On Mar 18, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I don't find "goth" fashion statements to be a worthwhile measure of a person's character.
Goth fashion statement? Lol, Oh dear no. I wasn?t talking about a goth fashion statement. I was talking about a goth attitude. We know the difference. A tasteful goth fashion statement can actually be attractive. But I am not talking fashion statements. Goth fashion statements or baggy shorts fashion statements. I am talking goth attitude and baggy shorts attitude.
> I understand that for some, fashion *is* their life, but that's their character already, and the expression of it in one mode or another is hardly the cause.
Ah, so you do understand. And with reference to ?some?, after you account for the ?fashion statements?, it is all. I agree with you regarding innate character. But one?s class is not just the result of one?s CQ. Just like one?s knowledge is not just the result of one?s IQ. Nature and nurture, right? So yes, it appears that one?s character (CQ) is susceptible to baggy shorts (the attitude), but that does not necessarily have to be the outcome. You can still alter that outcome by leaning more heavily on the nurture half of the equation. I think this is a fundamental problem in bad milieu situations. Whereas middle class parents will go right at bad attitudes, lower classes either will not, can not, or do not share the concern.
Am I ok with using terms like ?goth attitude? or ?baggy shorts attitude??