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:

What? I only speak for myself on the first "objective statement"? Which one was that? I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Is it the "I don't see the use of female models in a motorsport tournament" statement? I've never claimed that is an objective stateme, it explicitly states "I don't see". In fact I've told you several times that that was a subjective statement (as if that was necessary).

Seriously, what is it you are referring to here?

Are you not only speaking for yourself when you say "I don't see"? Wouldn't that make your perspective limited since it's limited to you?

Have I claimed otherwise? My opinion is my opinion, but what makes "my perspective" more limited than yours?

Aura7541 said: 

I said it was sufficient for F1. If my sentence had ended after sufficient, you'd have a point, but it didn't. Did F1 make the decision to get rid of grid girls based on pressure from external groups? Yes. Ergo that external group was sufficiently large (large enough) to get F1 to make that decision. We don't need an empirical measure on how large that group is, beause my statement was that it was large enough that F1 made that decision. Which it neccesarily is, since F1 made that decision.

We have an empirical measure of that - did F1 decide to remove grid girls? The empirical answer is yes. Ergo the group opposing grid girls was sufficiently large to get F1 to decide to remove grid girls. I thought that was self-evident? It's a logical necessity.

And I also pointed that the opposing group is larger than the external group that pressured F1 as a counter-objective statement. So if you call the external group "sufficiently large", what does that make the opposing group? Don't you see how the puzzle pieces do not fit together?

The group in support of grid girls is evidently not sufficiently large to make F1 keep them. They may be larger, but that doesn't make my statement not objective - it just means F1 puts unequal importance to the two groups. Perhaps the group in support of grid girls is larger, but support them less adamantly, so they on average care less. Either way, that the group was sufficiently large to make F1 remove grid girls is empirically true and an objective statement. 

In addition - http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11231936/scrapping-grid-girls-divides-opinion-but-returns-f1-to-the-frontpages

Sky sports's poll show a larger group supporting F1's decision to remove grid girls.

Aura7541 said: 

I have empirical evidence proving that grid girls aren't absolutely necessary for either:

F1 decided to get rid of grid girls. Ergo they aren't absolutely necessary, not for business, nor for the sport.

Further evidence: The world endurance championship got rid of grid girls in 2015. Conclusion - grid girls are not absolutely neccesary, anyway you cut it. Do they provide some benefit? Possibly, but that benefit is empirically non-essential as several formula racing tournaments don't have them.

https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/wec-getting-rid-of-grid-girls-for-all-events-including-le-mans/

Let me get this straight - do you think grid girls are absolutely necessary to have a formual racing tournament? Can you not have a formula racing tournament without grid girls?

I will quote part of my previous response: "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"."

The link you provided also does not offer the kind of example statement I given out. Instead, the article mainly focused on stereotypes, scantily clad women, and objectification of women. The article also makes it sound like the WEC is making a political statement with the phrase"the FIA-run WEC takes a stand against the controversial tradition". I do not see a direct quote from the WEC either, so I would assume like F1, it also got pressured from an external group that is "sufficiently large", but potentially smaller than the opposing group which puts the "sufficiently large" part into question. If you provide a statement from the WEC saying that they found that the financial contributions grid girls make to the WEC have been declining over the past few years (or something similar), then I will gladly concede your point.

I will also decline to answer your questions because the debate is about economical necessity, not about practicality, hence making your questions off-topic.

The link was just as a source that WEC did indeed stop having grid girls in 2015. Whatever opinions they've written in addition is irrelevant. WEC hasn't had grid girls since 2015. WEC is a formula racing tournament. Conclusion - grid girls aren't neccesary to have a formula racing tournament.

I've demonstrated that there exists tournaments that don't have grid girls. That alone proves that grid girls aren't necessary. It's not complicated. Formula racing tournaments that don't have grid girls exist. Thus Grid girls aren't necessary to have a formula 1 tournament. You can try and spin all you like, but that's a fact.

Anyway, luckily for me, the end result is that F1 made their decision in favour of the view I support