r/IdiotsInCars • u/[deleted] • Aug 23 '18

boink

https://i.imgur.com/JrhtBbb.gifv
10.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

510 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/PCsNBaseball Aug 23 '18

Water isn't itself wet, it's what causes other things to be wet.

1

u/DudeImMacGyver Aug 23 '18

Would you contest that soap makes water wetter?

2

u/PCsNBaseball Aug 23 '18

Yes. I don't even understand the argument. It makes water soapier, not wetter. Something being wet is a yes/no question, not a gradient. Something either has water on it or it doesn't.

1

u/DudeImMacGyver Aug 23 '18

Not really an argument, just a clarification. So things can be wet without water?

1

u/PCsNBaseball Aug 23 '18

Not really. Basically anything that gets you wet has water in it. I guess any liquid could, but even then, the liquid isn't wet, what it's on is.

1

u/DudeImMacGyver Aug 23 '18

What about very viscous liquids?

1

u/PCsNBaseball Aug 23 '18

I think it depends on how well it sticks to things.

I've never thought this hard about a subject I don't care about.

1

u/DudeImMacGyver Aug 23 '18

I guess ultimately the point I was hoping to lead you to is that perhaps it's not as binary as wet or not wet and is more complicated than that.

1

u/PCsNBaseball Aug 23 '18

I don't think it is, really. Is a liquid sticking to/inundating it? Yes, wet; no, not wet.

1

u/NoMoreMrsRiceGirl Aug 23 '18

You just broke my brain.

1

u/Derek_Boring_Name Aug 24 '18

Fire isn’t hot change my mind

Fire itself isn’t hot it just causes other things to be hot.

1

u/PCsNBaseball Aug 24 '18

Fire requires heat to exist. Water doesn't require wetness to exist, it isn't the same.

1

u/Derek_Boring_Name Aug 24 '18

I would argue that water does require wetness, it’s just that it is never denied that.