Socks vs. Underwear: A Religious Debate

 This is my social constructivist critique of the myriad Science Vs. Religion debates we have all seen on Facebook and Reddit. Enjoy!THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT (SOCKS):Socks have a real and measurable value to society.

• Socks keep out feet dry
• Socks keep us from getting blisters
• Socks are stylish and groovy. Some socks have helicopters or dinosaurs on them

 Socks are better than underwear because:

• Underwear doesn't keep you from getting blisters, sometimes it even causes blisters.
• Some people might like to wear underwear, but they don't really need it. Why would they wear something they don't need?
• Some people feel awkward without underwear. That's just the worst. People should never feel awkward, they should be extremely comfortable showing their body off to everybody else.
• Bras are a symbol of chauvinist male oppression.
• Victorian era corsets caused health problems and miscarriages. This is unconscionable. Even if most underwear doesn't cause miscarriages, why do we even bother running the risk of ever doing something that stupid again?
• You can put a nice warm sock over your junk and that's just as good as underwear anyway.

 THE RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT (UNDERWEAR):Underwear is really what's best for us

• Underwear hides our naughty bits
• We feel better about ourselves when we wear underwear
• Wearing underwear is the most socially acceptable thing to do. People who don't wear underwear are seen as immoral, weird, or less trustworthy.
• The great nations of the world are founded on underwear. When we meet naked people, we teach them about underwear right away.
• Underwear often has Batman on it. Mine does, anyway. I don't know about anybody else's underwear because that's their business. It's not about the underwear anyway, it's about my personal relationship with Batman.

 

• even though underwear hides our naughty bits, it can make them even more appealing. especially when used in conjunction with the music of Taye Diggs. Underwear has a perfect plan for our naughty bits.

Underwear is better than socks because:

• Socks don't cover your naughty bits very well, especially if you're female.
• You could always stuff underwear in your shoes and pray you don't get blisters. Anyway, it works better than stuffing socks in your pants.
• You could wear sandals and grow some calluses - freaking pussy.
• Socks are technically a kind of underwear anyway. Everything points to Underwear. It's all part of the same plan to wear stuff underneath your other stuff. Socks are just a different name for the same thing.
• The Nazis manufactured socks out of Jew hair at the death camps. If you're walking with socks on, you're walking with Hitler.

 

THE DEBATE

Random Person: I usually wear both.

SCIENCE: Simpleton!

RELIGION: Traitor!

SCIENCE: There's no need to wear both. Underwear is a pointless waste of time. It has never done any good that socks couldn't have accomplished.

 

RELIGION: Victorias Secret didn't sell socks when it was first started, and has no reason to sell them now. This is obvious evidence that the Liberal Media has influenced us to dilute our faith in underwear and put socks in everything.

SCIENCE: Look here, Random Person, you only want to wear BOTH because you are wishy washy and obviously can't handle the truth.

 RELIGION: Batman has a perfect plan for your junk, and it has nothing to do with socks. Wear sandals like me. Everyone should do what I do. Batman loves seeing your toes. I know that because I retroactively shoehorned a hatred of socks into my underwear-based concept of morality, which in turn dictates how I translate everything that Batman said. 

 

SCIENCE: Batman doesn't exist. HA! I just proved there's no point in wearing underwear.

RELIGION: Ignore that fucker.

SCIENCE: See? I made Religion angry. That means all of my points are correct.

RELIGION: He's obviously just spouting the lies of the Coppertone Dog.

 

SCIENCE: The Coppertone dog doesn't exist either. I am free from all influences besides my socks ... Because I believe strongly in helicopters and dinosaurs.

RELIGION: If the Coppertone Dog doesn't exist, neither does sunscreen. Your logic is so flawed.

SCIENCE: In a frantic attempt to always contradict you, I'm going to try and prove that sunscreen doesn't exist. HA! I checked in my sock drawer and didn't find any sunscreen. It must not exist.

 

RELIGION: I don't really understand sock drawers, so I will henceforth resort to stupid insults instead of trying to address any of your logical fallacies. Your socks are smelly

SCIENCE: Your underwear has butt tracks.

RELIGION: I feel threatened by that comment, so I'm going to go abuse my longstanding social and financial status to incite moral panic and lobby for pointless legislation that forces all sock companies to also manufacture underwear.

SCIENCE: I'm going to bitch about that on Facebook.