I see alot of people claiming that the second comment identifies an “appeal to nature” fallacy. Imo, she is forming a tautology and commiting a “begging the question” fallacy to confuse the kid, roughly along the lines of “the hair is supposed to be there because that is where it normally grows”. She demonstrates no intention of proving that body hair is good because it is natural.
Well no because in part you yourself fall for the naturalistic fallacy. For a tautology to work it always has to be true.
But this is not the case for if it grows there it belongs there(and by extension is not bad for you).
For example you could plug in cancer and you would see this equation is not always right.
Here is a rather nice website for fallacies
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Nature
What they want to say is it’s ok because it’s natural but that is the basics of the appeal to nature fallacy
In which way does my statement fall for naturalistic fallacy? Also in which sentence does the woman in question say leg hair is better than no leg hair because it is natural?
Seems to me that in both cases you are assuming things.
I see alot of people claiming that the second comment identifies an “appeal to nature” fallacy. Imo, she is forming a tautology and commiting a “begging the question” fallacy to confuse the kid, roughly along the lines of “the hair is supposed to be there because that is where it normally grows”. She demonstrates no intention of proving that body hair is good because it is natural.
Well no because in part you yourself fall for the naturalistic fallacy. For a tautology to work it always has to be true. But this is not the case for if it grows there it belongs there(and by extension is not bad for you). For example you could plug in cancer and you would see this equation is not always right. Here is a rather nice website for fallacies https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Nature
What they want to say is it’s ok because it’s natural but that is the basics of the appeal to nature fallacy
Sorry to butt in, but I think I might know where the confusion is coming from. Apart from its strictly logical meaning of “a statement that’s always true”, the word tautology is often used to mean repetition or circular circular reasoning (e.g. “I should join this honor society to show colleges I’m honorable, and I’m honorable because I’m in an honor society?”).
In which way does my statement fall for naturalistic fallacy? Also in which sentence does the woman in question say leg hair is better than no leg hair because it is natural?
Seems to me that in both cases you are assuming things.