• EleventhHour@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Nope. Wetness is something water can only give to other things, not itself or other liquids.

      Water is not wet. And no matter how you try to reason through this, you will continue to be wrong.

      • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        it cant make other liquids wet because its already wet by nature. thats just what liquids are. no matter how many times you tell me im wrong, i’ll always know you are wrong

        • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          it cant make other liquids wet because its already wet by nature

          incorrect. this is the association fallacy-- you cannot prove it is wet other than through fallacy. wetness is only a property it can give to other things, not a property it possesses itself. water can’t be wet simply because it makes something else wet.

          therefore, you are wrong.

          no matter how many times you tell me im wrong, i’ll always know you are wrong

          and, for that, you’ll always be wrong.

          • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            so if someone asks if a towel is dry do you say “actually dryness is not something a towel can possess itself, only give to other things”

            • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              a towel is not water. dryness is not wetness.

              you’re using the association fallacy and the false equivalence fallacies again, which is how you’re wrong.

              • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                no its you being a hypocrite, which is why you are wrong

                water is wet, and everything you try saying how it “only gives wetness but doesnt have it” just further is proving how water is wet. because everything that touches it becomes wet, besides water, because ita already wet

                • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Nope, and name-calling is just another ad-hominem fallacy

                  You have the mistaken belief that because water makes other things that touches wet that it must be wet itself. That simply isn’t the case.

                  I’m sorry that is so difficult for you to accept.

                  • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    hypocrite is not name calling its an observation

                    sorry its so hard to accept that water is wet. cant be not wet 😂