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

[crowTrobot 2]

crow is clearly a robot who has been programmed to respond to forum posts in some sort of Turing-esque experiment. We all know that humor will be his highest test.The singularity is near.

so i guess the buddhism refusing to give you anal thing was a failed test. time to retool some circuits

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

crow is clearly a robot who has been programmed to respond to forum posts in some sort of Turing-esque experiment. We all know that humor will be his highest test.The singularity is near.

best post of this thread.

[KramitDaToad 0]

so i guess the buddhism refusing to give you anal thing was a failed test. time to retool some circuits

hee hee. He said 'tool'

[Spademan 94]

Hehe, it said icon_frown.

[antistuff 0]

Did you read the OP or just the thread title?

just the titleedit: went back and read the post. i find the way i accidentally hijacked this thread very funny.

[antistuff 0]

crow, you're splitting hairs. i think you enjoy arguing just to argue.

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

crow, you're splitting hairs. i think you enjoy arguing just to argue.

and in other news the sky is blue and water is wet.

[crowTrobot 2]

and in other news the sky is blue and water is wet.

my motivations aren't quite that shallow.

[crowTrobot 2]

crow, you're splitting hairs. i think you enjoy arguing just to argue.

i enjoy arguing but i also think dropping all ties to superstitious belief is a critical issue. it's presumablymostly pointless to argue it here, but it's definitely not splitting hairs to me.

[antistuff 0]

i enjoy arguing but i also think dropping all ties to superstitious belief is a critical issue. it's presumablymostly pointless to argue it here, but it's definitely not splitting hairs to me.

as a buddhist, i agree.

[vbnautilus 48]

and in other news the sky is blue and water is wet.

Speaking of splitting hairs, I actually take issue with this one. I have never considered water to be wet. 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.

[Spademan 94]

Speaking of splitting hairs, I actually take issue with this one. I have never considered water to be wet. 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.

I don't think it'd be much of an argument thinking about it on a cursory level.Generally one can assume by "water" another would be talking about a mass of water, not a water "molecule" or something. Therefore generally speaking, any part of water would be surrounded by or at least adjacent to another part of water, making it "wet". If all parts of a water mass are "wet", the water is "wet".Would you offer a rebuttal?If you disagree I don't care because I'm never wrong.And by never I mean very rarely.And by very rarely I mean never. I'm as right as water is wet.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Speaking of splitting hairs, I actually take issue with this one. I have never considered water to be wet. 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.

Water is not wet.Water makes other things wet.Much like fire is not hot... it makes other things hot.

[crowTrobot 2]

Water is not wet.Water makes other things wet.Much like fire is not hot... it makes other things hot.

bad analogy. fire tends to be pretty hot

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

Speaking of splitting hairs, I actually take issue with this one. I have never considered water to be wet. 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.

Okay... I'll change it to the sky is blue and vbnautilus' mom is wetHappy?

[rjkdb8 1]

crow is clearly a robot who has been programmed to respond to forum posts in some sort of Turing-esque experiment. We all know that humor will be his highest test.The singularity is near.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

bad analogy. fire tends to be pretty hot

t'was a joke....Come on Crow....lighten up a bit.

[crowTrobot 2]

t'was a joke....Come on Crow....lighten up a bit.

your sense of humor must be worse than mine then.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

your sense of humor must be worse than mine then.

Im not sure if that's possible

[crowTrobot 2]

Im not sure if that's possible

apparently it is if you thought what you posted was funny.anyway just because i don't make hobbit reach-around jokes when i'm concentrating on religious debate doesn't mean i don'tlaugh or have a sense of humor. stop giving me a bad rap

[vbnautilus 48]

Okay... I'll change it to the sky is blue and vbnautilus' mom is wetHappy?

At least now its obviously true.

[vbnautilus 48]

Generally one can assume by "water" another would be talking about a mass of water, not a water "molecule" or something. Therefore generally speaking, any part of water would be surrounded by or at least adjacent to another part of water, making it "wet". If all parts of a water mass are "wet", the water is "wet".Would you offer a rebuttal?

You do have a small switcheroo in there, from mass of water to part of water. But not even getting into that issue, I object to the notion that any liquid can become wet. Getting wet is something that happens to solids when they get water on them. If you put water on a liquid you dissolve the liquid, you don't "wet" it. Have you ever heard someone say "hey man, wet my orange juice a little bit please." No. But every day we hear "dude, pass the water I need to dilute my OJ." I see how the physical definition of wet can be stretched to apply to water, but its not the natural usage. Wetness is the effect that water has on other substances.

[Spademan 94]

I see how the physical definition of wet can be stretched to apply to water, but its not the natural usage. Wetness is the effect that water has on other substances.

Is that really it's natural usage? Let's look at the first three definitions on dictionary.com, because that's the easiest dictionary for me to reference:1. moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid: wet hands.2. in a liquid form or state: wet paint.3. characterized by the presence or use of water or other liquid.Well, it seems my position is even stronger than I had first thought, on a cursory level.1. Despite the switch-a-roo, which I don't really see, I'd still contend that in it's "natural usage" one would normally be talking about more than a single molecule of water. If there is more than one molecule that qualifies water in a referenced mass, then each part would be surrounded or "covered by" more water. So more than one molecule of water would make the first definition qualify. But even if not, let's move on to 2 and 3.2. Well, water, when it isn't in ice or steam form is... well, in liquid form. Therefore, by necessity water is wet. Ice is not wet till it melts. Then, ruh roh, it's wet... because it's water.3. Well this one is just too easy. In an a priori moment of necessity and certainty, when water is present, water is present, and water being present characterizes the presence or use of water. And that's wet.Pretty definitive I should think.

[vbnautilus 48]

Is that really it's natural usage? Let's look at the first three definitions on dictionary.com, because that's the easiest dictionary for me to reference:1. moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid: wet hands.2. in a liquid form or state: wet paint.3. characterized by the presence or use of water or other liquid.Well, it seems my position is even stronger than I had first thought, on a cursory level.1. Despite the switch-a-roo, which I don't really see, I'd still contend that in it's "natural usage" one would normally be talking about more than a single molecule of water. If there is more than one molecule that qualifies water in a referenced mass, then each part would be surrounded or "covered by" more water. So more than one molecule of water would make the first definition qualify. But even if not, let's move on to 2 and 3.2. Well, water, when it isn't in ice or steam form is... well, in liquid form. Therefore, by necessity water is wet. Ice is not wet till it melts. Then, ruh roh, it's wet... because it's water.3. Well this one is just too easy. In an a priori moment of necessity and certainty, when water is present, water is present, and water being present characterizes the presence or use of water. And that's wet.Pretty definitive I should think.

This is a good testament to the insufficiency of dictionary definitions. 1: Saying that a liquid is covered in or soaked with itself seems pretty convoluted to me. I can't imagine why one would use the word to mean this, as it doesn't distinguish from any other case. Seems to me this definition is trying to capture the usage of wet that occurs when a solid gets liquid on it. 2. This one refers to things that are in a liquid state on their way to a solid state. If you look at other dictionaries you'll see they rightly include this aspect in this one. Wet paint is paint that is not yet dry. Water is not something that dries in the way that paint does, and no one uses the word in this way in reference to water itself. Don't touch that water, it's still wet!3. The 'etc.' category so the dictionary doesn't miss all the grab-bag usages. It doesn't make a good case for water itself being wet. Again, my position is that if you take some of these definitions literally you can make it apply to water itself, but that it's really not within the common usage to refer to liquids as capable of being wet. Better evidence for your side would be some text where someone used 'wet' to apply to a liquid. 'Wet paint' is probably the best attempt, but I still don't think it qualifies since paint dries to a solid, and the 'wet' is intended to distinguish the stages of this process.

[Spademan 94]

'Wet paint' is probably the best attempt, but I still don't think it qualifies since paint dries to a solid, and the 'wet' is intended to distinguish the stages of this process.

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. 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. I admire your semantic maneuvering here, and know you are a reasonable person, but I think you're a bit behind on this one.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. Since this argument is weighted heavily on semantics, definitions are pocket rockets.