"Religious" and "irrational" are not synonymous, however, nor are "common sense" and "religion" antithetical. I think the question might have better been posed.
The original post should perhaps have been titled, for the sake of precision, "Rules: rational or conventional?"
My version makes for a better title. I thought of using "dogma" instead of "religion", might have been better.
Quote (alchimiste) Do I get a free shirt as a thank you for starting this thread? This is an entirely appropriate question ... if and when we reach page 49.
I just need to post 49*10 times
Who would not post 490 times for a free shirt from A. Kabbaz?
And the original poster may come to regret his choice of words as this topic gets towed to Current Events, Religion, and other Flame Wars...
That's fine, I'll get my free shirt faster.
Perhaps we can all just blame it on the non-specificity of alchimiste and void his free shirt request?
However, throughout this thread, you have been struggling mightily to alter the original question to one which better fits the answers as you would like to offer them.
Alex, I was asking whether the rules
were a religion not clothes themselves. So I think that Manton and LAguy rephrase my question more than they really change it. Are rules rational (can be derived logically) or dogmatic (there has never been any logical reason or this reason is outdated)?
it seems the extent to which dressing is a social act, is the extent to which the 'rules' of dressing constitute a religion.
I would agree with this. People don't leave the bottom button of their jackets unbuttonned because of a fat English noble man but because everybody does the same and doing otherwise would not be accepted.