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

Burnt by water, ouch!
- Lake Superior used Scald!
  
  Critical hit! It's super effective!
  
  The irony of this statement—for any one who’s ever been in Lake Superior—is immense.

Savage lake
- Driving east from Thunder Bay, once you hit Wawa, ON and head south you're right on the shoreline for a bit, and it's fucking amazing.
  First time I drove that I just wanted to pull over and take some pics but there's nowhere to stop.
- "Lake Savage" hits harder in my opinion

unless theres more than one molecule of water, its touching itself
- If that's true then holy water is a lie
  
  You can only have one molecule of holy water in a container at a time

I had no idea that a lake could be so saucy with the comebacks. Glad to hear that it lives up to its name.
- well it is superior

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, getting into arguments with sentient geo/hydrological features seems like the kind of thing our ancestors would have done
- Water deities in ancient mythologies: Am I a joke to you?
- The lake account using 1st person language as Lake Superior.
  Are you suggesting that account isn't Lake Superior's account? Clearly lakes microblog.
  
  Superior is more of a macro blog, no?

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.
- 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.
  
  is a cloud wet?
  
  Water (and other liquids) make solid things wet.
  If you put water and oil in a container and they separate, the interface between them is not wet.
  Humid air can make things wet, but that only happens when the moisture in the air condenses onto a solid surface. Humid air will not make the surface of a lake wet even though water is condensing out of the air onto that surface.
- If there is two molecules of water which one is the dry molecule and which one is the wet molecule?
  If there are three molecules does one get divided in half to make the other two wet or does only one get wet and one stays dry until a fourth arrives?
  
  If there are*
  And they both get wet, since they're both touching other water molecules. As goes for any other number above one. All of this is very obvious.
- Wetting is an actual physical process that occurs between a liquid and a solid, or two unmixable liquids:
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting
- A single drop has over 1.5 sextillion molecules (21 zeroes), so yeh even a single drop is wet, debates over cuz allow it.

Wwweeeeeeeellllllll see, water is also touching itself constantly. Something being wet is a material surrounded by water, like the fibers of a sponge surrounded by water, in example.
In water, every water molecule is surrounded by water molecules. This means every given water molecule can be considered wet. And thus water is wet.
- If I have a single water molecule then it is still water but it isn’t touching any other water molecule, thus it isn’t wet
  
  Exactly. So the only instance water is dry, and thus not wet, is if it's a single lonely molecule.
  But water tends to come in herds, so that basically never happens.
  
  Well no one would consider something with a single water molecule on it wet either.
- Something being wet is a material surrounded by water
  So if I set my hand in water it's not wet because it's not immersed? What if it's not water?
  Can other liquids be wet? If I dump water into a bucket of gasoline, is my gasoline wet?
  If I mix a soluble powder into water, like sugar, do I have wet sugar or sugared water? Do they have to be in contact? Is a phone in a bag in water wet because it's surrounded by water, or dry because there's air between it and the water?
  What about those hydrophobic materials that can be dunked in water and come out dry? What about non-liquid phases of water? Is steam wet? If I dump water on ice is there a difference in how wet it is?
  The common colloquial definition of "wet" is "to be touched by a liquid". The scientific is for a liquid to displace a gas to maintain contact with a surface via intramolecular forces. Water becomes a better wetter if we add soap because it no longer tries to bind to itself instead of what it's wetting.
  Neither of these has the water itself being wet, but you can have "wet ice".
  Let's not pretend that a more scientific sounding colloquial definition is actually more scientific.
  
  Maybe. You are made mostly of water, so I don't see why lot.
  Same logic applies to liquids that aren't water.
  Gasoline being wet is an actual term, though.
  Yes, you have wet sugar. The sugar has just become reeeaaaally really small.
  The phone is dry. The bag it's in is moist.
  If those materials are so scared of water, they shouldn't be near water.
  Steam has air between it. It's dry or moist. Ice is just water holding g hands.
  
  you're right about this
  “to be touched by a liquid”
  but its more of a simple definition however if you went more technical by biology and chemistry laws, wetness is about adhesion (liquid to solid surface contact) and water is cohesive (attracted to each other) but if you want to get reallyyyy into it you might tell me about mercurium, have you seen mercurium? because its freaking cool btw chemistry ftw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upRM7ykQloI the reason why mercurium wont wet things is because its cohesion is stronger than its adhesion, so any liquid that happens to be like this, this is why
- no, if water was just hydrogens yes but no because then its no longer water but with the oxygen the water molecules are not exactly touching each other plus the definition of wetness is about the adhesion (liquid to solid surface contact) and water is cohesive (attracted to each other)

You fucking idiots. Real ones know wetness is how much vermouth it has in it.
- Churchill apocryphally liked his martinis so dry that he would observe the bottle of vermouth while pouring the gin, and that was enough
- I'd like a proper wet and dirty one right now, gawddamn

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.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting
  Wetting is the ability of a liquid to displace gas to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together.[1] These interactions occur in the presence of either a gaseous phase or another liquid phase not miscible with the wetting liquid.
  
  Fair enough. I was not expecting something I could not understand
- Saying water is wet because it touches water sounds like "Fire is on fire because it touches fire". It just sounds fundamentally illogical as you're talking about a state of matter, not the matter itself.
  I'm not a scientist, just throwing in my view on this
  
  Well fire has a specific definition of something being oxidized, so does being wet.
  Like are you wet if you were a molecule of water surrounded by water?
  It seems, to me at least, any molecule that wasn't water surrounded by it is wet.
- More reasonably, "wet" is often used as an adjective describing something that is liquid. Wet paint is, of course, wet.

yes, what water touches is wet. you'll never guess what water is always touching
- Your mom?
  
  Nah, it touches everything, water has issues with boundaries and consent.

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
- It's such a weird thing to say that it's dry.
  
  I never got it either. I think they're just contrarians. They just want to feel like they discovered something novel that all the people before them got wrong so they can indulge in pedantic arguments about it.
  That is, when it's not engagement baiting like the tweet above.
  
  Why can't it be neither? Being wet or dry is a property of solids, or maybe gasses (where you'd say "humid" rather than "wet"). It doesn't make sense as a qualifier of water itself.
- This is physically correct
- This but unironically

Police. Yeah I'd like to report a murder.
- Good luck finding the body, that lake never gives up her dead
  
  When the skies of November turn gloomy

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?

I'd still argue water molecules touching eachother make themselves wet, but that guy is an ass so fuck him.
- actually water molecules are cohesive (attracted to each other, yes in that sense you are right) but wetness is associated with adhesion which basically means the possibility of a liquid to adhere to a solid surface so no, water molecule themselves alone are not enough to fit into the definition of wetness i hope i wasnt too technical but i tried to be as dummy as possible

Simply superior

That is outstanding.

Man this has the comments at each other's throats.
Water is wet though.
- Nope. Baba is wet though.
- it's moist at most

By that logic is fire not hot because what fire touches becomes hot?
- No because these are not comparable things. fire is the chemical reaction changing energy into heat, it IS heat to the extreme.
  
  Sooo water is wet to the extreme?

Just wait till lakes home pull up..

Damn, for a lake bragging about making things wet that was some sick burn.

Yes but water touches itself. Abortion ain't murder though.

The gales of November came way early this year.

I don't know who that Tom Fitton guy is, but water absolutely wet. And he's a knob.
- Wetness is a quality/concept gained from a surface having liquid adhere to it. The liquid itself can't be wet. It's like saying fire is burnt.
  
  Wetness is being saturated with water. Water is saturated by water by a base definition; you cannot be more saturated with something than literally being it, a 100% saturation value. Water is wet. And now so is the object in contact with it.
  It's less consistent to the example to say that fire is burnt and transferring that burnt, and more that fire is hot and a material affected by fire is also hot. Fire is hot. And now so is the object in contact with it. Being burnt is a secondary reaction as a result of the primary transference of the heat properties in an overabundance. Much like your skin shriveling is a result of being wet for prolonged periods. It's a secondary reaction to the primary transferance of properties.
  Water transfers its wetness, fire transfers its heat. Water is wet.
  
  Wetness is a quality/concept gained from a surface having liquid adhere to it.
  A volume can't be wet??? Man the random busted definitions you guys make up on the spot (instead of using a dictionary) just so you can win is really funny.
  The liquid itself can't be wet. It's like saying fire is burnt.
  Burnt is something that was on fire but no longer can sustain the flame.
  It is more analogous to "dry" (something that used to have water but no longer).
  Saying "water is wet" is like saying "the fire is burning" which we say all the time.
- There's an argument that a single molecule of water on its own would not be wet, but essentially all water is touched by other water, so even by the needlessly contrarian definition, water is wet.
  
  There’s an argument that wetness is a sensation that occurs when water comes into contact with a solid surface. Therefore, while water can make other things wet, it is not considered wet on its own.
  
  This is my personal argument tbh. Water transfers wetness but it can transfer it's wetness to other water.
  
  There's an argument that a single molecule of water on its own would not be wet, but essentially all water is touched by other water, so even by the needlessly contrarian definition, water is wet.
  Unless solid ice is "wet" you might need to reconsider the "touching molecules of water" angle.
- You don't get to just say that it's not up for debate lmao every definition is up for debate
  Water is wet, and the only definitions that explicitly exclude the possibility that it is are based entirely on the idea that water isn't wet, rather than the actual ways people use the word "wet"

“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.
- Saying you're wet while underwater is the most natural thing, what?
  I find it patently absurd to say water isn't wet. Like obvious doublespeak levels of absurd. It's the wettest thing possible.
  
  The only thing wetter than water would be your mom I suppose.
  
  If I put a tungsten cube under water I wouldn’t really call it wet. But if I sprayed it with water I would. But that changes when it’s a person, no? The type of surface it is depends as well, not all surfaces are equal - like something that is water phobic (aerogel) can make something not wet even though it (person + aerogel) is in contact with water. I’m not arguing water isn’t wet. I absolutely think it is by our language. But I am saying there isn’t a good way of arriving at that conclusion by going full Webster Dictionary.

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.
- Seems like fairly civilized conversation in here tbh, I dont really see anyone getting personal. This is the kind of conversation everyone wanted Lemmy to have someday, right? Except for your comment, that one is pretty mean spirited with no intention of joining in the existing conversation and mine, which is taking the bait.
- 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.
  says the person who's been here for 3 weeks
- I don't think there's been much change tbh
- No u
- Arguing can be fun, and some of us just want a break from The Horrors™ every once in a while. Arguing a joke sounds like a nice, harmless change of pace

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?
- Responding like this means you don‘t understand the phrase „good morning“. It means „I wish you a good morning“.
  
  As good as any reason to share this Tom Scott video again.
- I get a lot of compliments on my use of the English language and I absolutely cannot stand prescriptivists (among other pedants).
- I agree, it was an extremely weak comeback. Definition of grasping for straws.

If everything water touches is wet, and water touches itself, then water is wet.
- wetting is the process of a liquid adhering to a surface. water by definition can't be wet
  
  Liquids don't have surfaces?
  The property of cohesion means that water is touching and adhering to the surface of other water molecules.
  It doesn't change Tom Fitton being a shit, but facts do matter.
  
  Except for the fact that water by definition is wet
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet
  Fun fact: there is no such thing as a universally accepted definition. Words mean what we mean when we say them. And the vast majority of people use "wet" to describe something that is made up of, touching, or covered in a liquid, especially water. The arbitrary assertion that the definition somehow only applies to solids is just facile contrarianism with no actual basis in linguistics.
  
  Solid (frozen) water, commonly referred to as "ice," can have a surface.
- But that's not the definition of wet. Wet is something having liquid adhere to it, usually water. It's a gained quality. Water doesn't adhere to itself, it can't gain the quality of being wet because it is the thing that gives that quality. It's like saying that fire is burnt. It does the burning.
  
  Water literally adheres to itself. That's one of its most important qualities.
  
  wet
  1 of 3
  adjective
  ˈwet
  wetter; wettest
  Synonyms of wet
  1
  a
  : consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
  Water definitely consists of water my man
  
  Water is cohesive which means yes, it does attach to itself. It's one of the main reasons capillary action works and your blood flows the way it does.
  
  Actually fire is the byproduct of a chemical reaction. The material being combusted is the one doing the burning. Fire (rather, extreme heat) can cause combustion in other materials, given an oxygen rich environment, but the fire is not itself doing the combustion or burning.
  Wetness is not a chemical reaction, so it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
- You can’t wet a lake
  
  Because it's already wet
- Water isn't you lmao gottem

Fuck's sake not this shit again
Water is wet
Source 1
Source 2
- The meaning of a word ≠ where the word comes from.
  
  That's true. I shouldn't have included that detail in my already 100% correct comment. Redacting it, but pasting it here for posterity:
  The word "wet" comes from a PIE word meaning water
- Counter source https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet
  
  But if you define wet as ‘made of liquid or moisture’, as some do, then water and all other liquids can be considered wet.
  Thank you for providing another source in my favor. In a scientific context, wet might have a very particular meaning. But we're not in a damn lab right now, we're talking. Go ask a linguist instead of a scientist.
- Counter source 2:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting
  Wetting is the ability of a liquid to displace gas to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together.[1] These interactions occur in the presence of either a gaseous phase or another liquid phase not miscible with the wetting liquid.
  
  How is that a counter source? It's just another definition of the word. Words can mean multiple things.