This is the most pointless debate.

That's not what I meant and you know it.

I have no idea what you meant. You're telling me that because we linguistically treat water as if it were a single entity, that somehow makes it a single entity in material reality. That's the only way you could argue that water isn't wet, because in order for something to be wet, there has to be two objects: water, and something for the water to be on. And water can be placed water.

If water couldn't be placed on water, oceans wouldn't exist. Rain wouldn't happen.

I'm really not sure what's hard about this.

See now you're just talking shit.

Everything can be broken down to its smallest parts.

Water does not sit on water.

I mean, it's been happening for some 200 million years or something? But whatever you say. You're wrong.

For it to be broken down it had to be a whole.

Which means what? Nothing. "Wholes" are illusory. Everything is just photons and other subatomic particles.

\That's just an arbitrary form of classifying the depth of certain parts of the ocean. It's not literal layers of water sitting on top of each other.

I never said it was. But the fact that it's even possible to divide the ocean into arbitrary layers proves that bodies of water can be placed on top of other bodies of water. And it's demonstrable using two glasses of water and pouring one into the other.

If what you're arguing is true, you wouldn't be able to pour water into anything.

Which means it's parts that made a whole. You can only break down a whole.

Which means "breaking things down" is an illusory concept, too. It's just convenient for conversation.

Uh no, it isn't. It's literally just an arbitrary division based on depth.

"Division" is the wrong word to use, because two halves of one glass of water cannot """stack,""" which is a word you keep using and shoving in my mouth, and I explained why that's bullshit below. The two halves fluidly coalesce into each other, but that doesn't mean anything because the water molecules are still on top of each other. They're moving, but that doesn't mean shit. It doesn't mean shit.

Except you can because the particles form a whole. It doesn't stack.

For the umpteenth time, they don't need to stack. "Stack" is just a stupid word to use. Since you're probably soaking wet right now just talking to me, would you consider the liquid to be "stacked" on you? No, of course not. If I were soaking head to toe with water right now, I wouldn't say that the water is "stacked" on me, either. It's just on me. I'm covered with it. So enough with the bullshit verbiage.

Two blocks of wood on top of each other can be treated as one entity if you need them to be. That doesn't make it one whole entity, though. It's just convenient that we refer to things as wholes, because if we referred to each other by every little one of our microscopic constituents, it would take an eternity.

This is just scientifically incorrect.

Only if you don't understand metaphysics.

We're specks of dust swimming around in a huge bowl. Some of the dust gets compacted, but it's still just dust.

I like how he says "scientifically" incorrect, as if "this is just incorrect" wouldn't have sufficed.

"Maybe if I start using words like that, I'll look like I know what I'm talking about!"

Bls respond to my post

Quote from: Dietrich Six on September 11, 2016, 10:20:53 PM

Bls respond to my post

I just don't agree. The fact that you brought up absorbency is weird, because it doesn't really have a lot to do with the wetness of an object. An object doesn't necessarily have to absorb water to be wet.

In general, this whole argument--it's like trying to say that fire isn't fiery. Or, visible light isn't visible.

But... How does absorbency not factor? I think it's the crutch of the argument. It's why wet suits keep you dry and why water repellant things aren't wet. They don't absorb the water and therefore cannot be considered wet, water is just resting on top without actually changing the physical make-up of the item. Hydrophobic is also a great word.

But... How does absorbency not factor? I think it's the crutch of the argument. It's why wet suits keep you dry and why water repellant things aren't wet. They don't absorb the water and therefore cannot be considered wet, water is just resting on top without actually changing the physical make-up of the item. Hydrophobic is also a great word.

I never really thought of it that way, I guess? I've never handled a wet-suit or any water-repellent material, so I guess I couldn't really say anything about that.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on September 11, 2016, 10:36:36 PM

But... How does absorbency not factor? I think it's the crutch of the argument. It's why wet suits keep you dry and why water repellant things aren't wet. They don't absorb the water and therefore cannot be considered wet, water is just resting on top without actually changing the physical make-up of the item. Hydrophobic is also a great word.

I never really thought of it that way, I guess? I've never handled a wet-suit or any water-repellent material, so I guess I couldn't really say anything about that.

Look up hydrophobic materials on YouTube. That shit is crazy, it's like rain x on steroids.

There is water under the ocean.

Powering the water.

I make a thread to have a jab at people I don't like, and I end up with lots of likes and 3 pages of discussion about water being wet. Life can be strange sometimes

Quote from: Desty on September 12, 2016, 01:55:11 AM

I make a thread to have a jab at people I don't like, and I end up with lots of likes and 3 pages of discussion about water being wet. Life can be strange sometimes

Wow, reddit. My most upvoted post is about water!

That's something a looney would say

I'm a nice guy, I accepted I'll never be "good enough" for attractive woman so I decided to do the next best thing, pay them for sex.

Then a Turkish woman of average beauty - maybe slightly more than above average showed me something better than lust and I learnt looks aren't everything.

And ofcourse some things are too good to be true, she moved to Turkey after 4 and a ½ months of being her boyfriend.

I got over the internal pain though I'll never stop missing and loving her.

I am now pursuing a Turkish, Kurdish, Lebanese, Armenian, Irani, Iraqi, Azerbaijani, Turkmenistani, Alexanderian or Georgian woman to my girlfriend - regardless of how attractive she is or if she doesn't want to get phyisical.

Believe it or not I turned down a Brazilian woman this year. Arabic only from now on <3

Wow dude, shut the fuck up

Don't ever make a post in my threads again