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'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.

I think it's a subjective statement and I already explained how with the use of qualifiers. Since we're going to keep going on in circles about this, we might as well put this to rest.

I was using the Good Morning Britain poll facetiously. That part wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but point taken. The part where I was serious was the one about the F1i poll and how likely a larger proportion of respondents in that poll belong in F1's target audience than that in the Sky Sports poll.

If you believe that the group that opposes the move is larger than the group that supports the move, then wouldn't that potentially be an unsound economic decision? If you upset the larger group, then the drop in revenue and profits would likely be greater than if you upset the smaller group. And if that's the case, then F1's decision is less economically driven and more ideologically driven.

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...

Yes do have different views on what "absolutely necessary" implies because I am not as fixated on "absolutely necessary" as you are. Do grid girls provide some financial benefit? Yes. Can they potentially help boost the amount of profits a motorsport company can earn? Yes. Is a company's main goal is to earn as much profit as possible? Yes. As long as grid girls contribute to the company's economics, then I don't see a problem and a need to be purely fixated on the condition of "absolutely necessary". In other words (and your favorite word), you're being pedantic. If companies employ people who are not "absolutely necessary" even if they contribute to the profits, is it really that bad?

I said non-essential, and we both agree that the definition of non-essential is "not absolutely necessary". If you want to focus on something else than what I've said, then don't say in reply to those specific statements.

For the record, I don't think F1 should remove grid girls because it will make them more money. I could care less about how much money F1 makes. The purpose of a business is to make money, but the purpose of a sport is isn't. F1 themselves can worry about money - that isn't my responsibility. If F1 sacrifices profits in favor of trying to grow the sport and reach a wider audience, I think that's a great move, even though it isn't a great business move. If you want to worry about F1 not making enough money because they remove grid girls, you can, but I don't.

And for the record, I'm also completely fine with there being Formula racing venues that do have grid girls. If people absolutely really enjoy that part of motorsport culture - more power to them. And if people enjoy that part of motorsport so much that they quit watching F1, and start watching NASCAR or Indycar instead because of this decision, that's cool. More options for the audience and fans as to what they want in a tournament is great in my eyes. I don't want every formula racing company/tournament to be a carbon copy of eachother.

Aura7541 said: 

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.

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.

It's rather simple. As long as some motorsport companies still employ grid girls, then your statement doesn't hold true because if grid girls aren't "absolutely necessary" (which is a rather restrictive condition that you arbitrarily imposed), then there would be 0 motorsport companies who employ grid girls. You have argued before that F1 stopped the practice because they deemed grid girls not "worth it", so wouldn't the inverse of that argument be true if I were to stick to that same standard?

This is a true non sequitur. Your conclusions doesn't follow from the reasoning you present.

Plenty of companies and organisations have positions that aren't absolutely necessary. It's not absolutely necessary for a large company to have a cafeteria with chefs, but some do, and some don't. It's not absolutely necessary for a formula racing tournament to have grid girls, but some do (like NASCAR, and Formula E which has grid girls occasionally, and grid kids on other occasions) and some don't (like F1 now). NASCAR deems the position worth it, while F1 does not. This, once again, does not contradict my point - grid girls aren't a necessity.

 

Anyway, we've been at this for 24 hours. I've said everything I want to say. You can write as much more as you like - you can have the last word if you want. But I'm satisfied with this, and I'll be attending to other things that I deem more "worth" my time.