To repeat: I already gave a well-defined reason in my initial comment. It’s your choice whether or not to accept it.
I suppose being overly contrarian and argumentative might entertain you, but I’m not going to indulge such childishness (or, perhaps, ignorance) further.
Water is, in fact, not wet. Like any liquid, it can only make wet what it touches/soaks. Wetness is a property bestowed upon other things (primarily solid objects) which come into contact with a liquid, but not the liquid itself.
And, no, adding water to water doesn’t result in “wet” water- just more water.
This is just an assertion that wetness is a property only bestowed on solids. There is no reason given for this, and I have no basis to believe that it is true based on the aforementioned linguistics.
I refer you to the top comment: a very common English expression that “water is wet.”
You’re looking for logic in human linguistics. That is your mistake.
It is what it is, and it’s simply for you to either accept or have a lack of acceptance. But that’s what wetness is, regardless of your counter arguments.
If you can’t accept that, that’s your problem. It doesn’t change the nature of wetness.
This is why I don’t argue with flat earthers or holocaust deniers. People like you can’t be reasoned with.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”,[5]and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.[8]
“That’s just how it is” isn’t a reason either.
To repeat: I already gave a well-defined reason in my initial comment. It’s your choice whether or not to accept it.
I suppose being overly contrarian and argumentative might entertain you, but I’m not going to indulge such childishness (or, perhaps, ignorance) further.
This is just an assertion that wetness is a property only bestowed on solids. There is no reason given for this, and I have no basis to believe that it is true based on the aforementioned linguistics.
I refer you to the top comment: a very common English expression that “water is wet.”
You’re looking for logic in human linguistics. That is your mistake.
It is what it is, and it’s simply for you to either accept or have a lack of acceptance. But that’s what wetness is, regardless of your counter arguments.
If you can’t accept that, that’s your problem. It doesn’t change the nature of wetness.
This is why I don’t argue with flat earthers or holocaust deniers. People like you can’t be reasoned with.
Nice edit.
How dare I be pedantic when you were doing it first LMAO!
It seems like if it were true you’d have an actual reason instead of calling me irrational. I guess that’s just how it is though.
You sure got big mad for me asking you to explain your pedantry though. Probably because you know I’m right, huh?
I am not beholden to your standards. It’s a simple fact, which I explained clearly, and you are obviously struggling to accept that fact.
That is not my responsibility, nor is my problem.
Sure, I guess a thing you heard and repeated without consideration is a great reason. My mistake.
At least you were able to admit that you’re mistaken. But blaming others for your own unwillingness/inability to accept facts is irrational.
Ooh, facts?
Then you must have a source that explains how water is not wet? Why don’t we go there then?
Because all I’ve seen is you pretending like you can assert whatever you want without a reason.
I mean, isn’t that what you were doing in your first comment?
No. But you’re clearly
Sealioning
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”,[5]and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.[8]
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod