By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Teeqoz on 22 February 2018
Edit Thread
Aura7541 said:
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.

You're gonna have to explain this further. How is my perspective limited?

Aura7541 said: 

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"?

You'll have to ask F1. It was by definition sufficiently large for F1 to make that decision, given that F1 did make that decision. Unless you are questioning the definition of "sufficiently".

Aura7541 said: 

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.

Actually I didn't make any subjective evaluation about what non-esential means. I used the oxford dictionairy definition. You can argue that any interpretation of a word is subjective, but then we can just throw everything out the window because all these words are useless.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/non-essential

And that makes it very simple. By the standard definition of non-essential, grid girld are indeed non-essential.

The rest of your paragraph is useless because it's based on a false assumption about what the word non-essential actually means. If you want to make up your own definition anytime a word doesn't suit your argument, go ahead, but I'm not gonna bother replying in that case.

You are certainly not helping your argument by making up a new definition of a word because the actual one doesn't fit with what you're trying to say.

Aura7541 said: 

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. 

Do you have any data for the returns grid girls bring in, as opposed to grid kids? As far as I could find, this data isn't publicly available, so you stand on the same grounds as me here. Besides, I haven't said removing grid girls is neccesarily more profitable for F1. I just think (based on my subjective evaluation of publicly available objective facts) that it's better for the long-term health of the sport. By long term health I mean amount of participants in the sport and amount of viewers of the sport.

Aura7541 said: 

Plus, you also admitted that F1 made the wrong call, so there's that.

This is just straight up false. I've said seceral times that F1 might have made the wrong call financially. They might also have made the right call financially. -There is currently no way to know, and it'll likely take a few years to judge what impact this has, if any. I've never said that it was the wrong call, nor have I claimed with certainty that it is the right call financially.