Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
What I really love is when you see some dude and think "wow, that hipster has mad style" and then realize he's 85.

---

girl, don't even get me started on this 60 year old mail lady I've had my eye on.

but seriously, there has got to be something more to the whole image thing than attraction. andy warhol who claimed to be asexual was a very fashion conscious man and just look at how many parents dress up their kids.

me being sick and laying around the house has really done a number on my worthy philosophical pursuits...

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
There probably is more to it than just showing social position, but that's definitly an element. The way one dresses signifies all kinds of concepts. Dorky glasses, slightly unkempt tapered jeans, chuck taylors and suit vests mean 'artistic' and 'intellectual.' Dreads, earth tones, natural fibres, and crystals mean 'peaceful' and 'spirtual.'

---

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
They are projections, but I didn't invent them.

---

Does the fact that you've been conditioned to be presumptuous validate one's projections as being accurate?

Quote:

---

Certain clothing symbolizes certain values and interests to others.

---

Quote:

---

The function of it is weeding through people to get straight to the ones you think you're gonna relate to.

---

It certainly seems to be a pretty ineffective function.

Quote:

---

Don't even try and convince me that you don't make any assumptions whatsoever about what a person may be like based on how they present themselves.

---

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
I simply argued that the function of style is to project certain values into the world, to make oneself appealing to a particular social group...

---

Quote:

---

This is the whole point of there being different styles of dress.

---

Quote:

---

Well, what assumptions are you gonna make about a big muscly guy wearing military fatigues , a giant cross necklace and a crew cut compared to a scrawny guy with tight jeans, nerdy glasses and old chuck taylors

---

I'm going to assume that its a big muscular guy who has chosen to wear military fatigues, a cross necklace, and that they decided to cut their hair in such a manner. Similarly, I would conclude that the scrawny guy decided to wear tight jeans, "nerdy" glasses, and old... chuck taylors? Are those jeans? I don't think I would make any assumptions beyond that. What if the scrawny guy wore really cool glasses, but accidentally sat on them, and he had to buy the nerdy ones while he was waiting for his style to come back in stock? I wouldn't want to make a moron of myself by daring to judge the personal nature of individuals through such trivial aspects of their appearance, especially when there is no inherent meaning within those aspects.

Quote:

---

, or how about a woman who flattens down her breasts, wears baggy clothes and cuts her hair really short?

---

What of her? Does it mean that she voted for Ross Perot?

Quote:

---

These assumptions can be fluid and willing to bend, but they are unavoidably there nonetheless.

---

Which assumptions are unavoidably there?

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
Why do you think people are drawn to wearing particular styles? What is the source of specific personal preferences?

---

Quote:

---

The real question is which assumptions do we draw from the fabrics that humans choose to adorn themselves with. I draw no conclusion regarding how an individual chooses to dress beyond the fact that they have chosen to dress that way. I don't see how an individual could successfully discern much meaning beyond that.

---

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
You misunderstand me and have interpreted my statement much more narrowly than it was intended.

---

Is this why you made a statement like "These assumptions can be fluid and willing to bend, but they are unavoidably there nonetheless. " and then refuse to answer my question asking which assumptions are unavoidably there? What were you implying by asking me which assumptions I would draw from the different examples you provided?

Furthermore, how do you reconcile your statement "I simply argued that the function of style is to project certain values into the world" with another one you put forth just now: "I'm not saying that clothing actually means anything at all or that it's a means of 'self expression...'"? You clearly stated that the whole reason different styles of dress exist is as a function to project certain values into the world.

Quote:

---

Also, for the record, saying that 'reality itself' proves a point is a logical fallacy, considering that at all times what constitutes 'reality' is what is under the scrutiny of debate. It's like saying the bible is true because the bible says it's true.

---

Quote:

---

appleorange said:
yea, my idea of what looks nice definitely differs from the norm.

i'm probably the only guy who thinks that those vintage 1 piece swimsuits are sexy

---

Hahah, you're defintly not the ONLY one. I have one of those bathing suits, the kind with pointy tits!

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
FWG, the way you are arguing is so polemical that it's just irritating to engage for very long. I just don't have the energy or the will to continue the battle when you are so clearly invested in your POV that you can't recognize the validity of anything beyond it. It'd be far more interesting and productive to recognize points for the other side with something like "I see where you're coming from but this or that part is questionable" or "this needs to be modified in this or that way." You argue as though there were rigid deductive categories of right and wrong and that we can't each have differing yet mutually valid insight into the subject. This is precisely the kind of topic that is influenced by a variety of factors and which lends itself to broad interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

Well then, you seem to be suggesting that everyone dresses themselves, as they do, to project certain values to others. My argument is that this is not true, and reality supports my contention.

---

Quote:

---

No, it isn't a logical fallacy. I say "reality itself demonstrates this", someone questions that statement, I demonstrate how reality itself demonstrates it. Its as simple as that, really. Its actually more like saying "The first book of the Bible is Genesis". I can demonstrate that such is the case.

---

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
FWG, the way you are arguing is so polemical that it's just irritating to engage for very long.

---

Quote:

---

I just don't have the energy or the will to continue the battle when you are so clearly invested in your POV that you can't recognize the validity of anything beyond it.

---

Quite the unsubstantiated conclusion. This is one of those statements that has nothing to do with the discussion itself and cannot be verified (how do we even know that the point of view you've presented even has any validity to it? we certainly can't know that if you abandon it and try to blame me ). It borders on personalisms. I guess its easier to accuse others of being unable to understand than to promote understanding by backing up one's own contentions.

Quote:

---

It'd be far more interesting and productive to recognize points for the other side with something like "I see where you're coming from but this or that part is questionable" or "this needs to be modified in this or that way."

---

Not everyone uses the same mannerisms in presenting their viewpoint and questioning others. I see no reason to think that this syntax you propose here should be more preferential. You certainly haven't been using it. I don't think "its not what you say, its how you say it" is really going to fly in P&S anyways; most long-term posters here don't take issue with their points being critically analyzed.

Quote:

---

You argue as though there were rigid deductive categories of right and wrong and that we can't each have differing yet mutually valid insight into the subject.

---

No I don't. I simply expect that, if I answer your questions, you answer mine. Somewhere along the line, you decided to stop that mutual exchange and start accusing me of misunderstanding (without demonstrating how as much is true) and taking issue with the way in which I approach a discussion (something that didn't stop you from replying for the first half of the thread). I've already clearly stated that some people use style as a function of projecting "values" and to seek acceptance with certain social groups. You've implied that different manners of dress (complete with examples) unavoidably carries with it certain assumptions, and you stated that the whole point of there being different styles of dress is to project different values into the world and to make oneself appealing to social groups. I've asked questions regarding those statements and they have thusfar gone by with no subsequent response.

I'm more than willing (I already have ) to admit the validity of the main idea of your point, but I have disagreed with the sweeping context in which you've placed that main idea, proposing that the purpose of style itself is this function and that styles of dress carry with them objective assumptions. I'm more than willing to admit that my conclusions regarding this context could have been misinterpretations, but to do so would require you to respond to my counter-points and questions, instead of to simply be told I misunderstand and that the manners in which I'm approaching this discussion are too polemical and that you don't have the energy to stick with your expressed point of view.

Quote:

---

This is precisely the kind of topic that is influenced by a variety of factors and which lends itself to broad interpretation.

---

The nature of the topic itself has nothing to do with the specifics of our discussion. The fact that we are discussing a topic that is influenced by a variety of factors doesn't mean that your specific statements are to be broadly interpreted. I regret that this conversation had to go this direction, instead of simply adhering to the discussion itself, but, for someone without the will and energy to follow through with the discussion itself, you certainly had enough to take it into griping about imaginary problems with the ways in which I've approached the discussion in P&S.

Quote:

---

Cameron said:
Absolutely. I don't see how something so ambiguous and apt to different interpretations as appearance and its connection to social interaction/grouping could possibly be disproved or even argued (as being unimportant or non-existent).

---

Oh, so you don't really understand the course this discussion has taken. NiamNyx put forth the viewpoint that the reason different styles of dress exist is because the function of style itself is to project values and to appeal to social groups. I contend that, while some individuals may indeed have the motivation of expressing some value or seeking the attention of some social group in forming their personal preference for which clothing they wish to adorn themselves with, it stands perfectly clear that there is a myriad of other reasons why individuals can and do choose to wear certain clothing. This fact, in and of itself, disproves her assertion.

It doesn't matter how ambiguous or how intricately complex the topic itself is. That is, quite simply, what is at issue here. Feel free to read my posts; it should be perfectly clear that this is all I have ever sustained. I see no reason why the manners in which I've approached seeking out the acknowledgment of this should be blamed for another's inability to support their original contention.

Quote:

---

Obviously you both make valid points, but one doesn't cancel out the other.

---

We can't both be right. There can't be the reason why people choose to dress themselves if there is other reasons.

Quote:

---

Why not knock out the middleman and cut straight to the chase?

---

Quote:

---

appleorange said:
YOU GUYS NEED TO STOP ARGUING AND LET'S TOUCH BASE ON THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT.

---

You haven't demonstrated that old people generally dress well (a subjective judgment, naturally), so I couldn't begin to address "why" they do.

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:

Quote:

---

appleorange said:
YOU GUYS NEED TO STOP ARGUING AND LET'S TOUCH BASE ON THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT.

---

You haven't demonstrated that old people generally dress well (a subjective judgment, naturally), so I couldn't begin to address "why" they do.

---

This isn't a matter of whether or not they actually look nice, it's a matter of why they want to look nice.

It's also pretty safe to assume, that old people are not dressing up to get laid.

Some other motive must be at hand.

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
Its possible that its part of some conspiracy to make you look worse by comparison so you don't get laid.

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:

I contend that, while some individuals may indeed have the motivation of expressing some value or seeking the attention of some social group in forming their personal preference for which clothing they wish to adorn themselves with, it stands perfectly clear that there is a myriad of other reasons why individuals can and do choose to wear certain clothing. This fact, in and of itself, disproves her assertion.

We can't both be right. There can't be the reason why people choose to dress themselves if there is other reasons.

---

Quote:

---

An interest in being concise.

---

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
Alright FWG, I'm backing myself up with scientific research.

---

Strange... I was expecting scientific research that demonstrated that the reason why everyone chooses every piece of clothing they wear is due to a seeking to convey values and to present oneself in relation to social groups. Do you have any research that says that, or are you finally ready to concede that your earlier statements are not in accordance with the nature of reality?

Quote:

---

Cameron said:
Alright, that's all I was suggesting: that projecting ones personality through style was a reason why people dress the way they do, not the reason why they do it.

---

Exactly; I had personally stated as much several times throughout the course of this thread.

Quote:

---

It would be silly to claim that that is the sole reason, or to contend that everyone thinks alike - it didn't seem (to me) like that is what Niam was suggesting at all.

---

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
I simply argued that the function of style is to project certain values into the world, to make oneself appealing to a particular social group... This is the whole point of there being different styles of dress.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, I thought that she was becoming frustrated because you weren't recognizing the validity of her claim (that it was a reason - misunderstanding?).

---

It would be pretty baseless to become frustrated about something I had already recognized multiple times. Throughout she has not answered multiple, direct questions regarding specific ideas she advanced. If she is frustrated, it probably has something to do with that inability.

Quote:

---

I don't understand. Your interest in conciseness motivates you to post something as vague and meaningless as 'reality itself proves this', when you could explain the reasoning behind this immediately (rather than wait for someone to ask 'how does reality itself prove this?)?

---

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
It's pure rhetoric- it's psychologically convincing, yet it means nothing at all. "Reality" doesn't prove anything. It's the observers prerogative to interpret and explain the so called "reality" they observe.

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
Well then, you seem to be suggesting that everyone dresses themselves, as they do, to project certain values to others. My argument is that this is not true, and reality supports my contention.

---

The sentence was a summary of my argument. It wasn't the argument itself. Why would it be expected that the entirety of one's position be presented within a summary of one's contention? Perhaps one would have been better off either debunking my points that lead credence to the conclusion that reality supports my contention, or conceding that one's earlier expressed point of view was not accurate, instead of inaccurately taking issue with trivial matters.

Quote:

---

Cameron said:

---

Send some this way.

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
Alright FWG, I'm backing myself up with scientific research.

---

Strange... I was expecting scientific research that demonstrated that the reason why everyone chooses every piece of clothing they wear is due to a seeking to convey values and to present oneself in relation to social groups. Do you have any research that says that, or are you finally ready to concede that your earlier statements are not in accordance with the nature of reality?

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
the nature of reality

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
the nature of reality

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
the nature of reality

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
the nature of reality

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
the nature of reality

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
the nature of reality

---

Quote:

---

What does this statement mean to you?


I simply argued that the function of style is to project certain values into the world, to make oneself appealing to a particular social group... This is the whole point of there being different styles of dress.

---

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:

I NEVER said that it was the sole factor, or that it was a conscious, active process (although it is for many people.) There are a variety of factors that go into selecting items of clothing - functionality, impression management, availability and affordability are some of the most basic. The research I posted confirms the point I was trying to make. If you think it refutes it than you truly did misunderstand me. Not once did I say that it was the only factor, rather, I argue that it's a significant factor that applies to most people most of the time.  You are committing the straw man fallacy, misreprestenting my argument to make it appear weaker than it really is.

---

Alright then, that's exactly what I thought you were saying! Glad we got that straightened out, after only two or three pages

Quote:

---

NiamhNyx said:
Not once did I say that it was the only factor, rather, I argue that it's a significant factor that applies to most people most of the time. You are committing the straw man fallacy, misreprestenting my argument to make it appear weaker than it really is.

---

Quote:

---

I simply argued that the function of style is to project certain values into the world, to make oneself appealing to a particular social group... This is the whole point of there being different styles of dress.

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
I think you're trying to abandon your own points without conceding that they were not representative of the nature of reality

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
or are you finally ready to concede that your earlier statements are not in accordance with the nature of reality?

---

In those instances, the usage has no relevance to the concern that was raised regarding my usage of the term reality, so what's your point?

Quote:

---

MindGorilla said:
dress good

look good

feel good

---