Discussion The debate on whether water is wet

[ThePlagueDoctor]

@based_meme bc u were interested

Before you think “Fucking duh, water is wet.” Think about the definition of the word “wet“.


Wet, when used as an adjective is defined as “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.” How you interpret this WILL change the answer to this question.

Argument for water being not wet : The definition implies that when an object is wet, we can remove the water and therefore remove that status of wet, we cannot remove water from water and have it change states from wet to dry. Thus, water is NOT wet.

Argument for water is wet : Technically speaking, water molecules are surrounded by other water molecules in say, any sample of water. Therefore, it is saturated with water, and water IS wet.

Thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 9301]

Water being wet is like females being whores

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

Water being wet is like females being whores

I can immediately tell that you didn’t read my post

 

[Deleted member 9301]

I can immediately tell that you didn’t read my post

Don’t need to water is wet nigga stop coping

 

[Deleted member 23483]

Water is dry

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

Don’t need to water is wet nigga stop coping

How am I coping? I haven’t given my opinion on this, my only hope is to spark discussion. You are impeding this discussion, which is a very bluepilled trait.

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

Water is wet tbh

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

Water is wet tbh

explain

 

[Deleted member 9301]

How am I coping? I haven’t given my opinion on this, my only hope is to spark discussion. You are impeding this discussion, which is a very bluepilled trait.

Just because i said water is wet i’m hindering a discussion and i have an blue pilled trait

Jfl what else is water then?

 

[Deleted member 21714]

This is your brain on aspergers and low iq combined

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

explain

I get wet when I shower

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

Just because i said water is wet i’m hindering a discussion and i have an blue pilled trait

Jfl what else is water then?

Acknowledge this point : “Argument for water being not wet : The definition implies that when an object is wet, we can remove the water and therefore remove that status of wet, we cannot remove water from water and have it change states from wet to dry. Thus, water is NOT wet.”

accepting something without questioning it first is a bluepilled trait tbh

 

[Yerberito]

One thing cannot be two things at the same time

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

W

H

O



C

A

R

E

S

 

[Deleted member 9301]

Acknowledge this point : “Argument for water being not wet : The definition implies that when an object is wet, we can remove the water and therefore remove that status of wet, we cannot remove water from water and have it change states from wet to dry. Thus, water is NOT wet.”

accepting something without questioning it first is a bluepilled trait tbh

http://www.planet-science.com/categories/under-11s/our-world/2012/02/why-is-water-wet.aspx
Water being wet is like fire being hot it’s a description of what it is. JFL Low IQ retard don’t call me blue pilled i’m prob way more black pilled than you faggot

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

One thing cannot be two things at the same time

You mean like contradicting traits? It kinda can, let’s say a guy is 6’3, he is tall compared to a normal guy who’s 5’9, but short compared to the Eiffel Tower. It all depends on perspective

W

H

O



C

A

R

E

S

its in offtopic for a reason you monkey

http://www.planet-science.com/categories/under-11s/our-world/2012/02/why-is-water-wet.aspx
Water being wet is like fire being hot it’s a description of what it is. JFL Low IQ retard don’t call me blue pilled i’m prob way more black pilled than you faggot

How is it low IQ to demand specificity? To dig deeper into things? Is it low IQ to understand why something is true or is it somehow higher IQ to just regurgitate bullshit you don’t?

You’re also pretending like I’m not seeing both sides of the discussion here, you’re pretending like I’m only saying water isn’t wet when my original post acknowledges both. I’d argue that water is wet but I’m acknowledging the other argument because it can help reinforce my own, it’s how we crush bluepillers arguments. It’s how most debates work in fact.

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

its in offtopic for a reason you monkey

 

[Deleted member 22907]

pussy is wet

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

pussy is wet

Fakecel if pussies don’t dry up near you

View attachment 203990

monkaS

 

[Deleted member 9301]

You mean like contradicting traits? It kinda can, let’s say a guy is 6’3, he is tall compared to a normal guy who’s 5’9, but short compared to the Eiffel Tower. It all depends on perspective

its in offtopic for a reason you monkey

How is it low IQ to demand specificity? To dig deeper into things? Is it low IQ to understand why something is true or is it somehow higher IQ to just regurgitate bullshit you don’t?

You’re also pretending like I’m not seeing both sides of the discussion here, you’re pretending like I’m only saying water isn’t wet when my original post acknowledges both. I’d argue that water is wet but I’m acknowledging the other argument because it can help reinforce my own, it’s how we crush bluepillers arguments. It’s how most debates work in fact.

It was Low IQ for you to state that i had a blue pilled trait for saying what i though was the answer.
You asked me what i thought and i answered and you became mad?

also nobody gives a shit if water is wet or not

 

[zangano1]

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

It was Low IQ for you to state that i had a blue pilled trait for saying what i though was the answer.
You asked me what i thought and i answered and you became mad?

Mad bc no supporting reason tbh, don’t really care now bc you at least have a supporting answer

 

[based_meme]

This is a good example of semantics interfering with descriptive language. This was one of the problems Wittgenstein tackled (and I believe solved... don't remember).

Wet is either a property, an effect, or both. We know that water makes (most) things have the effect of wetness. If water is wet, it has the property of wetness as well as the effect of wetness (on other things). If water is not wet, then it only has the effect of wetness.

As strange as this sounds, water may in fact not be wet at all. Colloquially, when we say "wet" we interchange the property of wetness with the effect of wetness and vice versa, and this is encapsulated in the word itself (wet). It seems almost non-sensical to think of some thing not having the property of some other thing, yet has the effect of that thing on other things. I'm not a materials engineer, but there probably is some kind of liquid that has no wetness effect on things.

If that's the case, however, then we have a problem: what does it mean to be wet? If we say that some thing is wet, are we simply saying that it's liquid? Why don't we just say that, then? Does the level of viscosity affect the property of wetness? Do we say that honey is wet? I can't recall anybody ever describing honey as wet.

Philosophy is the intellectualization of stupid things. With philosophy the stupid sometimes becomes interesting, and we may reach some truth we didn't expect.

 

[ihaveno1]

over for watercels

 

[ItsOver4cel]

That's like saying the fire is on fire. Ofc water is not wet but it sounds good as a meme tbh

 

[TINMAN]

What about if you pour oil into water? It is now covered in oil, therefore it has been covered in another liquid. Hence, I suggest an addendum. Water is NOT wet, UNLESS it is covered in oil.

 

[PluralSpaceRace]

Is dirt dirty?

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

This is a good example of semantics interfering with descriptive language. This was one of the problems Wittgenstein tackled (and I believe solved... don't remember).

Wet is either a property, an effect, or both. We know that water makes (most) things have the effect of wetness. If water is wet, it has the property of wetness as well as the effect of wetness (on other things). If water is not wet, then it only has the effect of wetness.

As strange as this sounds, water may in fact not be wet at all. Colloquially, when we say "wet" we interchange the property of wetness with the effect of wetness and vice versa, and this is encapsulated in the word itself (wet). It seems almost non-sensical to think of some thing not having the property of some other thing, yet has the effect of that thing on other things. I'm not a materials engineer, but there probably is some kind of liquid that has no wetness effect on things.

If that's the case, however, then we have a problem: what does it mean to be wet? If we say that some thing is wet, are we simply saying that it's liquid? Why don't we just say that, then? Does the level of viscosity affect the property of wetness? Do we say that honey is wet? I can't recall anybody ever describing honey as wet.

Philosophy is the intellectualization of stupid things. With philosophy the stupid sometimes becomes interesting, and we may reach some truth we didn't expect.

Precisely, the semantics of it make for an interesting discussion IMO, it’s the same as the discussion of “If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Where the final answer is based on the definition of sound.

Its a dumb discussion that likely won’t interfere with our daily lives but imo it’s certainly more fun to think about than how much life sucks

 

[Deleted member 18214]

Deserts exist because there are no Chads near them. Notice how all the Chads in Australia are on the coast and the centre is desert? Even land gets wet for Chad only. This is beyond brutal. Such greed.

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

Deserts exist because there are no Chads near them. Notice how all the Chads in Australia are on the coast and the centre is desert? Even land gets wet for Chad only. This is beyond brutal. Such greed.

God tier kekfuel ngl

 

[ItsOver4cel]

Deserts exist because there are no Chads near them. Notice how all the Chads in Australia are on the coast and the centre is desert? Even land gets wet for Chad only. This is beyond brutal. Such greed.

Brutal Australiapill

 

[BummerDrummerOG]

Water is wet cuz wet is a adjective and water is that adjective

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

Water is wet cuz wet is a adjective and water is that adjective

It can be a verb or noun as well

 

[BummerDrummerOG]

It can be a verb or noun as well

Shut up

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

Shut up

B RUH

 

[failmaxxed]

Argument for water being not wet : The definition implies that when an object is wet, we can remove the water and therefore remove that status of wet, we cannot remove water from water and have it change states from wet to dry. Thus, water is NOT wet.

that make no sense. if you cannot remove water from water then it does not become dry, it stays wet. therefore, water is always wet as it cannot be made dry

 

[ThePlagueDoctor]

that make no sense. if you cannot remove water from water then it does not become dry, it stays wet. therefore, water is always wet as it cannot be made dry

That’s the thing, that argument is essentially saying water is neither wet nor dry

 

[failmaxxed]

That’s the thing, that argument is essentially saying water is neither wet nor dry

it is wet because it causes thing in contact with it to become wet, therefore by extension it is wet

 

[FinnCel]

pussy is wet

But not for us

 

[Deleted member 23682]

Deserts exist because there are no Chads near them. Notice how all the Chads in Australia are on the coast and the centre is desert? Even land gets wet for Chad only. This is beyond brutal. Such greed.

Newton IQ

 

[Irredeemable]

Can't separate water and wetness, the second argument makes more sense.

 

[Deleted member 23944]

Deserts exist because there are no Chads near them. Notice how all the Chads in Australia are on the coast and the centre is desert? Even land gets wet for Chad only. This is beyond brutal. Such greed.

Mother Earth when she sees Chads.

 

[Blackpill Rage]

So much fucking cope in this thread.

Dry water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Words2_live_bye]

Water being wet is like females being whores

 

[Deleted member 18214]

Mother Earth when she sees Chads.

View attachment 204670 View attachment 204671

 

[PPEcel]

@based_meme bc u were interested

Before you think “Fucking duh, water is wet.” Think about the definition of the word “wet“.


Wet, when used as an adjective is defined as “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.” How you interpret this WILL change the answer to this question.

Argument for water being not wet : The definition implies that when an object is wet, we can remove the water and therefore remove that status of wet, we cannot remove water from water and have it change states from wet to dry. Thus, water is NOT wet.

Argument for water is wet : Technically speaking, water molecules are surrounded by other water molecules in say, any sample of water. Therefore, it is saturated with water, and water IS wet.

Thoughts?

high iq

 

[Admiral_Arkantos]

water is h2o

 

[Blackpill Rage]

@based_meme bc u were interested

Before you think “Fucking duh, water is wet.” Think about the definition of the word “wet“.


Wet, when used as an adjective is defined as “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.” How you interpret this WILL change the answer to this question.

Argument for water being not wet : The definition implies that when an object is wet, we can remove the water and therefore remove that status of wet, we cannot remove water from water and have it change states from wet to dry. Thus, water is NOT wet.

Argument for water is wet : Technically speaking, water molecules are surrounded by other water molecules in say, any sample of water. Therefore, it is saturated with water, and water IS wet.

Thoughts?

Gigacope

Dry water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dregster]

@based_meme bc u were interested

Before you think “Fucking duh, water is wet.” Think about the definition of the word “wet“.


Wet, when used as an adjective is defined as “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.” How you interpret this WILL change the answer to this question.

Argument for water being not wet : The definition implies that when an object is wet, we can remove the water and therefore remove that status of wet, we cannot remove water from water and have it change states from wet to dry. Thus, water is NOT wet.

Argument for water is wet : Technically speaking, water molecules are surrounded by other water molecules in say, any sample of water. Therefore, it is saturated with water, and water IS wet.

Thoughts?

Not One Word

 

[Deleted member 25707]

Too high IQ for me tbhtbb