The Offical I Hate Karma, Astrology And Other New Age Crap Thread

[vbnautilus 48]

You've carefully avoided the "ice and steam" part of my argument I cleverly added to my post in anticipation of just this sort of counter argument. Water freezes to a solid and heats to a vapor, so though you may not think it qualifies, it does, since water has multiple states as well.

No, it's not the same. Any liquid could also be in solid or gaseous form. That's not what is special about paint and other substances we use the term "wet" with. The paint dries because the water or other solvent in it evaporates. When water changes to solid form it happens due to "freezing" - a phase change - not drying.

I think that this is less a testament to the insufficiency of dictionary definitions and more a testament of the ability of semantics and rhetoric to obfuscate and issue, or outright make an issue wrong under one connotation and right under another. I use this same technique with the word "cult", whereupon I can find multiple instances of secondary definitions of the word that make it apply to even the most innocuous and "normal" strains of religions like christianity.

For me what's happening is that "wet water" phrasing is giving me a strong "does not compute" sensation, as if it is just not passing my semantic processor. I trust that feeling, and while I've never tried to formalize what the issue is like I am here, it is becoming a bit clearer to me.

If I were you my next move would be to find 1 or 2 other dictionaries that may have the first 3 definitions more able to support your position. Because as it stands, quoting the first three of the only one I've seen puts the gold on my end of the scale, since dictionaries tend to attempt to list the most common usages first. You've sort of made at attempt at this with vague references to "other definitions" you've "seen", but it would behoove you to show your work in that regard.

The one I refered to had to do with your #2, which in the American Heritage Dictionary and Collins Essential English Dictionary is written:2. Not yet dry or firm: wet paint.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wetInterestingly, CEED has #1 as1. moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid

Since this argument is weighted heavily on semantics, definitions are pocket rockets.

Meh, I think the actual definitions of words are embodied in their actual usage, and dictionaries are just post-hoc attempts to capture that usage. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail.

[Spademan 94]

For me what's happening is that "wet water" phrasing is giving me a strong "does not compute" sensation, as if it is just not passing my semantic processor. I trust that feeling, and while I've never tried to formalize what the issue is like I am here, it is becoming a bit clearer to me.

No, I get you. I think the term "wet water" has a measure of redundancy and I don't like it. But I get the same feeling when I hear someone say that water is not wet. One of the main reasons is the "covered" aspect. A dresser has drops of water on it. The water doesn't have to be doing anything to the dresser, it doesn't have to effect the dresser underneath it at all. It simply has to be in contact with the dresser to give the dresser the quality of "wet". That dresser is wet, I would say. That dresser can be qualified as wet. Water is by necessity in contact with itself. This is a priori. Water, by virtue of being in contact with itself, and things in contact with water being wet, ends with water having the quality of "wet". I can't escape this and to my mind it seems fundamental. Regardless, if nothing else at least you are getting a chance to work through some argument on the matter. I know I like to have ready responses and at least a mild critical examination of even the most minor of my "pet peeves". =P

The one I refered to had to do with your #2, which in the American Heritage Dictionary and Collins Essential English Dictionary is written:2. Not yet dry or firm: wet paint.

The interesting word there is "yet". That is a blow to my position semantically, because it implies that, as you are positing, that it is "on it's way" to another state. When I put ice into the freezer, before it is firm, when it is not yet firm (keep in mind I can avoid the problems that would arise by calling it "dry" here because it says dry OR firm, not dry AND firm, and logically that means one can be excluded from the discussion), it is still a liquid that has the quality of wet.

Meh, I think the actual definitions of words are embodied in their actual usage, and dictionaries are just post-hoc attempts to capture that usage. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail.

Though the heart of the matter, far too broad to broach here and couldn't rightfully be other than no-shit treatise style treatment.And a well played move, because getting to this point move to validate your original statement "It's at least arguable, and it annoys me when people use it as an example as something obviously true. Seems like a complicated issue to me." You're wrong about water not being wet, but you're right, it's not an easy thing to show semantically. =P

[vbnautilus 48]

No, I get you. I think the term "wet water" has a measure of redundancy and I don't like it. But I get the same feeling when I hear someone say that water is not wet. One of the main reasons is the "covered" aspect. A dresser has drops of water on it. The water doesn't have to be doing anything to the dresser, it doesn't have to effect the dresser underneath it at all. It simply has to be in contact with the dresser to give the dresser the quality of "wet". That dresser is wet, I would say. That dresser can be qualified as wet. Water is by necessity in contact with itself. This is a priori. Water, by virtue of being in contact with itself, and things in contact with water being wet, ends with water having the quality of "wet". I can't escape this and to my mind it seems fundamental.

Allright, but would you say the dresser has dresser on it? Or only liquids have this property of being on themselves?

Regardless, if nothing else at least you are getting a chance to work through some argument on the matter. I know I like to have ready responses and at least a mild critical examination of even the most minor of my "pet peeves". =P

Yep, totally agree.

The interesting word there is "yet". That is a blow to my position semantically, because it implies that, as you are positing, that it is "on it's way" to another state. When I put ice into the freezer, before it is firm, when it is not yet firm (keep in mind I can avoid the problems that would arise by calling it "dry" here because it says dry OR firm, not dry AND firm, and logically that means one can be excluded from the discussion), it is still a liquid that has the quality of wet.

But again, the key is that the paint is wet because its dissolved in water. It dries when the water in it is gone. Ice does not have the water in it gone, it's just slower moving water.

Though the heart of the matter, far too broad to broach here and couldn't rightfully be other than no-shit treatise style treatment.And a well played move, because getting to this point move to validate your original statement "It's at least arguable, and it annoys me when people use it as an example as something obviously true. Seems like a complicated issue to me." You're wrong about water not being wet, but you're right, it's not an easy thing to show semantically. =P

Yes, the only real goal I set was to establish some doubt about the matter. I think the position you're taking is perfectly reasonable.

[Spademan 94]

Allright, but would you say the dresser has dresser on it? Or only liquids have this property of being on themselves?

It's much easier to work as a conception when thinking of liquids, but yes, in a sense. It's a little more involved than that. For example, a dresser drawer has a dresser top on it, and another dresser drawer below it. The side panel of the dresser is attached to the back panel of the dresser. There are parts of the dresser that are adjacent to, covered by or surrounded by other parts of the dresser. If there were some quality that was associated with being in contact with a dresser, let's call it dret, where if something were covered by, or in contact with any part of a dresser, then yes the dresser would be dret.

But again, the key is that the paint is wet because its dissolved in water. It dries when the water in it is gone. Ice does not have the water in it gone, it's just slower moving water.

I don't think so. I think the key in that definition is that it is no longer a liquid. When it has water, it's still paint, it's not some other thing, it's paint. It has the property of being wet because it is a liquid, which is necessarily wet, because as I've been arguing, liquid itself is wet. Which is to say water is wet. =P

Yes, the only real goal I set was to establish some doubt about the matter.

If I saw two people discussing the philosophical or semantic qualities of "is water wet" I wouldn't immediately know whether to call them idiots or awesome. Since I'm involved in the conversation the answer is clearly awesome.But be forewarned, when I see you and crow discussing "are humans being" or "are boners hard" tomorrow, I'm just going to call you idiots and then drink some beer because I am free from attachment, and can easily overlook the fact that I sometimes play in the ghost cave.

[vbnautilus 48]

If I saw two people discussing the philosophical or semantic qualities of "is water wet" I wouldn't immediately know whether to call them idiots or awesome. Since I'm involved in the conversation the answer is clearly awesome.

Clearly awesome.

But be forewarned, when I see you and crow discussing "are humans being" or "are boners hard" tomorrow, I'm just going to call you idiots and then drink some beer because I am free from attachment, and can easily overlook the fact that I sometimes play in the ghost cave.

Look man if your boner isn't hard I think there are other threads that deal with that.

[longshottwelve 0]

Definition found in Oxford American Dictionary-Wet- noun- Liquid that makes something damp: ei. I could feel the wet of her tears as she begged me to stop.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Definition found in Oxford American Dictionary-Wet- noun- Liquid that makes something damp: ei. I could feel the wet of her tears as she begged me to stop.

Damp doesn't equal wet

[longshottwelve 0]

Damp doesn't equal wet

Same dictionary.DampadjectiveSlightly wetApparently the very definition.

[Spademan 94]

Don't get caught up. I'll be in AZ on the 9th.See you then, [slur].

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Same dictionary.DampadjectiveSlightly wetApparently the very definition.

Slightly wet isn't "WET"Just like slightly funny isn't FUNNY!

[longshottwelve 0]

Slightly wet isn't "WET"Just like slightly funny isn't FUNNY!

You are arguing relatives. Is something that is soaked in fact wet? Is something that is dry, arid? Was Crocodile Dundee carrying a real knife or just a really big knife?

[longshottwelve 0]

Don't get caught up. I'll be in AZ on the 9th.See you then, faggot.

See you then. BTW I'm only slightly gay not a full blown faggot.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Scientific studies have confirmed many miraculous changes in the properties of water after using Stirwands. Links to these studies appear below. You may notice water tastes better, smoother, and seems "wetter" with a slightly thicker consistency

I found some proof, you two can stop arguing now.