My Wife: "I'm just warning you, I haven't shaved in a few days."
Me: "Oh no! Anyway..."
My Wife: "I'm just warning you, I haven't shaved in a few days."
Me: "Oh no! Anyway..."
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?
It's not impossible that they are, but given there's a perfectly logical and highly plausible explanation that they're making an entirely cogent point (because the argument is severely flawed, and they point out the flaw accurately), I choose to not just assume that they're a shitty person who thinks women are icky and need to shave their legs or they're gross – like the third comment from "geekandmisandry" (really self-reporting the bias there) does instead of just... asking them to clarify.
The majority of men do expect and prefer that women are shaved, thus the assumption.
You know, I wasn't going to call it out in my original comment because it was beside the overall point, but "geeksandmisandry" and now you are interestingly assuming the gender of an anonymous user with a default pfp and the gender-neutral username "dinogatrr".
I don't think even if they were a man that this would be a good reason to assume they're a shitty person (especially because the sample of "men on Tumblr" is going to be vastly different than "men overall" or even "men on social media overall"). But it is an interesting assumption on top of an assumption: they're a man, and they're a shitty person who thinks women's legs are naturally icky.
I’m happy to stand corrected
Which is easy to say when your hypothesis is functionally unfalsifiable (used heuristically in support of another functionally unfalsifiable hypothesis).
I can't stop you from believing it; I can push back and say it's vibes on top of vibes to legitimize your assumption about a random person you've never spoken to who said something that's totally benign and entirely correct unless you actively ascribe malice to it.
Against my better judgment regarding double standards, I'm going to treat this legitimately unexpected level of misandry with kid gloves compared to how I'd treat even garden-variety misogyny and say that I hope you find peace with any trauma that may have led you to this point. Sincerely, no smarm, no "bless your heart" condescension – I understand what it is to be burdened with a lifetime of systemic distrust through no fault of your own.
Still, there's nothing more I can say to a closed loop of "men are assumed malicious and a man probably made this statement because this statement is misogynistic and the statement is assumed misogynistic because a man made it and if a man made it then surely it's misogynistic [...]". Even though we irreconcilably disagree on the OP, and I don't think your assumptions about men are overall accurate or healthy, I appreciate your polite candor about why you feel the way you do.
Prejudice is bad and should be avoided.
I'm glad you can rationalize your prejudice, but nobody should have assumptions made about them for aspects of themselves they cannot control. It isn't what it is, it's never too late to change into a good person.
It’s not so much that I make assumptions about individual men
I'm sorry, are you backtracking? I thought you said
I do tend to assume that men I don’t know are malicious as a baseline
Being vigilant isn't prejudice, being vigilant because of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc, is.
Misogynistic ideas like women are better shaved don’t always come from men, but it’s usually coming from men. And that’s just my personal experience.
Okay, so what? Personal experiences aren't an excuse for prejudice.
You're perceived intention should be irrelevant during an argument. Either expose the belief directly so it can be engaged with honestly, or focus on the logic of the argument being made. It is entirely possible to be both correct in your argument and incorrect in the foundational belief. But engaging with a factually correct argument with the assumption that it was borne from a place of ignorance just makes YOU less capable of being reasonable.
The first poster made a claim, and assigned faulty logic as justification.
The second poster pointed out the flaw in this logic.
The third poster ignored the logic argument entirely and resorted to an appeal to outrage rather than the structure of the argument itself.
Personal experience, beliefs, gender, identity. All of these points are entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The title of this post was about logic. The second commenter pointed out a legitimate logical error, and the third commenter exposed themselves at appealing to indignation and dressing it up as an argument. You (royal you) shouldn't support bad reasoning just because it agrees with you.
There’s a lot to unpack there. I’ll choose
unwashed body hair that is producing an odor
Hair doesn’t smell.
It is?
Ask 100 women what they think of facial hair on men.
ZZ Top wasted a lot of money on dressing sharp when it was the beards all along.
Actually the study says they prefer light stubble, which is impossible to have without shaving unless you're 15. For that matter, how many women do you think would like a man with a beard or pubic hair that had NEVER been shaved? So women expect men to trim and groom their body hair at the very least, which is just as unnatural as shaving your legs.
without shaving
Trimmed, not shaved. Unless you are into women that are into prepubescent boys, you can get away with trimming once a week.
So women expect men to trim and groom their body hair at the very least
That's not my experience. Ironically, the only negative response I got about body hair, was when I shaved it.
Interesting, and I'm frankly surprised by it.
Still, there are women who don't prefer it, which makes the point.
Men and women have preferences, we can choose to accommodate that as we (as individuals) wish.
No one holds a gun to anyone's head and says "shave or else".
Fuck, what man is going to know it a woman shaves her legs unless he's intimate with her anyway?
Fuck, what man is going to know it a woman shaves her legs unless he’s intimate with her anyway?
Do you live in Saudi Arabia or are you legally blind? Shorts exist.
Unless the hairs are really thick and dark, outside of the average, those aren't that noticable or at least it requires active focusing to look for those.
Basically randomly walking on the street or just doing basic daily tasks and the difference is unnoticeable.
Unless the hairs are really thick and dark, outside of the average
Average for where? I never knew any girls in middle/high school that felt they could ‘get away’ without shaving their legs for more than a couple of days unless they were blonde. Even before I went on testosterone you could probably tell if I’d shaved from 20 yards.
Location specific average, of course that changes based on location. Not that it's bad, just that it's noticable because it stands out from others. Like if everyone were to wear black clothes and one person wears red, they would stand out. But different shades of dark grey or even just darker colors, would be unnoticeable difference.
Even before I went on testosterone you could probably tell if I’d shaved from 20 yards.
But that was the point, unless actually focusing and looking for it. It's completely unnoticeable from that far away. Unless far away from the average, maybe up to the level of average guy, though even that would require actual focusing on the person and then specifically their legs.
So the other person had a point. It becomes noticable only when fully focusing on the other person and specifically their body at which point it has to be a rather intimate situation.
Why else would you give that much specific attention to other person?
Fair, i always forget that.
Were you aware that the face and legs are two separate parts of the body?
Really? I had no fucking idea.
The point that you completely glossed over is that women have preferences, some like facial hair some don't.
So men have or don't shave their faces accordingly (or according to what they prefer).
That's all. Go ahead and get up on your cross now because women shave because men somehow make them.
If some unknown man can make you do something, you have a problem.
The point that you completely glossed over is that women have preferences, some like facial hair some don’t.
We’re talking about society treating leg hair on women as abnormal. If you want to see if there’s a societal double standard there then you need to ask how society looks at men’s legs, not their faces.
So men have or don’t shave their faces accordingly
If some unknown man can make you do something, you have a problem
lol?
As the 100th man, the more hair on people the better.

Your feelings are valid, I just don't get to bust this one out too often. Couldn't pass it up.
Found the furry.
Why isn't it?
It's up to you to choose what you want. If a man doesn't shave and a woman doesn't find that attractive... You do the math.
Hell, again, a man won't know a woman doesn't shave her legs unless he's intimate with her anyway.
And then it's between them. It's none of our concern.
a man won't know a woman doesn't shave her legs unless he's intimate with her
What's the opposite of observant? Because whatever that is, you are.
I'm guessing they're assuming pants and not bare legs?
a man won't know a woman doesn't shave her legs unless he's intimate with her anyway.
.... are you maybe teensy weensy stoned right now? Baked like a potato? Lit like a Christmas tree? Toasted? Zooted? Zonked? Roasted? Lil bit stoney baloney?
Surely you need to be living in a cave to not see the asymmetry there though. On men facial hair is unattractive for half of women and very attractive for other (making up the stats). On women leg hair is perceived as unattractive for all but most people.
A man which has a stubble, when going out, does not generally think "shit I should shave otherwise everyone will look at me with disdain". While a women going to swimming but realizes that she has not shaved her legs will generally feel ashamed thinking she will be seen as "not taking care of herself".
It's perfectly understandable if you have any nuance. "Why does it grow there [as a design aspect of your body]"
The hair doesn't harm or otherwise negatively impact the organism's survival rate. The organism's immune system didn't evolve to prevent and kill hair cells as they arise.
It might impact their procreation rate.
If I was a woman, repelling guys like that would be a feature, not a bug.
It's not necessarily everyone's primary goal in life to appeal to you sexually.
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 wonder how old people have to be to get the “more at 6” capper. I know I use it a lot so my kids get it, but I’d bet most don’t.
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.
okay but the local man did make a smart argument by identifying the Appeal to Nature fallacy
I mean not necessarily appeal to nature because the woman does not try to prove that body hair on women are inherently good. She just points out that "not supposed to be there" is as meaningless as saying "your head shouldn't be on your shoulders". The rest is personal choice (that is if you can disregard the immense societal pressure).
No it was definitely an appeal to nature, "if it isn't supposed to be there, why is it there?" is asserting that it's supposed to be there because it naturally grew there. It has nothing to do with the inherent goodness of women, appeal to nature is a logical fallacy where you assert something is good or just because it is natural, e.g. "clothing is bad because we were born naked."
Doing a fallacy doesn't mean she's wrong (that would be the fallacy fallacy, of course), it just means her reasoning is wrong (plenty of bad or unwanted things are natural).
where you assert something is good
She is not trying to prove hair leg is good or healthy because they are natural. If anything I would say she is doing a bit of tautology because her argument is along the lines of "they are supposed to be there because there is where they normally are"
It has nothing to do with the inherent goodness of women,
What I said had nothing to do with inherent goodness of women. My argument is that she is not trying to state body hair is inherently good and beneficial because of their naturality.
If it was appeal to nature, would expect something along the lines of "Why do they naturally grow there if it wasn't good for women"
She is not trying to prove hair leg is good or healthy
She doesn't need to be proving that leg hair is good or healthy to do a logical fallacy, she is defending that it is right for it to exist (as opposed to it being wrong for hair to be there).
If anything I would say she is doing a bit of tautology because her argument is along the lines of “they are supposed to be there because there is where they normally are”
I don't think that is accurate. She's saying they are supposed to be there because they grow there, that's not saying the same thing twice, she is justifying its existence through an appeal to the natural order of it growing there.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Even by the article you linked, it's not wrong to point out a fallacy. It'd be wrong to conclude that since the argument was fallacious, the opposite must be true, but the local man didn't say that.
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.
Between that comparison and sonic the hedgehog I’ll gladly take a blue rodent eating chilli dogs.
top 94 comments