/fa/ - Fashion

>>17543642
>Generally in a professional environment you want to match your shoes to your socks,
retard
>so all black because you're probably gonna be wearing black pants too.
retard assumption
>generally people aren't going to see your socks anyway.
Jut because it’s unseen doesn’t mean you can do anything, superficial retard

>>17510023
>a libertarian wouldnt wear a frag or would only wear a skin scent so as to not intrude on your airspace

>color pallet

>>17461461
>>17461468
>idolizing youthful idiocy

>>17449102
>le evil chemicals
The whole world is chemicals. Why are you making an uninformed blanket statement that all chemicals are to be avoided?
>>17449125
>95% of them do nothing or make your skin even worse.
You’re pulling numbers out of your ass. False precision fallacy.
> The 5% that do improve your skin only work so long as you keep applying them, making you addicted.
You’re covering your bases by saying that if you were wrong, you’re still right. Also, you’re making an unsupported claim saying your assumed working 5 percent of skincare causally makes consumers addicted.
> Btw, chemicals = bad is not an argument. Of course it is. Your skin is porous and absorbs chemicals and toxins.
Skin being porous is irrelevant to your original claim of chemicals being unambiguously bad.
>If you're going to apply anything to your skin at least make sure it's not toxic first.
Now you’re backpedaling.
>>17451601
massive homeschooled faggot vibes

>>17449102
>le evil chemicals
The whole world is chemicals. Why are you making an uninformed blanket statement that all chemicals are to be avoided?
>>17449125
>95% of them do nothing or make your skin even worse.
You’re pulling numbers out of your ass. False precision fallacy.
> The 5% that do improve your skin only work so long as you keep applying them, making you addicted.
You’re covering your bases by saying that if you were wrong, you’re still right. Also, you’re making an unsupported claim saying the alleged working 5 percent of skincare causally makes consumers addicted.
> Btw, chemicals = bad is not an argument. Of course it is. Your skin is porous and absorbs chemicals and toxins.
Skin being porous is irrelevant to your original claim to on chemicals being unambiguously bad.
>If you're going to apply anything to your skin at least make sure it's not toxic first.
Now you’re backpedaling.

>>17442316
>for all the people who said jeans dont work with it: why? i legitimately dont understand, you can barely see a few inches of them

>>17433126
>wood=masculine
>wood=boring

>>17427952
>If it was as you say, we would only live to be 7 years old. Stem cells can divide any number of times.
>>17428315
>Yeah stem cells have no limit

>guys tell me the exact name of these clothes because every piece of clothing has a unique name specifically referring to each unique garment

>>17420128
>Lalique
>under hyped
ester Lauder shill

>>17418091
>that's not how nicotine addiction works
>there's nothing else to it than the urge to smoke.
>It doesn't make your hands shake or effect your cognitive abilities at all

>>17397152

>>17392983
>music, movies, and books aren’t media

>vegan

>>17364005
>>17364020
>>17364045
>>17364051
>>17364087
>>17364110
>>17364145
>>17364154
>>17364186

>>17341810
>juvenile endeavours
>music, fashion, grooming

>>17260836
>>17260828
>>17260774

>>17236648
>>17236670
>>17236683
>>17236692
>>17236709
>>17236725

OP is genuinely autistic/retarded/schizo/seething

>>17167265
>short hair
>traditionally masculine

>>17162635
>ideological associations with colours are objective

>>17142717
>Ok, counter my arguments then.
>my arguments: I’m hot, I’m hot, i have dates, attractive women intimidate me, attractive women have bad personalities, im hot
You haven’t presented any arguments. They are all baseless claims. Baseless claims need not any rebuttal. The burden of proof is on you.

>>17133677
Much prefer his post to your faggot black boots ruin fits shit kys