this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
874 points (95.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
11295 readers
1954 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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).
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"
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 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).
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 does need to be doing that if you want the logical fallacy to be "appeal to nature fallacy".
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:
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:
And in that context, begging the question refers to the actual fallacy, which is:
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.
I think, as a body hair hater, a strong reaction to a random ass person's body hair is ridiculous. And I guess, in this case, the concept of a random ass person's body hair.
Ass person, hehe