Yeah this has been done to death but Serious needs some activity.

IMO, 'wetness' is the state of being soaked/covered/in contact with water. Water sticks to people and objects because of its high cohesive property, and it also sticks to itself for the same reason, resulting in having the highest surface tension of any non-metallic chemical. So unless we're talking about a single molecule of H2O, then water is wet, because it is in physical contact with water. A single molecule of water would not be wet, because it is not in contact with other water.

But somewhat on the contrary, the way surface tension works is that because the molecules on the surface of the water are exposed to air and not more water, they adhere to their adjacent molecules stronger, meaning that the molecules on the surface are quantifiably more wet than the water surrounded on all sides by other water molecules. If that's confusing, imagine you're at the bottom of a pool versus covered head to toe in something like glue. You'd probably say you're more "wet" with glue because of how sticky it is, than if you were deep underwater -- i.e., the 'wetness' is due to the strength of the cohesion and thus the perceived affect of the liquid, not the amount/mass of liquid around you.

i agree with you 100% that it's wet for the reasons you stated, and i'm glad you brought up the single molecule corollary, because i think that's what drives the point home for me

this debate is similar to when people argue about whether certain vegetables are actually fruits, and vice-versa, because most people are very colloquial and only use the functional everyday definitions of words, regardless of whether they're technically correct

people who insist that tomatoes are vegetables aren't exactly wrong when we use them as culinary vegetables, but the people who insist that they are fruits are referring to the more scientifically-savvy botanical definition

i'd say this is similar, because the people who claim that water can't be wet are mostly just smart-asses who are using the most colloquial definition of "wet" possible, and then taking it as literally as possible

like, i heard someone try to tell me "it's like saying fire can burn itself," and i didn't quite know how to respond to that, even though it viscerally seems like a stupid comparison

i was taught in school that the process of rusting is slow burning

like, i heard someone try to tell me "it's like saying fire can burn itself," and i didn't quite know how to respond to that, even though it viscerally seems like a stupid comparison

That one's even worse than this, because a 'burn' can be considered two very distinct things: the physical injury that occurs when an organism touches a flame, and the chemical process between a material and oxygen at high heat. So if someone asked, "does fire burn (injure) itself", you'd probably just ignore them for asking a dumb question. But if they asked if a flame -- the visible light and heat emitted from the chemical reaction of fire -- can burn itself, then the answer is no, because the heat from the flame is not sparking a reaction in other parts of the flame. But on the other hand, maybe you would now say it sort of is "burning/injuring" itself, because the flame perpetuates itself just by being hot, allowing the reaction to spread to other material.

I still have no problem saying that the question is fundamentally dumb, and not really analogous to "is water wet?".

ah see now, water might be wet, but can you actually drown a fish?

in air, yes.

Bruh, is just more water. Water ain't wet.

Is wind airy?
Is gas gassy?
Is a grassy field grassy?
Is mud muddy?
Is fucking an XY person while you are an XY person (but look feminine) gay?

Let's all agree that Arrowhead water is gross as fuck

Quote from: Dietrich Six on February 13, 2018, 04:08:11 PM

YouTube

This is literally one of the most obnoxious and retarded things I've ever seen

Racist

Yeah this has been done to death but Serious needs some activity.

Maybe if people stopped talking about politics all the time I'd post here more.

OT: Yes it is.