DEBATE Is water wet?

Is water wet?

  • Total voters
    26
You can get Merriam. Webster and Mister popadopulos you still wrong

its has water molecules because it is fuckin water and technically its not called water molecules .. the molecular structure of water make it ... what it is
 
Water is destructive too. It's a universal solvent and over time will wear away at anything. At high pressure, it can cut rock. I could see what you're saying if maybe the fire was alive and could have intention. But fire doesn't intentionally transfer its burning and water doesn't intentionally transfer wetness. So how does destructiveness change the way elements transfer properties and interact with other things?
 
LUClEN said:
Water is destructive too. It's a universal solvent and over time will wear away at anything. At high pressure, it can cut rock. I could see what you're saying if maybe the fire was alive and could have intention. But fire doesn't intentionally transfer its burning and water doesn't intentionally transfer wetness. So how does destructiveness change the way elements transfer properties and interact with other things?
Click to expand...
thats why i said it can ravage .. the nature of the destruction is different and do they transfer properties or just cause the properties to change
 
Last edited:
Playmaker88 said:
You can get Merriam. Webster and Mister popadopulos you still wrong

its has water molecules because it is fuckin water and technically its not called water molecules .. the molecular structure of water make it ... what it is
Click to expand...
Yes from webster, mister papadopulos and scientists and chemists. Not twitter handles and avatars or how i want to feel about it.

Water makes us or objects wet bc of its water molecules. Water in and of itself is surrounded by water molecules therefore making itself wet.
 
I think water has to be wet as a consequence of contradiction. The evidence for this comes in two primary ways. One is due to the way properties are spread, and the other is due to the contradiction of competing properties.

In the first part, we have examples of objects that don't need to carry the properties they spread in order to spread them. But there are also objects that spread properties because they carry those properties. This means that water can fit in either one. If we say each option has a 50/50 chance of being correct we do not get any closer to the truth, we just learn about the two possible answers.

The second part shows us which one is most likely. We don't seem to ever have dry water. The closest thing we may get to dry water is steam, but this is weird to suggest as steam still makes things wet. Fire is complementary to water, yet we can't have wet fire. The reason for this is likely because of the laws of contradiction: an object cannot carry a property and also the reverse property at the same time. I cannot be on fire but not on fire at the same time, and fire cannot be wet. So unless we have examples of dry water, then water must be wet because the law of contradiction suggests that the reason it cannot be dry is that it already carries the property of wetness.

Also fuck you for doing metaphysics in the morning. I'm gonna be questioning life all day now.
 
Screenshot_20180228-194547.png
Screenshot_20180228-194620.png



This was totally random don't know these people I was responding to a tweet and was dying funny how the world works
 
That fish argument doesn't work.

If I threw you in a pool with your nice clothes on you would kick my ass for getting you wet.
 
LUClEN said:
That fish argument doesn't work.

If I threw you in a pool with your nice clothes on you would kick my ass for getting you wet.
Click to expand...
the fish habitat is bodies of water. outside of that water it is dead and is wet because it now is in contact with the atmospheric air
 
So if I push you into a pool, ruin your jays, and you in a pool, are you really not going to consider yourself wet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top