downpunxx to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 1 year agogotdamnfedia.ioimagemessage-square201fedilinkarrow-up11.26Karrow-down125cross-posted to: murderedbywords@feddit.uk
arrow-up11.23Karrow-down1imagegotdamnfedia.iodownpunxx to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 1 year agomessage-square201fedilinkcross-posted to: murderedbywords@feddit.uk
minus-square@BigBananaDealer@lemm.eelinkfedilink0•1 year agoid argue its the same as saying fire isnt hot, just whatever fire touches becomes hot
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink-2•edit-21 year agoAnd you would be wrong. That is called the Association fallacy and false equivalence fallacy. Fire is not a liquid.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink0•1 year agoHence the fallacies. Also, fire doesn’t have to touch anything it order to heat— unlike liquids.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink1•1 year agoAgain, no. Wetness is a property liquids give to other things.
minus-square@BigBananaDealer@lemm.eelinkfedilink1•1 year agoso if wetness is only something a liquid can give…what does that make the liquid? wet.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink2•1 year agoStill no wetness is only something a liquid can give to something else, a solid.
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.
so if wetness is only something a liquid can give…what does that make the liquid?
wet.
Still no wetness is only something a liquid can give to something else, a solid.
because a liquid is wet