politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Why doesn't "wet" count if the liquid is in contact with other liquid molecules?
Sounds like special pleading to me.
Wetness is not a property which can be applied to a liquid— only a solid which has come in contact with liquid.
Adding liquid to liquid just makes more liquid, not “wet” liquid.
Now, I suppose there could be rare exceptions to this— if an especially viscous liquid were able to produce a surface upon which another, less viscous liquid might make contact with, then that would result in “the surface of X liquid is wetted by Y liquid”— but, even then, the property of wetness only applies to the semi-solid/liquid surface (a property similar to a solid), and not because they, say, mixed. Mixed liquid just form new liquids, compounds, etc. not “wet” ones.
That's not a reason though, that's just reasserting the premise.
The explanation was in the original comment. I simply clarified due to your misunderstanding.
Look, this is a mix of both logic and linguistics (which isn’t always logical). Even if it doesn’t make sense to you, this is how it is. I suggest that you accept it, however, if you refuse to accept it, the next logical course of action would be to invent a new word which describes liquids touching liquids. Most would call it “a mixture“, but people like you are often unsatisfied with anything you don’t make up yourselves.
I look forward to hearing what new word you may come up with.
"That's just how it is" isn't a reason either.
To repeat: I already gave a well-defined reason in my initial comment. It’s your choice whether or not to accept it.
I suppose being overly contrarian and argumentative might entertain you, but I’m not going to indulge such childishness (or, perhaps, ignorance) further.
This is just an assertion that wetness is a property only bestowed on solids. There is no reason given for this, and I have no basis to believe that it is true based on the aforementioned linguistics.
I refer you to the top comment: a very common English expression that "water is wet."
You’re looking for logic in human linguistics. That is your mistake.
It is what it is, and it’s simply for you to either accept or have a lack of acceptance. But that’s what wetness is, regardless of your counter arguments.
If you can’t accept that, that’s your problem. It doesn’t change the nature of wetness.
This is why I don’t argue with flat earthers or holocaust deniers. People like you can’t be reasoned with.
Nice edit.
How dare I be pedantic when you were doing it first LMAO!
It seems like if it were true you'd have an actual reason instead of calling me irrational. I guess that's just how it is though.
You sure got big mad for me asking you to explain your pedantry though. Probably because you know I'm right, huh?
I am not beholden to your standards. It’s a simple fact, which I explained clearly, and you are obviously struggling to accept that fact.
That is not my responsibility, nor is my problem.
Sure, I guess a thing you heard and repeated without consideration is a great reason. My mistake.
At least you were able to admit that you’re mistaken. But blaming others for your own unwillingness/inability to accept facts is irrational.
Ooh, facts?
Then you must have a source that explains how water is not wet? Why don't we go there then?
Because all I've seen is you pretending like you can assert whatever you want without a reason.
I pity you for how much you are struggling to accept this.
I’ve already explained it, and you chose to ignore that. Again, not my fault or responsibility, but yours.
I wish you all the best luck in your struggles.
So you've got nothing.
Thanks for admitting it!
Once again, I am not responsible for your inability to accept reality.
"Reality" being whatever you claim without evidence.
What a cool guy who corrects someone and then getting this butthurt when asked to back it up.
I guess that's just the way it is.
Your descent into madness - over the word “wet” - is depressing to watch.
I’m so sorry this is so difficult for you. Sad to see.
It's actually remarkably easy to point out your BS.
You’ve mistaken your well-practiced trolling with being correct.
Again.
I mean, isn't that what you were doing in your first comment?
No. But you’re clearly
Sealioning
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5]and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[8]