890
A logician among us (slrpnk.net)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
locked 189 comments fedilink hide all child comments
🤣 1
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 7 months ago (6 children)

She doesn't need to be proving that leg hair is good or healthy to do a logical fallacy

She does need to be doing that if you want the logical fallacy to be "appeal to nature fallacy".

that's not saying the same thing twice

Tatutology is when two seemingly different statements carry the same information. The two different statements in "They are supposed to be there because that is where they naturally are" don't actually say anything much different. If "naturally" was to be replaced with "normally", then it would be a complete tautology but I only said a bit of tautology because "naturally" contains more information than "supposed to". But the whole point of my argument is that I think she is using naturally in lieu of "normally" rather than as a precursor for healthy or good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    buddy I think you are really missing the point, let me copy and paste from Wikipedia:

    An appeal to nature is a rhetorical technique for presenting and proposing the argument that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural' or 'synthetic'."[1] In debate and discussion, an appeal-to-nature argument can be considered to be a bad argument, because the implicit primary premise "What is natural is good" has no factual meaning beyond rhetoric in some or most contexts.

    But the whole point of my argument is that I think she is using naturally in lieu of “normally” rather than as a precursor for healthy or good.

    It doesn't matter if she says "normally" or "naturally," or if she never says "good" or "healthy;" by using the natural (or normal, or typical, or whatever word you want to use) state of the human body as reason for why it should be there, that is an appeal to nature.

    Wikipedia even has a section about natural/normal:

    In some contexts, the use of the terms of "nature" and "natural" can be vague, leading to unintended associations with other concepts. The word "natural" can also be a loaded term – much like the word "normal", in some contexts, it can carry an implicit value judgment. An appeal to nature would thus beg the question, because the conclusion is entailed by the premise.[2]

    And in that context, begging the question refers to the actual fallacy, which is:

    begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion

    Is that what you mean by tautology?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I don't understand how the fact she never said "body hair is good" does not matter when the very definition of "appeal to nature" requires it: "a thing is good because it is 'natural'".

    I think tautology can be a form of begging the question if it is used as a means of proving a statement. Nevertheless I agree calling it a begging the question is better because that is the actual fallacy I was trying to get at.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    I think the problem is the conversation is the following:

    The child appealed to their own expectations which probably can be reasonably linked to social tradition/expectations. While the child might be unaware of that, the woman certainly understands that.

    The child commits a fallacy. That fallacy might not appeal to nature but fundamentally works the same. It is pointing to an "Is" statement to infer an "ought" statement.

    The storyteller counters with an argument. That argument is also using an "is" statement to infer an "ought" statement. Whether or not, the intention is to show the flaw in the child's reasoning; or to argue that hair is good there, can't be known, as it is a casual retelling of a casual conversation.

    The dino makes an another argument. That highlights the problem with using "is" to infer "ought". Pointing at the flaw in the storyteller's argument. The big problem, Dino failed to consider that she might was doing the same thing in a way that a child understands it. That she might doesn't think it was a good argument at all but a tool to point the child at the issue. So the storyteller's real argument might was the same as dino's.

    Consequently, I think you are right to say that the storyteller is required to said that her argument is trying to say hair should be there, to be at fault. But i think it would also be wrong to think dino tried to argue the hair shouldn't be there, for the same reason. So basically people in the internet talking too casually to probably understand their positions and consequently you can't have a meaningful conversation about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Agreed, I don't think from that statement alone we can say Dino argued for hair not to be there, that I agree. For the same reason, we can't argue that the woman claimed hair is better than no hair. Therefore logical fallacy here is of another nature and I think the intention here is to confuse the child by committing this fallacy (this I deduce from the tone of the post). I think most people are reacting negatively because they are strongly opposed to leg hair on women and any statement that is mildly less than how they feel is creating strong feelings of opposition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •