You must log in or register to comment.
The argument ‘why is it there then?’ is still flawed, even if you are sHoCkEd by an argument by comparison.
Yeah, the third post is “Local Tumblr User Doesn’t Understand Reductio ad Absurdum; More at 11.”
The user isn’t saying leg hair is like cancer (like fucking obviously; how disingenuous would you be to even suggest that?). They’re saying the argument of “it wouldn’t grow there if it wasn’t supposed to” is completely stupid – that it has little discriminative power to distinguish what’s good and bad if you don’t already know. It isn’t even nearly limited to the absurdity of that contradictory example:
“Sorry, honey, but the dick cheese wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t supposed to.”
It’s a fine-ish retort to get a seven-year-old to chill out, but it’s total bullshit when you don’t already know leg hair on women is fine. Pointing out that “Gravity is real because most people think it is” is a bad argument by saying “Germs didn’t exist because most people thought they didn’t” doesn’t mean I’m trying to say believing gravity is like disbelieving germ theory; I’m pointing out the argument doesn’t hold water regardless of what the fallacy (in the OP’s case, a pretty clear appeal to nature) was supporting.
TL;DR: Denying the means, not the conclusion.
Ah, but you’re forgetting that rationality and the strength of one’s argument are irrelevant. This is the 21st century. People will attack you based on whatever assumptions they make about you.
So even if you don’t refute the conclusion, but merely point out the flaw in argumentation, they will assume you disagree with the conclusion and will torch you accordingly. I see soup has already demonstrated this for us.
It doesn’t matter how you actually feel about leg hair on women. If you point out the logical invalidity of the justification given for it, people will assume you’re a misogynist.
Ok, but as long as the hair isn’t actually doing anything then what’s the problem? Cancer kills you and dick cheese is fucking nasty as hell(especially in the context of expexting someone to allow it into their body). Excessive, unwashed body hair that is producing an odor is nasty because it affects other people and cannot be easily ignored, but someone saying “that’s gross because now I don’t find you attractive” does not deserve any more of an answer than “go fuck yourself.” That kid’s question got a better answer than it warranted.
You write a lot for someone who doesn’t understand communication.
then what’s the problem?
You write a lot for someone who doesn’t understand communication. [200 words btw did I time travel back to fucking 4th grade?]
The fact you read that and couldn’t even grasp that there fucking is no problem with leg hair and I’m not saying there is one and I even directly said “leg hair on women is fine” is just *chef’s kiss*. You missed the excruciatingly obvious point of the entire comment – for which apparently even “a lot” of unambiguous clarification wasn’t enough. Fucking Mordecai’d that shit.
Who exactly doesn’t understand communication here? The one who thinks 200 words is “a lot” of writing?
There’s a lot to unpack there. I’ll choose
unwashed body hair that is producing an odor
Hair doesn’t smell.
I can’t tell: are you delusional or a pedant (i.e. water isn’t wet it makes things wet pedant logic)?
okay but the local man did make a smart argument by identifying the Appeal to Nature fallacy
deleted by creator
No, evolution allows for vestigial parts all the time. And sometimes random mutations happen and doesn’t make much of a difference so it doesn’t get selected out and now there’s just something there for no reason that never had a purpose.
I’m pretty sure those hairs act as a germ net or something, or maybe it’s just because that part of the body is best kept warm.
The biggest argument against that is the fact that humans have lost most of their body hair anyway and still managed to thrive. Not that it makes leg hair bad, but we clearly don’t need it to survive.
deleted by creator
It was certainly useful when we didn’t have clothes and had much more hair.
“Smart argument” is pointing at fallacies? What are you, 20?
You’re right, it’s not a complete argument by itself, but it is a smart rebuttal to identify the fallacious logic.
To do that, you should also couple the pointing out of a fallacy with some reasoning as to why the conlusion drawn is incorrect, not just that the logic used to get to it was fallacious.
If you don’t address the conclusion at all, then you haven’t really done much, argument-wise.
My Wife: “I’m just warning you, I haven’t shaved in a few days.”
Me: “Oh no! Anyway…”
“If I didn’t want a sexy sasquatch, I wouldn’t have married my best friend.”
You really have to press your advantage to prevent them from thinking about that
Smooth as silk in one direction
Severe tire damage in the other
He’s not comparing hair to cancer, he is demonstrating that just because something grows doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be there.
Let’s watch sonic hedgehog
I’m 60, and I realized recently, maybe in the past five years, that I’ve lost all the hair on my legs. I was a bit confused, I remember having hair on my legs, so I looked at some old pictures. Yep, I used to have hairy legs. I like having smooth legs, it’s nice. I still have all the hair on my head, so that’s good, too. Small consolation for having one foot in the grave, I suppose.
As someone with hair loss: it also protects surprisingly well from bumps and scrapes, as well as being warmer than you’d think!
I do have MPB, but the rest of me is hairy as all hell, it also helps protect from ticks and mosquitoes sometimes…
I agree, obviously. With modern soap, hair is all but useless, and we should all be bald and glossy, the way nature attempts to deny us.
Hair in joints like armpits and the groin actually works somewhat as a lubricant, preventing chafing. This is true, even with modern soap
deleted by creator
Keeps you warm too. But, again, you have to be pretty hairy. More likely it’s a relic of our nomadic past and doesn’t serve much purpose these days.
It’s a pretty good arsehole detector and repellent in the modern age
You can be correct for the wrong reasons.
It’s not the wrong reason, nor is it an argument that hair doesn’t belong there. All it is is a counter to the logic that supports her conclusion, but it doesn’t dispute the conclusion itself.
I think thats exactly what the person youre responding to meant.
There is a difference between what was evolutionarily advantageous in the last 150k years and what we prefer today. More at nine.
deleted by creator
And then everybody applauded
I remember following Iguanamouth on tumblr back in the day, she always posted good stuff.
No argument about things being “supposed to” exist is gonna seriously be good or make sense with pure logic… dont you need to lean on religion to argue stuff like this?
Not all tumors are cancer…
Some are bread.
How, much?
