“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

Look buddy, you already demonstrated that you don’t know what you’re talking about when you say it’s cops’ job to protect people, I’m not interested in your apologia about why people are being too mean to poor ol cops.

If you join Team I Can Hurt You And Get Away With It, don’t be surprised when people treat you like you could hurt them. Don’t like it? Change the team rules.

I’m very interested in knowing what you think tankies are.

Ok so all police are bad, even if there are good hearted individuals that try to make a difference in a community, just because they joined a police force

Again, it’s not about individual cops, it’s about The Police. The Police have legal structures that protect them from the consequences of abusing citizens. So your average citizen is absolutely completely justified in treating every cop like they are bad, because they might be, and there is no way to know the difference, and the judicial system is on their side. If cops don’t want to be treated like villains, they should be loudly and frequently advocating for changes to the system of The Police. If they can’t even do that, how are you supposed to tell them from a bad cop who wants to hurt you?

What should be happening instead? Maintaining a basic rule of law and society is kind of important

I agree, in fact I think there should be more rules, like ones that protect the rights of citizens from government overreach and police brutality.

Divisive dismissing of any race, group, organization or entity isn’t helpful and is ignorant

Sorry but you’re the one being silly. Again, cops choose to join the police, and it is completely incomparable to race. You are a fool.

It makes the problems worst, not better

Actually I think people advocating for better policing instead of just deepthroating “cops good” makes the problem better.

You become what you loathe.

“No u” wow so intelligent, you should write a book.

The solution is simple, if you want people to respect police, the police need to become respectable. As it stands they can abuse you with near impunity, so they get fear and disdain.

Why are you more concerned with the fear and disdain rather than the abuse?

Yes their jobs is to protect us

actually the Supreme Court specifically said it isn’t, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about

You’re also conflating a group of individuals with the system that they choose to join. Individual cops are human, sure, but The Police are not, and they hold special legal privileges that make each and every one a danger to humans everywhere they patrol. And since joining The Police is a choice, individual cops may be judged accordingly for willingly becoming part of that system.

we are addicted to foreign ichor of dead gods

Tankies, the group famously opposed to state monopoly on violence, of course.

no it’s The Simpsons