| Teeqoz said: You're gonna have to explain this further. How is my perspective limited? |
Because you only speak for yourself on the first example 'objective statement'. The objective statement I gave cited a primary source, in contrast.
|
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". |
Then your use of sufficient does not make your statement objective unless we have an empirical measure of what "sufficient" is. I ask you how do we evaluate whether something is "sufficient" and your response is to ask F1. Not good enough.
|
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. |
Well, you're certainly not helping your argument by throwing false accusations of me making up a new definition when my thesis was about the application of the definition, not about the definition itself. I'm surprised that you are unable to distinguish the difference between the two thing.
The Oxford definition of non-essential is objective, but that doesn't make your use of the term objective. This is along the lines (but not exactly) of an ad hoc fallacy. I also did not make up a false assumption of what non-essential means. I argued that how you used the word is not correct with the reason being that you limited the use of the term to whether grid girls participate in the sports or not. In other words, you were being pedantic (your absolutely favorite word). In contrast, I argued that grid girls are potentially not non-essential from a business standpoint as F1 is indeed a business and a company's ultimate goal is to make profit. For someone who preached about "covering all bases", you are not practicing what you're preaching.
Anyways, it was why I made that long paragraph about percentages and raw numbers. Maybe I made it too irrational to ask for actual hard numbers. However, we can, at least, find public statements from F1 about the decline of financial return from grid girls if they are indeed non-essential business-wise. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to the steady decline on the financial returns from grid girls over the past few years, we have regrettably decided to end the practice in F1". In this example, while there are no hard numbers, but F1 has cited a YOY decline in the financial contributions from grid girls to F1 as the reason. Of course, that is not the case in reality. They just cited... "societal norms".
|
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. |
I point to my previous paragraph.
|
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. |
Yeah, I dun goofed at that part, lol. I meant to say that you said F1 might have potentially made the wrong call. I apologize.
