Which got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?

Burnt by water, ouch!

Savage lake

unless theres more than one molecule of water, its touching itself

A single molecule of water is not wet but as soon as more then one molecule is present the water is then wet. That is my hill to die on in this argument.

Getting into a political argument with a lake account. The lake account using 1st person language as Lake Superior.

Our ancestors would marvel at our reality!

I don't know who that Tom Fitton guy is, but water absolutely wet. And he's a knob.

Oh please someone argue this with me!

I love semantic bs!

Water is touching water, so therefore water is wet!

Not that Thomas isn't a piece of shit regardless.

water isnt wet bro it just makes everything it touches wet but i SWEAR its not wet bro pls just believe me i have to be right its not wet

If everything water touches is wet, and water touches itself, then water is wet.

You fucking idiots. Real ones know wetness is how much vermouth it has in it.

yes, what water touches is wet. you'll never guess what water is always touching

By that logic is fire not hot because what fire touches becomes hot?

Looking at the comments lately, it's very obvious that Lemmy inherited the last exodus of 4chan and the scum pool that is left of Reddit. Why do so many people not grow up? Why are so many people internally immature? Why the fuck do we have to deal with their inadequacies? Arguing a joke is utter nonsense. Do you not get that? It's a joke. It's already nonsense. You look like fucking idiots and you bring a bad vibe to good things. And you know that I'm talking to you... you child.

Man this has the comments at each other's throats.

Water is wet though.

I'd still argue water molecules touching eachother make themselves wet, but that guy is an ass so fuck him.

Police. Yeah I'd like to report a murder.

“It’s when water is touching a surface” blah blah I can easily disprove it by doing this or that. There is a surface of water in a bucket, does that become wet when I pour more water? Then you have to say “solid surfaces,” but furthermore am I “wet” if I enter a body of water fully submerged? No, I’m “under water” and saying I’m wet would be weird. Is the bottom of a bucket “wet” or does it contain water? How much water can something have on it for it to be “wet” or “submerged”? For most of history language has been arbitrary and man-made. All of these cases are caught by our arbitrary rules when we encounter them. By arguing water is wet or not without mentioning anthropic usage would make you wrong on the grounds of your argument.

Nevermind what his view on abortion is. Why does he have to start something on a post about womens rights unless he thinks they should not have rights?

Simply superior

This issue people have with some fixed phrases is bizarre to me.

Might as well say "Actually, this 'morning' isn't 'good' at all!" and pretend you have a point. Really devalues anything following it by revealing the person saying it to be an obnoxious pedant.

But standing up for women's rights this way get's more retweets, which is the ultimate measure of success after all, so what do I know?