Feminists outrage at walk on/Grid girls, F1 & Darts models ban. Your thoughts?

[DonFerrari]

Teeqoz said:

Aura7541 said:

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: 

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: 

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 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.

Men that is the point, you stop when that addition of cost doesn't bring enough addition of revenue. So for a company to achieve the X profit it have, everything that brings profit can be considered totally necessary. And even more when those things also help to pay fixed cost, but even when they only are profitable without fixed cost they bring the bottomline up.

And for what reason are you favorable to getting rid of grid girls of F1? Do the girls doing honest job, earning their money and not taking out from your enjoyment of F1 (do you follow F1?) are really a problem?