downpunxx to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 11 months agogotdamnfedia.ioimagemessage-square201fedilinkarrow-up11.26Karrow-down125cross-posted to: murderedbywords@feddit.uk
arrow-up11.23Karrow-down1imagegotdamnfedia.iodownpunxx to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 11 months agomessage-square201fedilinkcross-posted to: murderedbywords@feddit.uk
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink1•11 months agoWater can’t be wet. Wetness is a property that water gives to something else.
minus-square@BigBananaDealer@lemm.eelinkfedilink0•11 months agoid argue its the same as saying fire isnt hot, just whatever fire touches becomes hot
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink-2•edit-211 months agoAnd you would be wrong. That is called the Association fallacy and false equivalence fallacy. Fire is not a liquid.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink0•11 months agoHence the fallacies. Also, fire doesn’t have to touch anything it order to heat— unlike liquids.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink1•11 months agoAgain, no. Wetness is a property liquids give to other things.
Water can’t be wet. Wetness is a property that water gives to something else.
like water
Not at all
id argue its the same as saying fire isnt hot, just whatever fire touches becomes hot
And you would be wrong. That is called the Association fallacy and false equivalence fallacy.
Fire is not a liquid.
i didnt say it was a liquid
Hence the fallacies.
Also, fire doesn’t have to touch anything it order to heat— unlike liquids.
liquids which are…wet
Again, no. Wetness is a property liquids give to other things.