- Messages
- 3,337
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How can you have pants that only cover half of your legs? Are they really around the waist if you need to add a chest strap to keep them on? That's more suspenders than pants.
I see a butt peeking out of most of Mark's examples, so you can't even use the "covers your butthole" justification.
I kinda feel like dog pants should be a combination of the two. I don't think I've ever seen an example of it though.
While canine anatomy is different from human anatomy, it is still similar enough to draw comparisons.
View attachment 21754
Humans, the inventors of pants, wear pants around the waist and extending distally. As you can see from the image above, canine pants should only cover the hindquarters.
The kuteration rests.
At most, this is just an argument for two pairs of pants since they have two pairs of legs. They are still quadruped at the end of the day, so the bipedalism argument doesn't apply.While canine anatomy is different from human anatomy, it is still similar enough to draw comparisons.
View attachment 21754
Humans, the inventors of pants, wear pants around the waist and extending distally. As you can see from the image above, canine pants should only cover the hindquarters.
The kuteration rests.
Hmm. Is the defining characteristics of pants that you wear them around the waist, or that they cover your legs?Humans, the inventors of pants, wear pants around the waist and extending distally. As you can see from the image above, canine pants should only cover the hindquarters.
I’m sorry, this is a court of law and I don’t see you providing any better examples to back up either side of the argument. Excuse me for my lazy selection of the first few results from Google.
I did not make a bipedalism argument. They need to start at the waist and extend distally. Canines only have one waistAt most, this is just an argument for two pairs of pants since they have two pairs of legs. They are still quadruped at the end of the day, so the bipedalism argument doesn't apply.
there are many styles of pants, but the one thing all of those have in common is that they have a waist component. If anything, these are closer to examples of canine rompersHmm. Is the defining characteristics of pants that you wear them around the waist, or that they cover your legs?
Would dog pants look like this?
View attachment 21755
View attachment 21756
Skirts and shorts also go around the waist, but they aren't pants. So clearly fully encapsulating the legs is key for something to be pants.I did not make a bipedalism argument. They need to start at the waist and extend distally. Canines only have one waist
there are many styles of pants, but the one thing all of those have in common is that they have a waist component. If anything, these are closer to examples of canine rompers
Okay… but we are not trying to define what pants are, but merely determine in which orientation they are to be worn.Skirts and shorts also go around the waist, but they aren't pants. So clearly fully encapsulating the legs is key for something to be pants.
The front limbs are analogous to arms. Both in terms of bone structure and function. When digging, they use their front limbs, when trying to manipulate or move an object they use their front limbs, when fighting they attack with their front limbs. Just because the front limbs are also used for ambulation, does not make them the equivalent of legs.I don't know if they have only one waist but they do have two sets of LEGS.
And to answer the obvious, they have one waist. The other limbs connect to their shouldersI don't know if they have only one waist but they do have two sets of LEGS.
It's too late to volunteer to be the judge. You have to let the judicial process play out or else I'll get the bailiff to lift you up by the back of your underwear and kick you out the door with his oversized shoe and dust his hands off like a cartoon character.~Case closed~
Did you not notice the ~ and bold? That means it was an official actionIt's too late to volunteer to be the judge. You have to let the judicial process play out or else I'll get the bailiff to lift you up by the back of your underwear and kick you out the door with his oversized shoe and dust his hands off like a cartoon character.
Your waist doesn't shrink and grow drastically with every single step you take, unlike what would happen with left picSomebody never heard of suspenders.
Don't see how the reason for suspenders is even relevant.Your waist doesn't shrink and grow drastically with every single step you take, unlike what would happen with left pic
What? You brought it up.Don't see how the reason for suspenders is even relevant.
They have hind legs and front legs which are anatomically different. If you shake a dog's hand, they give you their front paw. If you go to shake a person's hand, they would never give you their foot. Ergo, more arm-like.Can be considered more like arms" that's a stretch, bud. They don't have arms. They have four legs. Like by their very definition
The REASON for suspenders is what might not be relevant. Suspenders themselves are relevant because it's a counterpoint to your argument of the pants falling down.What? You brought it up.
Fair point. It's a gray area, which I guess is why there's an argument about it in the first place.They have hind legs and front legs which are anatomically different. If you shake a dog's hand, they give you their front paw. If you go to shake a person's hand, they would never give you their foot. Ergo, more arm-like.
It would be like those clowns wearing suspenders with pants that are WAY too big. Pants that flip-flop between being taut and extremely saggy on either side, only being held up by suspenders, would be uncomfortable and hard to walk inThe REASON for suspenders is what might not be relevant. Suspenders themselves are relevant because it's a counterpoint to your argument of the pants falling down.
They have 4 limbs not 4 legsDon't see how the reason for suspenders is even relevant.
"Can be considered more like arms" that's a stretch, bud. They don't have arms. They have four legs. Like by their very definition.
I disagree. This is really a question of "what defines pants?" Can an article of clothing be considered pants if it only touches half of your legs? Can something be called pants if it isn't held up by the waist? Does it have to cover the naughty bits?Okay… but we are not trying to define what pants are, but merely determine in which orientation they are to be worn.
Their front legs aren't lower extremities?Pants are designed to cover lower extremities and genitalia. Therefore, dogs would wear them only over their hind legs.
Now I have to admit to being lazy and grabbing the first image that popped up on Google. This case wasn't meant to be strictly "choose between these two exact things" but rather "how would a dog wear pants? Here are two possible options". I agree the left side is not a good example for the reason you said. You'd need something like the pictures I posted to hold them up.If the dog on the left ran, the pants would fall down and it would be very embarrassed in front of its canine companions. So, right is the only correct answer.
Dogs have no arms, so I'd expect a doggie sweater to only cover the body. Like Kelly's example, but without the arms and the head hole would go where the dog's head is. Covering the butt would be optional, like human sweaters.If we were to agree the LEFT option is the correct way for dogs to wear pants, how would they then wear sweaters?
I mean none of this things are pants to me!I disagree. This is really a question of "what defines pants?" Can an article of clothing be considered pants if it only touches half of your legs? Can something be called pants if it isn't held up by the waist? Does it have to cover the naughty bits?
Then dogs cannot wear pants?I mean none of this things are pants to me!
No, I cannot read your post properly.Then dogs cannot wear pants?
Their “lower” extremities? No I don’t qualify their “front” legs as lower extremities. Their head would still be upper body. Imo.Their front legs aren't lower extremities?
No. Think in anatomical terms. Here’s a primerTheir front legs aren't lower extremities?
Goofy is not a dog though. He has a pet dog named Pluto.
It wouldn't be a sweater then, it would be a vest.Dogs have no arms, so I'd expect a doggie sweater to only cover the body. Like Kelly's example, but without the arms and the head hole would go where the dog's head is. Covering the butt would be optional, like human sweaters.