeded to make a subjective interpretation of what non-essential means.
As I said already, grid girls also hold sponsoring duties. They are another avenue for companies to advertise their products. I would assume that these companies have to pay F1 money to advertise their products since the grid girls are employees of F1. While they do not perform the sport, they still make monetary contributions to F1. You may retort that my interpretation of non-essential is subjective, too, but F1 is a company and a company's main goal is profits, which leads to my next paragraph.
Percentages or raw numbers are important because they are purely objective metrics. They give no room for opinions. I showed that grid girls can be necessary in terms of bringing revenue to F1 via companies wanting to advertise their products. So for you to prove that they are "not absolutely necessary" (by my interpretation that is based on objective fact, btw), you need to show that the returns grid girls make are miniscule. Perhaps show me that over the past 5 years, the revenue they bring in are dropping YOY each year. That is an exemplary example of an objective metric that I cannot possibly argue around. You can call that pedantry (and frankly, you're throwing it as a buzzword at this point) or play the "I really can't for the life of me" card, but as long you throw adjectives around and make very subjective interpretations, you are not helping your argument.
|
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. |
And I think as long as the grid girls bring in good returns for sponsors and their employer, then I see no problem. And before you go "Well, F1 decided that grid girls aren't worth it", I point back to my previous two paragraphs. Plus, you also admitted that F1 made the wrong call, so there's that.
