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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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”.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
There’s a lot to unpack there. I’ll choose
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)?
deleted by creator
It is?
Ask 100 women what they think of facial hair on men.
deleted by creator
ZZ Top wasted a lot of money on dressing sharp when it was the beards all along.
But not a lot on sunglasses.
Hahahaha
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.
Trimmed, not shaved. Unless you are into women that are into prepubescent boys, you can get away with trimming once a week.
That’s not my experience. Ironically, the only negative response I got about body hair, was when I shaved it.
What’s natural about trimming? Why would the hair be there if it needs to be trimmed?
That’s fucked up.
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?
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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
Yes!
deleted by creator
As the [excluded statical anomaly], it makes no difference.
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.
deleted by creator
What’s the opposite of observant? Because whatever that is, you are.
I’m guessing they’re assuming pants and not bare legs?
deleted by creator
… 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?
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.
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.
lol?
deleted by creator
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]”