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:

I don't claim that the Sky Sports poll is gospel. Any internet poll like that (both yours and mine. BTW your link gives me a 404 error) will have flaws in demographic, and can vary wildly in sample size. It was just to show that it's not clear cut that the group in favour of grid girls is substantially larger. I also doubt the people who read at a specialized F1 site are representative of the average F1 fan, just like you and I probably aren't representative of the average gamer. So skewed demographics goes both ways.

Good that we agree that my statement was objective.

I fixed the link, it should work. I also provided two more polls and heres another one that happens to side with my stance. So I have four polls that agree with me vs only one poll that agree with you. Obviously, the amount of people who opposed the decision is greater. No, but seriously, that was why I pointed out at the proportion of respondents that belong to the target audience.

I also didn't say I agreed that your statement was objective. I said that "You can assert that the group was "sufficiently large" and that's an objective statement". I don't think fishing for gotcha moments help your case.

I'm confused. Do you not agree that the statement "the group that opposes grid girls is sufficiently large for F1 to decide to remove them." is an objective statement? Do you think it's a subjective statement?

This good morning britain poll here asks a different question - it asks the overarching question "Do you think promotional models at sports events, such as 'grid girls', should be banned?". That's a very different question to "Do you support F1's decision to get rid of grid girls?". I answer yes to the latter, but no to the former. I do not think grid girls or other promotional models should be banned. I do support F1's decision to get rid of grid girls though. The Good Morning Britain poll asks a question that is too broad to use it in support of your argument, as not wanting promotional models to be banned doesn't mean you also disagree with F1's decision to end the practice at their tournaments.

Also, let me clarify - I do believe that the group that opposes this move is larger than the group that supports the move. Once again, I do not think I've claimed otherwise, so you don't have to try and convince me about that. But even the polls you've dug up shows that there is a substantial amount of people that also support the move. 15-20% is still a large amount of people, even though they are a minory compared to the 80-85% that comprise the majority.

Aura7541 said: 

Once again - I haven't said that grid girls don't provide any financial benefit. (I also never claimed that WEC scrapped grid girls due to declining revenue - I never said anything to suggest that). They probably do provide some financial benefit (though neither of us has any data on that). But I have shown that the possible financial benefit of having grid girls is not a necessity. It's an option, but not absolutely necessary. Wether financial contributions from grid girls were declining or increasing doesn't change that fact. 

I'm very aware of that and I haven't said that you were saying that grid girls don't provide any financial benefit. I still disagree because a company's main goal is to maximize profits and if grid girls help a company do that, then that would make them necessary. As you said below, if it goes to hell or if F1's revenues and profits go down, then my argument would be supported.

If you include anything that possibly helps a company make more profit into the group of things that are "absolutely necessary", when do you stop? How do companies get by, despite missing out on many things that aren't absolutely necessary? Isn't that a contradiction? Because if you lack something that is absolutely necessary, then you would fail, right? If F1 survives after it's removal of grid girls, does that not prove that they weren't absolutely necessary? Am I absolutely necessary at my job because I bring in more in profits than I get in wages? Does that mean I am essential for my company (which employs several thousand other people)? Absolutely necessary, because I contribute a miniscule amount to the company's profits? Surely not absolutely everything that somehow contributes to profits is absolutely necessary for a company?

We clearly have wildly different views on what "absolutely necessary" implies...

Aura7541 said: 

By the way, how does Formula E still having grid girls in some of their ePrixes contradict my conclusion? I'm merely stating that it's possibly to make do without grid girls.

That's not what you said though: "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."

Since Formula E still has grid girls (as well as other tournaments like NASCAR), then your conclusion is not sound. I also said that your conclusion would be if you were referring to WEC racing tournaments because that would be more accurate.

You haven't explained to me how Formula E and NASCAR having grid girls contradicts my conclusion that grid girls aren't absolutely necessary to have a formula 1 tournament. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the World Endurance Championsip a formula racing tournament? If it's not, then sure, we'll have to wait a year to see if F1 survives without grid girls to draw the conclusion that grid girls aren't absolutely necessary for formula racing tournaments, but we do know that they aren't necessary for motorsport tournaments at least.

Aura7541 said: 

I have only said that grid girls aren't necessary. Plenty of things exist that aren't necessary. That's not a contradiction. A phone isn't necessary to communicate. That isn't contradicted by the fact that a lot of people use phoens to communicate. You don't have to add sugar to coffee. That isn't contradicted by the fact that some people add sugar to their coffee. And last but not least, you don't have to have grid girls to have a formula racing tournament. That isn't contradicted by the fact that many formula racing tournaments have grid girls.

Right?

I will point to my third paragraph. And if you put some more thought into it, you will realize that some of your examples do not support your argument that well. Hint: The phone one is a deeply flawed comparison.

Let me try to get this clear - do you think that the statement "grid girls aren't absolutely necessary to have a formula racing tournament" is contradicted by the fact that there exists formula racing tournaments that do have them? Because that's all I need to know from you here. I just need a short concise answer, a yes or no will do.