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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

The only reason why it wouldn't make sense to you is because you are speaking in black and white terms.

"No one is saying objectification is the devils work and needs to be wiped from society"

There is a time, place and appropriateness for everything. Sex is a great thing, its how our society survives. That doesn't mean that we need to show it on Saturday morning cartoons. 

No sorry...

A company removing a position because it's unneeded isn't like a company retaining a position because it is needed. Only the points that strength my argument shall be used, reverse or equivalence that weakens it isn't acceptable, so don't try to rule out my argument using further evidence that disproves it /obvious sarcasm.

And that was what I was simply trying to say all this time. But apparently, I have to go full rocket science jargon to get that point across.

"This is a reminder that modern feminism is largely pro sex work and supports any woman's right to use any and all of her assets (physical, mental, or social) to find work that allows her to support herself..."

how can you post this in the context of what is happening now which shows the exact opposite

and i'll tell you feminism is going to keep hurting women so don't expect these criticisms to stop anytime soon