You must log in or # to comment.
And then everybody applauded
Hair helps prevent insect bites, but you have to be pretty hairy. So it is useful
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.
It’s a pretty good arsehole detector and repellent in the modern age
My Wife: "I’m just warning you, I haven’t shaved in a few days.’
Me: Oh no! Anyway…"
“If I didn’t want a sexy sasquatch, I wouldn’t have married my best friend.”
You really have to press your advantage to prevent them from thinking about that
Smooth as silk in one direction
Severe tire damage in the other
I think “a few days” is the problem zone. It will be itchy and rough stubble by then (at least for me). After like a month it smooths back out. It could well be your wife telling you “this will be uncomfortable for both of us, at least wait a bit, or give me time to shave”.
Between that comparison and sonic the hedgehog I’ll gladly take a blue rodent eating chilli dogs.
Fun fact: hedgehogs aren’t rodents, and are actually more closely related to tigers than to mice (by about 10 million years). Porcupines are rodents and echidnas are another thing entirely so spines developed on mammals a bunch of times.
Holy fuck these comments are cringe as fuck. Nobody here was allowed to touch a woman ever and that is painfully obvious.
Your mom lets me touch her all the time - what are you on about?
Bunch of incels arguing that the middle commenter is technically correct even though this is obviously a commentary on women having body hair and it’s intolerance in society as evidenced by even a young boy being disgusted by seeing hair on a woman’s legs.
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.
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.
I legit heard a news anchor say “and what it could mean for your weekend” on the TV at a bar recently, so they’re keeping it alive.
Tumors don’t grow on a majority of people, hair does.
90% of people have herpes simplex virus. Everyone(?) on Earth catches the common cold repeatedly throughout their lives.
Trying to appeal to nature about leg hair is a dumb argument that only “works” because you already – correctly – understand leg hair is fine in a medical (safe) and sociological (acceptable/should be accepted) context.
Yeah but that’s not as fun to say
Not that it matters at all, but tumors grow on (or in) roughly 100% of people. A mole is a tumor, for example.
I stand corrected!
He’s not comparing hair to cancer, he is demonstrating that just because something grows doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be there.
Women are supposed to have body hair.
Says who? Your god?
Last time I checked, that was a pretty integral part of being a mammal.
Incorrect
It’s a defining characteristic of mammals.
Then explain whales and dolphins
They’re born with hair and it falls off.
Since cetaceans are mammals, they have hair at some point in their life! dolphins are no exception. Dolphins have a few whiskers around their snout in the womb and when they are first born but they soon lose them.
Amazon River dolphins (botos) keep these hairs into adulthood - they are sensory hairs and thought to help them search for prey on the river bed along with echolocation. The water they live in is very murky so eyesight has only limited use.
The bumps on humpback whales’ head, mouth and even on their flippers are called tubercles. Those raised surfaces are actually hair follicles where a single hair grows. Similar to like a whisker, it helps the whales be able to sense their environment.
https://us.whales.org/do-whales-and-dolphin-have-hair/
Y’all just can’t let a woman be right, can you?
This comment thread is really revealing how many people here have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
The amount of pedantic, anti-social men on Lemmy is pretty high.
See, you keep trying to make this about gender. It’s not. That’s what you seem to be too thick to understand. The topic is no longer about if women should have hairy legs or not, that’s a completely moot point. It’s about the logical fallacy of trying to argue something by saying “well if x shouldn’t exist, then why is it there?”, which is just bad logic.
That has literally nothing to do with gender anymore. No one here gives a shit if women shave or not, dumbass; it’s just the initial topic that triggered the fallacy which we are now discussing. It’s pretty fucking obvious, but that seems to have gone entirely over your head; again, because you have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
Two topics can be active at once.
Nobody is supposed to have body hair.
“supposed” is a bit of a tricky word for biology anyway, given that it implies intent. I guess if one is religious it works, but otherwise, itd be ascribing thought to evolutionary processes that dont seem to have a mechanism for that.
Wouldn’t it be abnormal for a mammal to not grow hair though?
Depends on the mammal I guess, but sure. But, theres a difference between something being what typically happens, and what is supposed to happen. Were you somehow in charge of designing mammals, and decided that hair should be a crucial aspect of them, then you could say that they are supposed to have hair. But, absent anyone doing this, them having hair is simply how they happen to be and equally as unintended as them not having it, regardless of how overwhelming the percentage that has it is. If anything, one could argue that if a person shaves their hair, or decides not while being given the option, then that person has actively taken charge of designing their own appearance, at least in that regard, and therefore the way they are “supposed” to look is the way they intend to make themselves look.
I don’t believe there are any truly hairless mammals?
I have never seen a dolphin, dugong or whale with hair
I wouldn’t know if like naked mole rats or Sphinx cats or whatever are truly hairless or not, but tbh it doesn’t really matter for what I was trying to say.
There is a certain degree of genetics and environmental adaptation here as well. Not all ethnic groups share similar body hair genes. It doesnt even seen to correlate to something like melanin production and higher/lower latitudes since body hair across Africa varies wildliy.
Oh come on.
It is normal for women to grow body hair.
Of course - what I’m saying is that there’s huge variation within humans. Some ethnic groups simply don’t grow as much body hair, or it’s not nearly as course or pronounced. My partner can go weeks without shaving her legs and it’s almost impossible to tell. Many East Asian ethnic groups have far less hair than Europeans or Levant peoples. People in West Africa have relatively little body hair, while I’ve seen women with full on beards and chest hair in southern African countries.
If this conversation is between a Maori or Norwegian kid and a Bulgarian or Spanish or Armenian babysitter, that’s a stark contrast that actually would be plausible without the reality of unreasonable beauty standards ruining everyone’s day.
That variation also means that the “logic” of comparing leg hair to cancer makes as much sense as comparing leg hair to my nipples. They don’t do anything either, but XY bodies still get them. And I would bet $10 that any kid young enough to be baby-sat and say that grows up to get lip filler and joker-esque work done by the age of 28.
No. There’s plenty of mammals without hair.
Women are not those types of mammals.
He didn’t say otherwise, just pointed out the argument used was poor.
It’s a bad comparison because women are supposed to grow body hair.
Again, who are you to say that? I could make the exact opposite argument and you would have to obey because I said so.
Women are mammals same as men. We grow hair on our bodies.
It’s not a comparison except in logic, where it is a perfect comparison.
Who’s to say cancer isn’t supposed to grow?
How do we know women hair isn’t just cancer? 🤔
How do we know women aren’t just giant blobs of cancer?
Let’s watch sonic hedgehog
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.
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.
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
For a tautology to work it always has to be true.
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?”).
As someone with hair loss: it also protects surprisingly well from bumps and scrapes, as well as being warmer than you’d think!
It also protects against mosquitoes
I do have MPB, but the rest of me is hairy as all hell, it also helps protect from ticks and mosquitoes sometimes…
He is not a local man, he is a dinogator. As such, he is unfamiliar with the concept of hair. Cut him some slack!
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.
Having body hair quickly filters out men not worth my time for sure.
It’s not necessarily everyone’s primary goal in life to appeal to you sexually.
You can be correct for the wrong reasons.
It’s not the wrong reason, nor is it an argument that hair doesn’t belong there. All it is is a counter to the logic that supports her conclusion, but it doesn’t dispute the conclusion itself.
I think thats exactly what the person youre responding to meant.
Evolution is a myth anyway!
