I have no idea what you’re talking about

I know, same

I didn’t say Democrats are good, I said they’re better.

If they aren’t willing to do anything better than that then they don’t deserve anyone’s votes.

I dunno, I think if even a single life is saved by voting for a Democrat, that would have been worth it.

There are things America does, which is bad and both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of, and there are ways Republicans are much worse. American imperialism will not be undone in a single election, and refusing to partake in incremental progress (or at least harm reduction) is throwing away any impact you could have in the system. Well, not you, but there are marginalized groups interior to the United States which face more oppression under Trump than they ever would under Harris, and saying their lives and suffering don’t matter because “America gonna America” is just cold blooded. It’s a really basic trolley problem and I have problems with the people who think they’re above pulling a lever because both tracks have bodies on them.

Yes America bad, and yes Democrats bad, but sometimes they’re the best choice available.

i can’t think of a single recent us president that wasn’t a war criminal.

That doesn’t make all war criminals equal. Two things can both be morally reprehensible and one still a clear advantage over the other.

the difference is they are polite and charismatic

Well, and less genocide and human rights abuse, as even the person I replied to could admit.

lol the Democrats and Republicans ARE the same. Their foreign policies are the exact same.

Just blatantly untrue, even the person I replied to could admit there would at least be less genocide and human rights abuse.

That’s focusing on the decorum over all else

Not at all, nice strawman though. Crazy and influential refers to political goals and political power

“BlueMAGA” is a false equivalence derived from horseshoe fallacy. The crazy fringe of Democrats aren’t as numerous, nor as influential, nor as crazy, as MAGA.

If you have actual criticisms of Democrats, go ahead and make them, but constructing this “equal and opposite” both-sides trash is a thought terminating cliche.

“Noted tankie bootlicker” read as: “I already made up my mind about this person”

Your objection wasn’t even defending tankies, just people who have been called tankies, which includes everything from “mildly anticapitalist” to “doesn’t support the police” (yes that is a real, recent example). Of course he doesn’t care about solidarity or tolerance, he’s a classic PTB that would rather ban people for suspected wrongthink. Or, as he’d say, a “noted histrionic powermod.”

That’s the space for the pockets to carry things.

Men’s pants are sold by leg length and waist size, you can get a pair that are long enough for you and large enough for your hips.

That doesn’t stop people from sharing it with other people, you don’t have to use megacorp services.

You’re right, it’s not a complete argument by itself, but it is a smart rebuttal to identify the fallacious logic.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Prejudice is bad and should be avoided.

okay but the local man did make a smart argument by identifying the Appeal to Nature fallacy