How is this be a fallacy even though it's true?

How is this be a fallacy even though it's true?

Nature isn't always good.

Liberals will point to an animal having gay sex to prove to you it's natural (ignoring that they pump animals with chemicals/hormones)

It's good that you're realizing the commie/globalist faggots have been poisoning our minds for a very long time. Question everything .

Yeah OP just follow your instincts and have unprotected sex 1000s of times until your dick falls off and you get 500 girls pregnant. It's natural therefore it's good.

Some animals eat their babies. Therefore, people shouldn't get upset when I cannibalize babies.

oh no nature is taking back a dead ant and it's materials being used to give life something else

The ant's death is not bad for nature, but nature is bad for the ant.

"animals use sodomy as a form of heirarchy enforcement, therefor it is ok to be gay"

appeal to reality

lmfao

Be born to crave proccessed shitty food that gives you heart disease

um doughnuts good for you??
Butt sex good for you?
I was born with the urge to murder animals with a rifle because its badass doesnt mean they dont suffer when i blow their chest cavity out from 6 yards away up a tree

Logical fallacies are made up phrases to limit thought and control debate

Nature gave life to the ant you dumb mutt. The ant did its life and now nature is taking it back, like it will do eventually with each subhuman and their wealth

Harnessing fire wasn’t natural. Building cities isn’t natural. Everything the human race has ever done has been “unnatural”

the fallacy fallacy

You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

basically, try other ways to make the argument without using an appeal to nature.

it's natural for people to have sex but if they're in a relationship and they're cheating it doesn't excuse it (unless you're a cuck)

all this internet shit is unnatural

it's true?

imagine you are an alien and you discover earth and study it. You see all kinds of horrible things going on, which you know is natural, and says the truth about the human race.

Males bears sometime kill and est their young.

Because it happens in nature (is natural), it is permissible for humans to do as well.

appeal to naturalism

those are just improvements on natural things that make lives better.

Nature includes all of reality. Everything is natural.
It's a non-concept for faggots.

Is/ought fallacy...you can't go from is to ought. It doesn't work logically

Good according to who?

You'd first have to specify where "natural" behaviour starts and where it ends. Theft, murder, rape, cannibalism, masturbation, gay sex, war etc have happened since forever, even among animals. Are they not "natural"?
And then you can probably ask the question as to why something being "natural" makes it good in the first place.

How do you measure good?

poison is natural, so should you eat that?

make lives better.

for who except parasites? the white race soon will be gone.

also retard, the fungus is a majestic creature, it decays the dead matter, takes its energy and spreads it for better things, like feeding the trees or plants

Yes yes ... sounds right, continue.

It's only a fallacy if used fallaciously

that fungus is parasitic and takes control over the ant turning it into a zombie to spread more parasitic fungus around. Someone didn't just post a mushroom to go "LOOK NATURE BAD"

Nature is the ultimate authority. Humans try to deny it because of technology, but in the end, nature always wins. A million years from now, we will be another extinct species, no matter how hard we try to prevent it. We will go extinct because nature has decreed that all things, even whole species, dies.

childhood cancer, rape, and getting eaten alive are natural, is it therefore good if you get cancer, raped, and then eaten alive?

Anything that follows the words "Climate Change"

You are a fricking retard. Fungus decays the dead matter. What you saying is hollymutt science fiction

gang raping is natural because mallard ducks do it, you should the same

How could this be a fallacy even though it's true

First of all learn to speak you retarded faggot, secondly it's because nature is cruel and brutish it is the opposite of civilization where man follows his higher ideals such as truth, beauty, and justice

stupid Moor doesn't know about the zombie ant fungus

Lol

some seething "muh progress" brained greekoid invented this cope and put it on his official list of wrong things that people he didn't like said and to this day retards still call upon that list as some kind of divine truth, when in fact, nature IS the divine truth.

Cancer is nature
Invasive species are nature
Killer diseases are nature
Even righties are nature. Probably.

Nature doesn't have ethics or justice or fairness - yeah I know what we say, neither do we in our civilization - but at least we have morals and attempt to cooperate

Simple as.

Wasnt it on snails or am i confusing things? The webms are nightmare fuel

It's not. In fact, ever notice how all the supposed "logical fallacies" that you aren't supposed to use are all the most effective tactics for defeating subversive thought, speech and ideas?

Find a single pic of a living creature with a fungus implanted in its brain you dumb mutt

My corporation is a green company, so you can't assume anything I do is bad

Fucking ESL retard.

It’s a logical fallacy. You’re following the rules of logic when you come to a logical fallacy, not the rules of nature.

Logic is the enemy of humanity though. Our societies got a long just fine for thousands of years without logic. Notice how it's once logic became the mainstream way to think that everything started going to shit?

op confirmed to want to rape his mom because it happens in nature

That is extremely not what the "appeal to nature" fallacy is talking about

niggers are natural therefore good for our society

Logic is not the mainstream way to think and when you are talking about fallacies they only reason they matter is when you’re having an argument based on logic.

The fallacies are only used to attack an opponent making a poor argument and claiming to be “logical”

Yeah the issue is that human morality is not natural morality. We can communicate and are so socially interdependent that nature as a framework doesn't completely match human ethics. Furthermore, it's lazy argumentation unless a specific human conduct that is natural could be used as ana argument: sex drive, hunger, etc

Loaded question

Ants ruthlessly kills prey.

Fungus ruthlessly kills ants.

Apologetics, sophistics and all other forms of debate are cryptojewry. Raw instinct is the most powerful indicator of right and wrong, and to deny nature is to glorify weakness and inability to compete.

They can be weaponized to stifle truth as well as be used to point out BS. It depends on how they are applied and the subject that they are being applied to. Generally they are guides to point out dishonest arguments and have been around since ancient Greece, specifically, to the well-known Greek philosopher Aristotle who laid out the groundwork for formal logic.

Because Mod trannies will seethe since biological sex is natural.
In reality nature is simply nature.
You can't just magic nature away.

Fun Quiz

I know right? So what if I want to show up to an elementary school naked during recess time, then defecate and masturbate in front of the kids? It's nothing they don't see on the Discovery Channel.

well some nature isn't good isn't so all isn't!

well that is a fallacy

natural means adaptable. and adaptation means constant war (survival of the fittest)

Saying something is good because it appears or derives from nature is not an argument, it's a statement of fact. Lead is natural. That is not a qualitative argument it' a simple fact. It can be good or bad. How/why that thing is good or bad is the core argument and that is what must be argued. All logical fallacies are about the structure of an argument or point, not the content.

You can argue wild fruit are good but saying they are good purely because they are natural is insufficient. Instead you should point to stuff like nutrient content, growing conditions, etc. Further, you can argue something is natural and good but those are two arguments and to avoid the fallacy you must justify all points of the argument.

Oh the farmers are liberals now? When did that happen?

Yeah, this one stands out as clearly not being derived from first principles. It's downstream from a material metaphysical worldview, which is why it only started being named in that way in the 1700's and not in ancient Greece.

The appeal to nature- or more specifically the appeal to the natural order- only appears fallacious if you don't believe that the natural world has an order which is a metaphysical statement and isn't derived from pure logic. Put simply, this "logical fallacy" is materialist cope and Plato, Socrates and Aristotle would be embarrassed to be pictured next to it.

Ad hominem doesn't make you wrong, it makes you funny.

what do you call an appeal to fallacy? The fallacy fallacy?

It could possibly still be true. It isn't telling you that you are wrong, but that you are arguing your point in a fallacious manner.

Since you are OP, I assume that you are arguing that some pro-faggotry position, where this fallacy often occurs.

Fallacy fallacy is the fallacy that just because someone used a fallacy in their argument doesn't mean they're wrong. So its all just a guideline not a hard rule. I.e. slippery slope can be very real but usually isn't good enough on its own. In retrospect women's rights and gay rights and all that were indeed a slippery slope.

Because something being natural doesn't prove that it's good or bad.

you drank too much dummy juice

Yes, fallacy fallacy is another fallacy. Relying on someone's argument having a fallacy as proof of them being wrong isn't air tight.

without nature there is no truth, beauty or justice

The farmers dont have to be either because they control EVERYTHING

true

luddite

Some boys think men are attractive like girls, therefore they are girls too.

It's like how proponents of the carnivore diet claim that we ate mostly meat in primitive times, therefore this must be the best diet for health because the body is evolved or optimise for it.
But humans weren't optimised for a super long life, anti aging to extend lifespan as much as possible wasn't a thing when we were ooga boogas. Short term reproduction for the survival of the species by pumping out as many children as soon as possible before death was the goal.
Go look at any current country with harsh living conditions, they breed like rabbits and die at age 50 or something.

Rapid numerous breeding is a survival mechanism so a race survives even if they're reduced to being absolute niggers. It doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it's wrong on its own either.

I naturally want to TKD, therefore it's valid, justified, inevitable, and ideal

The Jew abhors nature and natural law. I say this unironically. It is in much of their writing.

The fallacies are being pozed with a bunch of questionable ones.

which is why it only started being named in that way in the 1700's and not in ancient Greece.

Interested if you have a source?

The appeal to nature fallacy is an informal logical fallacy, which means that it involves weak reasoning rather than a structural flaw. quillbot.com

The fallacy of appeal to nature refers to the argument that just because something is natural that it is therefore valid, justified, or inevitable.

logicalfallacies.org

The logical problems with appealing to nature are the result of the vagueness and loadedness of the concept of the natural. ... The naturalistic fallacy is an alleged error in ethics, not in logic.

fallacyfiles.org

The appeal to nature fallacy is one that is easy to fall victim to because it’s rather subjective. This logical fallacy happens when something is assumed to be good because it’s considered natural, or bad because it’s considered to be unnatural.

developgoodhabits.com
The origin of this fallacy can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, who believed in the concept of “natural law”. ... In conclusion, it is important to understand the Appeal to Nature fallacy because it can be used to justify harmful or unethical actions.
medium.com

Nature isn't ideal, nor does it select for optimal traits. It simply chooses for animals that can spread their genes, with little care for what happens afterward.

A case would be homosexuality is present in the natural world. Is it good for people? Not likely. It's shown to increase rectal cancers.

A more extreme example? Many animals eat their offspring. This is usually done to conserve resources or eliminate competition for healthier, stronger siblings. Should a mother be entitled to eat or simply kill her child if she can demonstratablely show a younger or older sibling is a better specimen.

Or male mammals often kill the young of a female if he acquires her through some way, and the children aren't his. Should a the children of a single mother be allowed to be killed by a man if he decides to marry the single mother?

Nature isn't good, moral, or some kind of guide.

multiple posts from this highschool tier retard who thinks he's being philosophical

If it kills you, it's not good. If it demonstrably causes long term health problems, it's not good. Those are objective measures everyone except autists who should be fed into a meat grinder agree upon.

There are many, many, many, many poisons and toxic chemicals that will kill you dead that are 100% "all natural". Something being "natural" does not in any way make it "healthy", likewise "artificial" is a similarly misunderstood and misapplied term.

I've read the willow bark pills are more effective than aspirin but I'm not sure if I believe it.

is this why transfolx are valid?

Don't know, maybe there are other compounds involved in the bark that could enhance or facilitate its effectiveness. Would be interesting to investigate, but could also be an example of appealing to nature.

Botox is an all natural ingredient.

Came across this though:

In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that any reductive explanation of good, in terms of natural properties such as pleasant or desirable, is false. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.

The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature, which is exemplified by forms of reasoning such as "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesirable." Such inferences are common in discussions of medicine, sexuality, environmentalism, gender roles, race, and carnism. Evolution.com

botox is made by the botulism bacterium.

Because there is cause and effect. Natural phenomenon occur, but there is a cause of the natural phenomenon. Sometimes we don't understand the cause and can only observe the effect