downpunxx@fedia.io to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 1 year agogotdamnfedia.ioimagemessage-square192fedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10
arrow-up10arrow-down1imagegotdamnfedia.iodownpunxx@fedia.io to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 1 year agomessage-square192fedilink
minus-squareBigBananaDealer@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoid argue its the same as saying fire isnt hot, just whatever fire touches becomes hot
minus-squareEleventhHour@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·edit-21 year agoAnd you would be wrong. That is called the Association fallacy. Fire is not a liquid.
minus-squareEleventhHour@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoHence the fallacies. Also, fire doesn’t have to touch anything it order to heat— unlike liquids.
minus-squareEleventhHour@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoAgain, no. Wetness is a property liquids give to other things.
minus-squareBigBananaDealer@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoso if wetness is only something a liquid can give…what does that make the liquid? wet.
minus-squareEleventhHour@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 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.
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