I hate Crocs so much, I'll make a convincing argument against them.

The I Hate Crocs Facebook group is home to much civil debate and discussion. I'm very pleased by the civil part, but also by the debate and discussion parts. One discussion topic 'Why are Crocs bad?' has a particularly well-argued bit of writing against Crocs. Here is part of Eudora Chua's post:

2) They are bad for the environment. The material they are made out of cannot be recycled or bio-degraded. Years from now when the fad wears off we will have landfills full of the things. Our legacy to the people of the future is going to include not only all the trash we are already producing but bright, neon-coloured, foam shoes.

3) They are hazardous. There have been over ten documented accidents with these shoes, on escalators especially. Children have lost toes to these things because the straps get caught in the sides of the escalator. A casual, practical, affordable sandal has caused kids to be injured, and these kids were under parental supervision, not running around as they pleased or playing on the escalator.

The articles I'm referring to were published in a respectable newspaper in my country, The Straits Times, not some tabloid that fabricates news. Of course the shoes are not the only factor and there are other shoes like sneakers that have laces and can get caught. But with laces there's an obvious hazard. Crocs are marketed as being super comfortable and safe, most people don't even see the strap as a hazard. Admittedly this isn't a huge point but it is something to be taken into consideration.

As a sidepoint, Crocs have been banned in some hospitals and schools, for safety reasons. When you're working around potentially bio-hazardous material, you don't really want holes in your shoes.

4) The entire Croc fad is materialism at one of its worst displays. I'm not trying to promote Armani, or Nike. They're really not that practical, especially for people who live in temperate countries, you will only wear these the most 6 out of 12 months. Come autumn and winter, your feet would freeze thanks to the fantastic holes which are so applauded. In fact, where I come from there are plenty of non-branded alternatives. We've had sandals that are comfortable and washable for years, just check out your nearest Wal-mart or K-mart or Sears or whatever store's nearest to you. Nice pairs of sandals don't need to cost even $40, if you don't care about the brand name. Crocs are a product created for which there was no real, urgent need. When taken into consideration along with the other points above, it's hard to see them in a positive light. So much of its appeal is simply the hype.

5) People use the excuse, 'they are so comfortable' to wear them to everything and anything'. If you protest that Crocs are not suitable for, let us say, places of worship, the office or events like weddings and funerals, they say they are making a statement. I have seen this too many times to discount it as unrelated, individual incidents. The correlation was the clogs.

People don't see that simply because they are available it's an excuse to wear them to everything. Even on orthopaedic grounds it's not really arguable--how much support can a pair of clogs that is made from from some resin material provide? For something that's so comfortable, it can actually cause flattened arches over a prolonged period of use due to the lack of adequate support. And people don't know this because the marketing campaign simply says they are comfortable and orthopaedically sound.

""I'll get people with strained arches because they've been running around in Crocs for five days," said Arnold Ravick, a doctor of podiatric medicine in Washington, D.C., and a spokesman for the American Podiatric Medical Association. "When it comes to shoes, people mistake comfort for support. Comfort is fool's gold—a soft gushy shoe that makes your arches collapse," he told me. "Crocs are popular because they're inexpensive and interchangeable. For people with certain problems, they can be a good shoe. Are they good for your foot, in general? No."" (www.slate.com/id/2170301)

Well-argued! I've been convinced. The full post is HERE.