this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
1234 points (98.1% liked)
People Twitter
7225 readers
1664 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree. Mixing water and another liquid does not make the second liquid "wet" - it makes a mixture. Then if you apply that mixture to a solid the solid becomes wet until the liquid leaves through various processes and becomes dry. If that process is evaporation, the air does not become wet it becomes humid.
I mean. The molecule itself isn't a solid or liquid, that has to do with the behavior of the molecules in dimensional space. Your argument is based on water as a substance, not as a molecule, completely avoiding the basis of their argument.
Besides that, most liquids you could easily mix with water are themselves water-based and therefore would be totally dried up into a powder or perhaps a jelly without their water content. To add water is to make them wet, and then they exist as a wet incorporated substance. As liquid substances. In fact, they could not dry up if they were not wet in the first place; to become dry is to transition away from the state of being wet.
You know what else dries up? Water.
Those things are mostly true yes but we're talking about the function of the adjective wet in language and the phenomenon of wetness as a linguistical descriptor and livable experience. Obviously things are wet, it's an incredibly common and useful term, but it probably does elude rigid classification and all you're going to get are opinions because there's no way to rigidly define it. It's a "heap problem" there isn't a specific point where something becomes a heap, but yet you can heap thing.
You sure bailed from your entire argument pretty darn quickly to now argue "there's no way to rigidly define it." There is. It's "wet." It behaves in the way wet things do. There's no reason to say otherwise than to be contrarian. The only way to argue otherwise is to create a strict definition of wetness, as you just have, which ultimately fails when put up against reality and a more human use of language.
I'm confused, how does any of this help me determine whether that dude is a skilled lover or not?
sadly my wife isn't on lemmy so we will never know
"Wet", like "funny", "beautiful", "delicious", "bright", "hot", "spicy", "soft', "hairy", "clean", "malleable" are subjective, context specific, descriptors. You can't describe how many hairs makes something hairy: three hairs on a bowl of ice cream is hairy, but the opposite on a human head.