Alex, it's very simple. The answer to whether woman is a booth babe or not is whether she was paid for being a booth babe. If she has no employment with the company, or if her employment is based around going to these sort of events with over sexualized clothing to attract men to the product.
You seem to want to make the case that from anyone's perspective it's just an arbitrary judgement, when it's not. There are material facts here, where it's not women on their personal time and at their own volition, going to these events for the fun of it. They have a contractual relationship to be there, and for a purpose determined by those people who hired her.
If we are wrong in our judgements, it is very easy to ascertain that from material facts by asking the question: were these women paid to be just here or are they employed by the company in other roles? Perhaps your argument is to encourage people not to be judgmental about the situation, but these are not arbitrary social relationships... they are very specifically defined through economic coercion.
Also, in attacking Brock I feel you have not given him benefit of the doubt, and instead made all sorts of spurious allegations against him, and further created straw men that have no actual resemblance to his position. Instead of calmly discussing the issue, you have instead instigated a sort of flame war.
Alex, it's very simple. The
Alex, it's very simple. The answer to whether woman is a booth babe or not is whether she was paid for being a booth babe. If she has no employment with the company, or if her employment is based around going to these sort of events with over sexualized clothing to attract men to the product.
You seem to want to make the case that from anyone's perspective it's just an arbitrary judgement, when it's not. There are material facts here, where it's not women on their personal time and at their own volition, going to these events for the fun of it. They have a contractual relationship to be there, and for a purpose determined by those people who hired her.
If we are wrong in our judgements, it is very easy to ascertain that from material facts by asking the question: were these women paid to be just here or are they employed by the company in other roles? Perhaps your argument is to encourage people not to be judgmental about the situation, but these are not arbitrary social relationships... they are very specifically defined through economic coercion.
Also, in attacking Brock I feel you have not given him benefit of the doubt, and instead made all sorts of spurious allegations against him, and further created straw men that have no actual resemblance to his position. Instead of calmly discussing the issue, you have instead instigated a sort of flame war.