downpunxx to Lemmy [email protected] • 1 year agogotdamnfedia.ioimagemessage-square206fedilinkarrow-up11.26Kcross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.26Kimagegotdamnfedia.iodownpunxx to Lemmy [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square206fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink2•edit-21 year agoAnd you would be wrong. That is called the Association fallacy and false equivalence fallacy. Fire is not a liquid.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink2•1 year agoHence the fallacies. Also, fire doesn’t have to touch anything it order to heat— unlike liquids.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink2•1 year agoAgain, no. Wetness is a property liquids give to other things.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink4•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.
minus-squareEleventhHourlinkfedilink2•1 year 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.