but did they watch sonic the hedgehog?

My Wife: "I'm just warning you, I haven't shaved in a few days."

Me: "Oh no! Anyway..."

The argument ‘why is it there then?’ is still flawed, even if you are sHoCkEd by an argument by comparison.

That happened

It is?

Ask 100 women what they think of facial hair on men.

I remember following Iguanamouth on tumblr back in the day, she always posted good stuff.

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'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 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.

As the 100th man, the more hair on people the better.

"If I didn't want a sexy sasquatch, I wouldn't have married my best friend."

Were you aware that the face and legs are two separate parts of the body?

Tumors don't grow on a majority of people, hair does.

I’m a trans man and I wasn’t able to feel comfortable wearing shorts without shaving until my early 30s either. The indoctrination is real!

Yeah, the third post is "Local Tumblr User Doesn't Understand Reductio ad Absurdum; More at 11."

The user isn't saying leg hair is like cancer (like fucking obviously; how disingenuous would you be to even suggest that?). They're saying the argument of "it wouldn't grow there if it wasn't supposed to" is completely stupid – that it has little discriminative power to distinguish what's good and bad if you don't already know. It isn't even nearly limited to the absurdity of that contradictory example:

"Sorry, honey, but the dick cheese wouldn't be there if it wasn't supposed to."

It's a fine-ish retort to get a seven-year-old to chill out, but it's total bullshit when you don't already know leg hair on women is fine. Pointing out that "Gravity is real because most people think it is" is a bad argument by saying "Germs didn't exist because most people thought they didn't" doesn't mean I'm trying to say believing gravity is like disbelieving germ theory; I'm pointing out the argument doesn't hold water regardless of what the fallacy (in the OP's case, a pretty clear appeal to nature) was supporting.

TL;DR: Denying the means, not the conclusion.

He’s not comparing hair to cancer, he is demonstrating that just because something grows doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be there.

ZZ Top wasted a lot of money on dressing sharp when it was the beards all along.

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.

MFW Velma was Shaggy all along!

Your feelings are valid, I just don't get to bust this one out too often. Couldn't pass it up.

How do we know women hair isn't just cancer? 🤔

Nobody is supposed to have body hair.

He didn't say otherwise, just pointed out the argument used was poor.

Let's watch sonic hedgehog

Found the furry.

"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.

And then everybody applauded

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.

Says who? Your god?

Who's to say cancer isn't supposed to grow?

Again, who are you to say that? I could make the exact opposite argument and you would have to obey because I said so.

Not true. My wife loves being hairless and does it for herself.

Ok, but as long as the hair isn’t actually doing anything then what’s the problem? Cancer kills you and dick cheese is fucking nasty as hell(especially in the context of expexting someone to allow it into their body). Excessive, unwashed body hair that is producing an odor is nasty because it affects other people and cannot be easily ignored, but someone saying “that’s gross because now I don’t find you attractive” does not deserve any more of an answer than “go fuck yourself.” That kid’s question got a better answer than it warranted.

You write a lot for someone who doesn’t understand communication.

then what’s the problem?

You write a lot for someone who doesn’t understand communication. [200 words btw did I time travel back to fucking 4th grade?]

The fact you read that and couldn't even grasp that there fucking is no problem with leg hair and I'm not saying there is one and I even directly said "leg hair on women is fine" is just *chef's kiss*. You missed the excruciatingly obvious point of the entire comment – for which apparently even "a lot" of unambiguous clarification wasn't enough. Fucking Mordecai'd that shit.

Who exactly doesn't understand communication here? The one who thinks 200 words is "a lot" of writing?

I don’t believe there are any truly hairless mammals?

You really have to press your advantage to prevent them from thinking about that

It's not impossible that they are, but given there's a perfectly logical and highly plausible explanation that they're making an entirely cogent point (because the argument is severely flawed, and they point out the flaw accurately), I choose to not just assume that they're a shitty person who thinks women are icky and need to shave their legs or they're gross – like the third comment from "geekandmisandry" (really self-reporting the bias there) does instead of just... asking them to clarify.

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.

Yeah but that's not as fun to say