| Teeqoz said: 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. |
Bolded has poor grammar, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
But you're proving my point when you say that the purpose of a business is to make money, in which F1 is indeed one. Just because F1's business is in sports, it does not make its goal not making money. If grid girls help increase profits, then they are essential because they help the business achieve its goal. As a result, you have not proved your point on non-essentialism. You only achieved in arguing the job's non-essentialism in the context of participation in sports, but not in the context of business. So whether you care or not is completely irrelevant. Whether you think the removal, on your subjective opinion, is a great move is also completely irrelevant, so I am not sure why you are bringing up these off-topic things into the conversation.
|
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 in terms of sports participation, but some do when it comes to economics (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 for certain motorsport businesses. 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. |
Actually, my conclusion is not a non sequitur. If you claim that F1 is removing grid girls because they deem them not "worth it", then Formula E and NASCAR are keeping grid girls because they are "worth it" if I were to stick to your standard. It doesn't matter, on your subjective and restrictive opinion, on whether grid girls are "non-essential". The objective fact remains that Formula E and NASCAR are keeping grid girls employed because they deem them essential to their businesses. If grid girls are not a necessity, then they would not be employed by either of them which proves your point to be totally incorrect.
So the logic ultimately follows which contradicts your claim that my argument is a "true" non sequitur. I also made some modifications to your response to make it more accurate. You know... to "cover all the bases".
Last edited by Aura7541 - on 22 February 2018
