Contemplating investing in my first quality pair of dress shoes - new member, noob questions :/

[starro]

Beauty is subjective, but so is taste and style. Yet we've had 6(?) pages on the point.

It is a good cure for boredom though

And talking to you saves the money for a lobotomy.

If you're convinced you're right, argue against the points. If you concede the point, you can't say you're right with integrity.

 

[Kierrane]

I'd entertain you, for the sake of seeing your responses.

 

[starro]

I'd entertain you, for the sake of seeing your responses.

Interesting choice of words. Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash.

 

[raggedsweater]

Are we still on the topic of "I'm more stupid than you?"

 

[starro]

I've done extensive research (Google) on this topic and evidence suggests beauty is subjective.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+beauty+subjective+or+objective&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Hiding behind more people are we. Well I've done extensiver research,

https://www.quora.com/If-beauty-is-...d-Brad-Pitt-hideous-and-Danny-Devito-gorgeous

 

[raggedsweater]

I think you confused me with someone else who cited popular opinion to support his points. I forgive you. I'm just not interested in engaging deep into this debate.

I've already said it. I'll say this and then be done. Beauty is subjective. That is not to say standards of beauty are not. However, standards can change, suggesting they too have a degree of subjectivity. Your arguments are less about physical beauty, but rather physical attractiveness. It's not just a matter of semantics; I believe there is a large body of research and opinion supporting the theory that attraction is very much grounded in biology. Perhaps if I cited any of those, you'll say I'm hiding behind others. Well, sure. Have you never written a research paper? It's not all personal conjecture, b.s. and rhetoric. That's what I find in your most recent responses (I wasn't even opposed to your positions on other topics, except this beauty issue).

It is 6pm. I'll just conveniently make an excuse and say I should go catch my train so that my wife and I can go out to dinner tonight. I don't know why you are in the hospital, but for whatever reason it is I wish you a speedy recovery.

 

[dieworkwear]

I'm going to unpack footbinding here, since I was the one originally to bring it up. According to you, mangled feet--which are the result of forcibly constraining the foot's natural growth, beginning when the girl is less than 1 year old and never removing the instrument until she's well into adulthood, forcing the bone back into the flesh and the flesh back into the bone, all in this unnatural attempt to eliminate a woman's mobility--can be considered beautiful by a sane and morally upstanding person?

For your theory of cultural relativism to work, you hold that while we Westerners find foot binding abhorrent, inhuman, and a definite form of torture--and as far away as one can get from beauty as possible--people from a different culture, a few generations ago, found beauty in such a practice. Since a bound foot is nothing but the creation of years upon years of unending torture and mistreatment, to find the product beautiful those same people--according to you--must also think highly of the creative process that gave rise to bound feet, and they must also by necessity approve of the creators (craftsmen if you will): both the original architect of the social policy and the men down the ages who administered this gruesome practice. Is not someone who approves the torturer, who delights in the act of torture, and who finds beauty in the final fruit of torture a sadist?

You claim that while "today's Western standards" finds no beauty in footbinding (and quite a lot of moral revulsion, I might add!), bound feet were accepted as beauties in another culture, only a few generations removed. For a culture to hold something as a symbol of beauty, a critical mass of people in that culture must believe that symbol wholeheartedly. So you hold that large numbers of East Asians only a few generations ago found the fruit of torture beautiful, admired the crafting process, and approved of the torturers and enablers. You believe that many East Asians a century ago were sadists. And the people in East Asian cultures today, you hold, are descendants of either torturers or sadists.

By emphasizing the distinctness of the West from the "pre-modern" East (your words), you are downplaying any role torturers and sadists have played in shaping Western culture. In fact, by citing footbinding as an example of subjective beauty, you make torture and sadism definitional of Eastern culture. And in this false dichotomy the West is automatically disassociated from any part of the torture and sadism that have shaped, and continue to shape, its culture. What do we call this Manichaean act of presenting the West as a force for good, and native cultures as a force for evil? We call it colonialism, since Western colonial powers use this form of propaganda to extend their rule. Your position for subjective beauty standards is a position in favor of colonialism. It is remarkably insidious how you use an incidence of torture and sadism to advance the cause of imperial colonialism.

Furthermore, your argument in favor of beauty as a wishy-washy concept absolves the very culprits who inflicted torture and sadism on that culture. In your defense of Western imperialist rule, you by necessity have to defend any other form of oppression, including the intra-cultural oppression of the fairer sex falsely sold as neo-Confucianism. It is your relativist habits that blind you to the naked and obvious truth: that footbinding has zero association with beauty, or its standards, but rather is a tool of oppression wielded by the powerful against the powerless. It is the wielders of that weapon, the torturers and sadists, who propagate the lie that their victims are to achieve beauty through their debilitating torture, and you--either gullibly or guilefully--believed their lie.

This is the ugly truth lurking behind relativism of any stripe: moral, aesthetic, cultural. The seeming acceptance of everyone's values as of equal weighting is the attractive veneer covering up all the dark forces we have experienced in this world: authoritarianism, subjugation, the denial of truth and reality. Whenever a dictatorial or fascist regime comes into power, relativists will espouse views such as yours, seeking to flatten any objective standards for truth and excellence. Wittingly or unwittingly, your position advances the cause of those dark forces, because while in an anarchy of society a strongman emerges to rule over the people, in an anarchy of ideas he prevents any opposition from toppling him.

We all know the implications if you wittingly adopts this position, in direct benefit of an oppressor, be it an individual or state. Even if unwittingly, the effects are just as far-reaching, for the oppressor finds his useful idiots to have longer shelf life than mercenaries or spies. And thus, ironically, your facade of egalitarianism is really a notch on the scoreboard for cultural superiority, atrocity minimization, and nihilistic propaganda.

Wow so great John McCain is here today after yesterday's historic Comey questioning.

 

[starro]

I think you confused me with someone else who cited popular opinion to support his points. I forgive you. I'm just not interested in engaging deep into this debate.

I've already said it. I'll say this and then be done. Beauty is subjective. That is not to say standards of beauty are not. However, standards can change, suggesting they too have a degree of subjectivity. Your arguments are less about physical beauty, but rather physical attractiveness. It's not just a matter of semantics; I believe there is a large body of research and opinion supporting the theory that attraction is very much grounded in biology. Perhaps if I cited any of those, you'll say I'm hiding behind others. Well, sure. Have you never written a research paper? It's not all personal conjecture, b.s. and rhetoric. That's what I find in your most recent responses (I wasn't even opposed to your positions on other topics, except this beauty issue).

It is 6pm. I'll just conveniently make an excuse and say I should go catch my train so that my wife and I can go out to dinner tonight. I don't know why you are in the hospital, but for whatever reason it is I wish you a speedy recovery.

Thank you for the kind words, and I hope you have a lovely dinner.

"Hiding" behind other people's facts and observations is fine; it's not even hiding, just resourcefulness. Hiding behind other people's opinions is... well you can imagine. Nothing is bs if you got facts right, premises reasonable, and reason straight.

Let me remind you where all this began, with a discussion of whether a good fit is subjective or objective. What is the point of having well fitting clothes? To enhance your appearance. What is the point of projecting a positive appearance? To give off a good impression, so people think you're better looking, higher status, healthier etc. You see where I'm going?

Now, if you want to incorporate all these extraneities and call them "beauty", have at it. But you have strayed far behind the scope of the original question, and into never never land.

 

[starro]

John McCain? Is that you?

Yes I am. And you must be the Viet Cong commander who broke my arm. No wonder you're so gung ho about foot binding.

 

[dieworkwear]

Yes I am. And you must be the Viet Cong commander who broke my arm. No wonder you're so gung ho about foot binding.

My family actually escaped Vietnam because the Viet Cong bombed our homes, factories, and killed some of my aunts and uncles. So no, I'm not Viet Cong.

 

[starro]

Well who hasn't? And don't tell anyone, but it's all a big hoax perpetrated by the CIA. I have the files to prove it...

 

[RFHansen]

OP:
I'm in a similar situation: on a limited (although not student-level) budget and still having much to learn about good footwear, a bit daunted by the high bar set by some folks here on SF and their $1000+ shoes. I have looked at several offerings in the low-but-still-acceptable range of shoemakers. The editors at the website Parisiangentleman have written some very helpful guides to shoemakers in different price brackets. The one's I've considered, but not yet tried, are: Loding, Velasca, Meermin, Shoepassion, and Herring Shoes, which all offer shoes in the €160-€300 range. Charles Tyrwhitt shoes are also on the cheaper end of the scale, and the ones I have fit very well and are comfortable. I would be perfectly fine wearing something from one of these brands, and I think there's good value for money to be found there.

This may have been suggested by others, but check out some of the online multi-brand retailers like Yoox, which I use a lot. They often offer free shipping both ways, so the risk is low. Their prices can be very favourable, and they often have additional discounts. I just pulled the trigger on a pair of shoes, which are listed on the maker's website for €680. I paid €111 after an additional 15% discount.

 

[Mr Tewkesbury]

Giant WTF. Interesting room, not sure if it's a Hollywood directors escape or a subjective twats paradise???

 

[oznefu]

OP:
I'm in a similar situation: on a limited (although not student-level) budget and still having much to learn about good footwear, a bit daunted by the high bar set by some folks here on SF and their $1000+ shoes. I have looked at several offerings in the low-but-still-acceptable range of shoemakers. The editors at the website Parisiangentleman have written some very helpful guides to shoemakers in different price brackets. The one's I've considered, but not yet tried, are: Loding, Velasca, Meermin, Shoepassion, and Herring Shoes, which all offer shoes in the €160-€300 range. Charles Tyrwhitt shoes are also on the cheaper end of the scale, and the ones I have fit very well and are comfortable. I would be perfectly fine wearing something from one of these brands, and I think there's good value for money to be found there.

This may have been suggested by others, but check out some of the online multi-brand retailers like Yoox, which I use a lot. They often offer free shipping both ways, so the risk is low. Their prices can be very favourable, and they often have additional discounts. I just pulled the trigger on a pair of shoes, which are listed on the maker's website for €680. I paid €111 after an additional 15% discount.

Thanks for this. Velasca (blake rapid) really stood out to me, especially with their generous return policy. I found this and Jack Erwin (the blake constructed option). Wanted to get everyone's thoughts on these shoes? Also, wanted to mention that I took a trip to Allen Edmonds to get fitted, and wasn't really feeling the park avenue shoe. My fears of the 'stubby' style I noticed online was confirmed. Alternative, the hopkinson looked better yet much more pricey. Wanted to note that I really enjoyed the look of the dark chili and brown options, especially on the strand and fifth avenue shoe. The 65 last in 9.5 E fit me very well.

Does anyone know if the above 2 brands would be a good alternative to someone who doesn't really like the style of the PA's, and if my shoe size would be a good fit? Thanks.

 

[oznefu]

Thanks for this. Velasca (blake rapid) really stood out to me, especially with their generous return policy. I found this and Jack Erwin (the blake constructed option). Wanted to get everyone's thoughts on these shoes? Also, wanted to mention that I took a trip to Allen Edmonds to get fitted, and wasn't really feeling the park avenue shoe. My fears of the 'stubby' style I noticed online was confirmed. Alternative, the hopkinson looked better yet much more pricey. Wanted to note that I really enjoyed the look of the dark chili and brown options, especially on the strand and fifth avenue shoe. The 65 last in 9.5 E fit me very well.

Does anyone know if the above 2 brands would be a good alternative to someone who doesn't really like the style of the PA's, and if my shoe size would be a good fit? Thanks.

Hey all, found an unused, new, pair of jack erwin's 'Joe' for $100 shipped. Should I jump on it? I confirmed with Jack Erwin that their US 10 size would be the best fit based on my AE 9.5E, 65 last fitting. Only thing worrying me is that I've heard people say their shoes creased quite a bit and the leather isn't the best. Jack Erwin informed me that it was a full grain leather and that they get their leather from a tannery in France.