3 ms·
>They both give pretty compelling arguments. Until someone can find a definition of "wet" from a respectable source that states an object cannot be fully subme
by tmh88j 8y ago
>They both give pretty compelling arguments.
Until someone can find a definition of "wet" from a respectable source that states an object cannot be fully submerged in a liquid, the guy sitting down has no argument. He seems to be trying to make the argument that to be wet means a liquid is clinging to you, rather that you occupying the liquid's space. Anyone?
- brownbat 8y agoYup. Don't argue about defining terms, just ask the defining terms people. Merriam-Webster: a : consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water) American Heritage: 1. Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water: a wet towel. OED: 1. Covered or saturated with water or another liquid. Ironically, most dictionaries have fish and submarines easily wet, but don't do a great job of handling the situation where you just get a few drops of rain on you, when you're a little bit wet. They use "covered with," which to me suggests they're only talking about when you're thoroughly wet or submerged.
- tmh88j 8y agoHe laid out what he believes to be the defining term/condition of wet in his mind, and that's what I'm saying is bogus. He's saying completely submerging something means it's not wet. That makes no sense and there is not a single definition I could find that supports that assertion.
- brownbat 8y agoI was agreeing with you. :)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- likeclockwork 8y agoBy those definitions you're already wet from your own composition.