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-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.
minus-square@BigBananaDealer@lemm.eelinkfedilink1•11 months agoso if wetness is only something a liquid can give…what does that make the liquid? wet.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink2•11 months agoStill no wetness is only something a liquid can give to something else, a solid.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink1•11 months agoNope. Wetness is something water can only give to other things, not itself or other liquids. Water is not wet. And no matter how you try to reason through this, you will continue to be wrong.
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
Nope. Wetness is something water can only give to other things, not itself or other liquids.
Water is not wet. And no matter how you try to reason through this, you will continue to be wrong.