How to eat corn on the cob, and similar points of disagreement

[Obscuraphile]

So corn has recently dropped down to 7 for a dollar in my area, and I am enjoying it immensely. A question that often comes up around the dinner table, which I thought I would poll the interwebs on is do you eat your corn round and round or do you eat it in a civilized manner going lengthwise along the cob?

Also bread, butter side up or down?

[Peelee]

So corn has recently dropped down to 7 for a dollar in my area, and I am enjoying it immensely. A question that often comes up around the dinner table, which I thought I would poll the interwebs on is do you eat your corn round and round or do you eat it in a civilized manner going lengthwise along the cob?

Also bread, butter side up or down?

What sort of monster would turn the corn as they eat instead of going along the cob, then rotating? We didn't evolve for all these years to not eat like typewriters, thankyouverymuch.

[AuthorGirl]

We didn't evolve for all these years to not eat like typewriters, thankyouverymuch.

May I sig this? It's too perfect not to sig.

[Palanan]

...catios....

[Strigon]

So corn has recently dropped down to 7 for a dollar in my area, and I am enjoying it immensely. A question that often comes up around the dinner table, which I thought I would poll the interwebs on is do you eat your corn round and round or do you eat it in a civilized manner going lengthwise along the cob?

Also bread, butter side up or down?

I haven't eaten corn on the cob in years, but when I did I rotated the corn as any rational human being would.
Who in their right mind eats bread butter side down? That's lunacy, and extra work besides!

[AuthorGirl]

...catios....

*facepalm*

I cannot believe how forgetful I am. I'm very sorry, I'll do the relevant fighting with tech tomorrow, and you may harass me in PMs if I forget again.

[Peelee]

May I sig this? It's too perfect not to sig.

Always! Wheeeee!

[Goaty14]

Toilet paper is best used coming down the front, since you don't have to reach an extra couple inches (which really matters a lot)
A hotdog is officially considered a sandwich
Water is not wet

[Obscuraphile]

Toilet paper is best used coming down the front, since you don't have to reach an extra couple inches (which really matters a lot)
A hotdog is officially considered a sandwich
Water is not wet


Agreed but rather for aesthetic reasons. Also one should wipe sitting down.
Not so, a hotdog is a unique culinary category.
In the sense that nothing is wet, wet being an emergent property.

[Peelee]

Toilet paper is best used coming down the front, since you don't have to reach an extra couple inches (which really matters a lot)


Is your toilet paper incredibly inconveniently placed? Do you get any extra tangible benefits of some sort if you can shave a fraction of a second off your bathroom time? Do you have a cat who likes to play with the toilet paper and if it comes down the front then the cat can unspool a huge amount but if it goes down the back they can just spin it around and around without wasting any?

All three are viable reasons to stand strong about toilet paper orientation. Now, I've never experienced the first two, so I have the paper go down the back.

[Keltest]

Is your toilet paper incredibly inconveniently placed? Do you get any extra tangible benefits of some sort if you can shave a fraction of a second off your bathroom time? Do you have a cat who likes to play with the toilet paper and if it comes down the front then the car can unspool a huge amount but if it goes diet the heck they can just soon it around and around without wasting any?

All three are viable reasons to stand strong about toilet paper orientation. Now, I've never experienced the first two, so I have the paper go down the back.

In my experience, TP coming down off the back tends to tear not along the perforation, but wherever it darn well feels like. That can leave you with raggedy edges that in turn will tear off and stay behind most uncomfortably.

[Peelee]

In my experience, TP coming down off the back tends to tear not along the perforation, but wherever it darn well feels like. That can leave you with raggedy edges that in turn will tear off and stay behind most uncomfortably.

I don't experience that, but hey, to each their own.

[Strigon]

Toilet paper is best used coming down the front, since you don't have to reach an extra couple inches (which really matters a lot)
A hotdog is officially considered a sandwich
Water is not wet



Yes
No
Fight me

[Algeh]

Well, if we're going to talk about eating corn, I'm going to have to link this: Analysis vs Algebra predicts eating corn? (http://bentilly.blogspot.ca/2010/08/analysis-vs-algebra-predicts-eating.html?m=1)

[gooddragon1]

I don't know about most of that except that crunchy cookies are better than soft cookies. Also, only crazy people eat oatmeal raisin cookies and/or take cold showers.

[Obscuraphile]

I don't know about most of that except that crunchy cookies are better than soft cookies.

Depends on the cookie. I would never argue that fresh hot chocolate chip cookies should be crunchy. They must by definition be gooey and are 1000x better that way. Store bought cookies however should definitely be crunchy

[Togath]

So corn has recently dropped down to 7 for a dollar in my area, and I am enjoying it immensely. A question that often comes up around the dinner table, which I thought I would poll the interwebs on is do you eat your corn round and round or do you eat it in a civilized manner going lengthwise along the cob?

Also bread, butter side up or down?

I usually eat it... after breaking it in half, by plucking kernels off like berries. I'm a little bit odd.:smallredface:
(probably helps that I usually eat it raw rather than boiled or grilled, since I like the more sugary taste which has the side effect of making the kernels firmer)

[Peelee]

I don't know about most of that except that crunchy cookies are better than soft cookies. Also, only crazy people eat oatmeal raisin cookies and/or take cold showers.


Depends on the cookie. I would never argue that fresh hot chocolate chip cookies should be crunchy. They must by definition be gooey and are 1000x better that way. Store bought cookies however should definitely be crunchy

Lies and falsehoods!

[Sprütche]

I like both crunchy and soft cookies. But they must not be mixed. I hate it when crunchy cookies become soft and vice versa. Same goes for cereals. That's a crime against breakfast.

[Rockphed]

Lies and falsehoods!

Snickerdoodles should be soft when they come out of the oven else they will turn into rocks as they cool. Soft chocolate chip cookies are better than crunchy ones, even when bought from the store. The only cookies that should be crunchy are oreos, windmill cookies, and gingersnaps. All other cookies should be soft and slightly chewy.

And corn is eaten by finding the patch of corn still on the cob closest to where I last bit down. Any other algorithm is likely to result in premature time wastage. In other words, I neither go around nor go along, but do a bizarre admixture of both.

As to the "water is wet" conversation, I'm confused. Can someone explain why this is even a question?

[Peelee]

Snickerdoodles should be soft when they come out of the oven else they will turn into rocks as they cool. Soft chocolate chip cookies are better than crunchy ones, even when bought from the store. The only cookies that should be crunchy are oreos, windmill cookies, and gingersnaps. All other cookies should be soft and slightly chewy.

The only cookies I eat are chocolate chip and oreo, so I'm perfectly fine with your analysis.

[Strigon]

As to the "water is wet" conversation, I'm confused. Can someone explain why this is even a question?

Some people think water is wet.
Others think that, for a number of reasons, it isn't wet. As I understand it, they claim that since water has no surface that would normally be dry, it can't be wet or dry. To them, claiming water is wet is like claiming the number 2 is cold; it's not simply wrong, it's completely inapplicable.

[Rockphed]

Some people think water is wet.
Others think that, for a number of reasons, it isn't wet. As I understand it, they claim that since water has no surface that would normally be dry, it can't be wet or dry. To them, claiming water is wet is like claiming the number 2 is cold; it's not simply wrong, it's completely inapplicable.

... There is no way an argument over that could go well. It is like trying to argue with Humpty Dumpty (https://xkcd.com/1860/). They have obviously decided what the definition of 'wet' is in such manner that water cannot be wet.

[Obscuraphile]

Some people think water is wet.
Others think that, for a number of reasons, it isn't wet. As I understand it, they claim that since water has no surface that would normally be dry, it can't be wet or dry. To them, claiming water is wet is like claiming the number 2 is cold; it's not simply wrong, it's completely inapplicable.

Actually the way I approach the arguement is that things can only be wet if there is enough water to wet them.

No matter how much humidity is in the air you would never refer to the air as wet. Similarly if there is a single molecule of liquid water on a surface you wouldn't be able to feel it therefore despite the presence of water nothing is wet.

Wet is an emergent property of water. Water is not wet.

[Rockphed]

No matter how much humidity is in the air you would never refer to the air as wet.

Sure you would, though the typical adjective is "damp" for cold air and "moist" for warm air.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No matter how much humidity is in the air you would never refer to the air as wet.
I've been to tropical environments with air humidity at 100%. I can assure you I would happily and accurately describe the air in those environments as "very wet".


Wet is an emergent property of water. Water is not wet.
So your claim is that "water is not wet, it only makes things around it wet". So if I select any random molecule of H2O, I can note it is surrounded by water, which by your definition of "emergent property", I can be described as being wet. Therefore water is wet, because each individual particle of it is surrounded by water, that makes it wet.

Grey Wolf

[Obscuraphile]

Sure you would, though the typical adjective is "damp" for cold air and "moist" for warm air.

Can air, damp or moist, make something wet? Not talking about condensation or anything like that. Damp or moist air describes the water in it. The air itself is not wet.


So your claim is that "water is not wet, it only makes things around it wet". So if I select any random molecule of H2O, I can note it is surrounded by water, which by your definition of "emergent property", I can be described as being wet. Therefore water is wet, because each individual particle of it is surrounded by water, that makes it wet.

Grey Wolf

No, that is not my claim. My claim is that there is an unspecified and unspecifiable point at which there is enough liquid water in one place to make something wet.

The definition, not my definition, of "emergent property" is "a characteristic of a system which is not possessed by any of the system's constituent parts." Water is not wet because it is possible for there to be water without wet yet it is not possible for something to be wet without water.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

My claim is that there is an unspecified and unspecifiable point at which there is enough liquid water in one place to make something wet.

Yes, that is most definitely your definition, but since the actual definition of wet is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid.", you are literally arguing that a word doesn't mean what it means, therefore you are right. Which is a rather unsustainable argumentative position.

Is air saturated with water or another liquid when it's at 100% humidity? Yes, yes it is. Therefore, it is wet. If you claim that it is not, it's because you are defining wet as something other than what it actually is defined as.

Is water covered with water? Yes, yes it is. Therefore, it is wet. If you claim that it is not, it's because you are defining wet as something other than what it actually is defined as.

And, for the record, I am not at all interested in hearing you attempt to redefine the meaning of "wet" or attempt to "win" via the semantics of the Sorites paradox. Redefine wet all you want, no-one is required to agree with your redefinition, and by the common definition of the word, both air (when saturated with water) and water, and everything else covered or saturated with water or another liquid is wet.

Grey Wolf

[Obscuraphile]

Yes, that is most definitely your definition, but since the actual definition of wet is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid.", you are literally arguing that a word doesn't mean what it means, therefore you are right. Which is a rather unsustainable argumentative position.

Is air saturated with water or another liquid when it's at 100% humidity? Yes, yes it is. Therefore, it is wet. If you claim that it is not, it's because you are defining wet as something other than what it actually is defined as.

Is water covered with water? Yes, yes it is. Therefore, it is wet. If you claim that it is not, it's because you are defining wet as something other than what it actually is defined as.

And, for the record, I am not at all interested in hearing you attempt to redefine the meaning of "wet" or attempt to "win" via the semantics of the Sorites paradox. Redefine wet all you want, no-one is required to agree with your redefinition, and by the common definition of the word, both air (when saturated with water) and water, and everything else covered or saturated with water or another liquid is wet.

Grey Wolf

Well to begin it seems rather odd that you would come into a thread, on the friendly banter forum, about commonly disputed issues, and proclaim in a haughty tone that you don't want to participate.

The key word in the definition of wet that you quoted is liquid. Water vapor in the air (humidity) is not a liquid. Also I don't believe anyone would claim that an object covered in mercury is wet, yet mercury is liquid at room temperature.

It also doesn't make much grammatical sense to say water is covered with water. It's kind of like saying a sheet is covered by itself if you fold it. In a sense you're right but only partially.

This is like arguing over whether chickens or eggs came first. By definition it's a philosophical proposition meant to be unanswerable which people might choose to defend one side or the other to practice argumentation.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well to begin it seems rather odd that you would come into a thread, on the friendly banter forum, about commonly disputed issues, and proclaim in a haughty tone that you don't want to participate.
I do want to participate. I just don't want to have a boring "this is what a word ought to mean" discussion. It is also quite rich to suggest "water is wet" is a "commonly disputed issue".


The key word in the definition of wet that you quoted is liquid. Water vapor in the air (humidity) is not a liquid.
Yes, it is. It is liquid water in suspension.


Also I don't believe anyone would claim that an object covered in mercury is wet
Yes, I would.


It also doesn't make much grammatical sense to say water is covered with water. It's kind of like saying a sheet is covered by itself if you fold it. In a sense you're right but only partially.
And again you are trying to redefine something. I've already addressed this and you continuing to insist otherwise is, as I said above, boring.


This is like arguing over whether chickens or eggs came first. By definition it's a philosophical proposition meant to be unanswerable which people might choose to defend one side or the other to practice argumentation.
It is the same in that it keys on how the word is defined. But unlike "chicken egg", "wet" does have a clear definition that does not allow for the debate to happen.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I don't believe anyone would claim that an object covered in mercury is wet

Conversely, I don't know why anyone wouldn't claim that.

[veti]

Conversely, I don't know why anyone wouldn't claim that.

Speaking for myself, it's because the question doesn't come up very often.

Here's a more practical question: Brush first, or floss first?

[Tvtyrant]

Here's a more practical question: Brush first, or floss first?
Are you saying you do them in a row?

I floss after eating dinner, brush after breakfast and before bed. You [joking] animal. [/joke]

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Speaking for myself, it's because the question doesn't come up very often.

Count your blessings. I've had to dispose a rag soaked in mercury from a broken (old style) thermometer. Of course, at the time the adjective that came to mind wasn't so much "wet" as it was "toxic" (with "poisonous" and "dangerous" jockeying for position), but in retrospect, I can most definitely affirm that "wet" was an appropriate adjective for the rag ("soaked", rather, but that's just "wet, but even more so").

GW

[Obscuraphile]

I do want to participate. I just don't want to have a boring "this is what a word ought to mean" discussion. It is also quite rich to suggest "water is wet" is a "commonly disputed issue".

I don't know, I was having great fun with the conversation until you began splitting quotes in this most odious of manners. A simple google search will produce plenty of results from news outlets, scientific papers, and educational sources discussing this very issue.


Yes, it is. It is liquid water in suspension.

Fascinating. With a single sentence you would deny an entire state of matter. I guess the air we all breath is just 78% liquid nitrogen in suspension, 20% liquid oxygen in suspension, 1% liquid argon in suspension, half a percent liquid carbon dioxide in suspension, and half a percent trace liquid elements in suspension.


Yes, I would.

Point. I will change my argument. No liquid, water or otherwise is wet, albeit for the same reasons.


And again you are trying to redefine something. I've already addressed this and you continuing to insist otherwise is, as I said above, boring.

Is water wet is a scientific question and often standard usages of words are insufficient to deal with scientific matters. Water does not become wet until you get enough water together, therefore if there can be not wet water then water on its own is not wet, only sufficiently large collections of water are wet.


It is the same in that it keys on how the word is defined. But unlike "chicken egg", "wet" does have a clear definition that does not allow for the debate to happen.

That's not the point. The question posed by the chicken and the egg is "where does an extant cycle begin?" The answer being equally arguable at any step. It might equally be phrased as where is the start of a wheel.

[Fiery Diamond]

That's not the point. The question posed by the chicken and the egg is "where does an extant cycle begin?" The answer being equally arguable at any step. It might equally be phrased as where is the start of a wheel.

I always thought that question was rather dumb, personally. Unless you're positing that all cycles have always been in existence for an infinite length of time, extant cycles (temporal cycles, anyway) do, in fact, have a beginning. Whether that beginning is immediately apparent is a different story. The answer to such questions shouldn't be a quibbling about where the beginning is, it should be either an easy answer (because the answer is known and readily shown) or "I have insufficient information to answer that question."

"Where is the start of a wheel?" is fundamentally a different sort of question: it's not a cycle in the same sense; it's merely circularly shaped. In fact, it's much closer to "where is the start of a square" than "which came first: chicken or egg." And a square isn't a cycle in any sense.

[Obscuraphile]

I always thought that question was rather dumb, personally. Unless you're positing that all cycles have always been in existence for an infinite length of time, extant cycles (temporal cycles, anyway) do, in fact, have a beginning. Whether that beginning is immediately apparent is a different story. The answer to such questions shouldn't be a quibbling about where the beginning is, it should be either an easy answer (because the answer is known and readily shown) or "I have insufficient information to answer that question."

"Where is the start of a wheel?" is fundamentally a different sort of question: it's not a cycle in the same sense; it's merely circularly shaped. In fact, it's much closer to "where is the start of a square" than "which came first: chicken or egg." And a square isn't a cycle in any sense.

I agree with you in the specific, but this is still not what I'm trying to get at, which could certainly be my fault for being inarticulate. What I'm driving at is that these questions fundamentally don't have answers in general. The original point of "which came first, the chicken or the egg" is that you pick a side and defend it. If you break it down to "well historically there were creatures born from eggs before there were modern chickens" then you have missed the point.

Its the same with water isn't wet. Focusing on definitions and getting the "right" answer is the wrong way to look at the question. It's like Zeno's paradoxes, we can look at the world and say well obviously "this" but when we try to use the fundamental mathematical and logical systems that we base nearly everything upon we cannot logically prove what we perceive. They're all just fun little games that are interesting to argue.

I think water isn't wet and I've put forth my reasons why. Grey Wolf has said it's a dumb game, and he's entitled to that opinion, but I don't agree.

[BWR]

only crazy people eat oatmeal raisin cookies

Well call me crazy, then. I quite like them.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I always thought that question was rather dumb, personally.

It's more boring than dumb. Lets solve it, right now: eggs predate chickens by millions of years, or billions, depending on how you define egg, since fish lay eggs, and they were around before any land animal evolved.

To which a pedant will then say "well, the question is about chickens, and chicken eggs", to which I recommend being pedant back and say "no, it clearly does not specify 'chicken egg'", and call it good enough. But if you want to be kind, you can then inform them that there is no definition for chicken egg. For example, if you choose to define it as "an egg laid by a chicken", then the chicken had to come first. If instead you choose to define it as "an egg from which a chicken was born" then the egg came first. It all comes down to the definition, which doesn't exist, so you are free to pick the one you like best.

The problem is that this question, like the omphalos debate, was thought up before evolutionary theory, and thus it was a question about the cycle of nature in an unchanging world. It came down to "did the supreme being create a grown chicken ex nihilo, or did they create eggs which hatched". Debating the question today is indeed quite boring, since it has been answered by science (except for the definitional bit mentioned above).


It's like Zeno's paradoxes
It is indeed, and again you are right, but draw the wrong conclusions from it. Like the problem above, Zeno's paradoxes have been solved (in this case, by math (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus))


Grey Wolf has said it's a dumb game
No, I have not. I said that it is a boring game. FYI, misrepresenting your opponent's words is generally considered bad form.


Fascinating. With a single sentence you would deny an entire state of matter. I guess the air we all breath is just 78% liquid nitrogen in suspension, 20% liquid oxygen in suspension, 1% liquid argon in suspension, half a percent liquid carbon dioxide in suspension, and half a percent trace liquid elements in suspension.

So what you read in my statement "water in 100% humidity air is a liquid in suspension" actually means "all air is liquid"? I'm not sure if you are intentionally misreading what I say or you are ignorant of basic physical reality, but I've had enough. Good bye.

Grey Wolf

[tomandtish]

It is the same in that it keys on how the word is defined. But unlike "chicken egg", "wet" does have a clear definition that does not allow for the debate to happen.

Grey Wolf

Actually, that one is easy. Something that was ALMOST a chicken (99.999..% there) laid the egg that hatched into the first chicken. So the egg came first.

Now, at what point in the evolutionary cycle did that moment happen? (ie, WHICH egg hatched the first chicken)? That's another argument entirely.

[Keltest]

Actually, that one is easy. Something that was ALMOST a chicken (99.999..% there) laid the egg that hatched into the first chicken. So the egg came first.

Now, at what point in the evolutionary cycle did that moment happen? (ie, WHICH egg hatched the first chicken)? That's another argument entirely.

But was the egg a chicken egg or a proto-chicken egg that happened to hatch a chicken?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But was the egg a chicken egg or a proto-chicken egg that happened to hatch a chicken?

Keltest gets it (and took the words out of my mouth). As I said, it comes down to what you choose as the definition of "chicken egg". And since there can be as many definitions as people, we can all be right, we are all wrong, and ultimately it is boring because of it.

GW

[Rockphed]

Also I don't believe anyone would claim that an object covered in mercury is wet, yet mercury is liquid at room temperature.


Conversely, I don't know why anyone wouldn't claim that.


Count your blessings. I've had to dispose a rag soaked in mercury from a broken (old style) thermometer. Of course, at the time the adjective that came to mind wasn't so much "wet" as it was "toxic" (with "poisonous" and "dangerous" jockeying for position), but in retrospect, I can most definitely affirm that "wet" was an appropriate adjective for the rag ("soaked", rather, but that's just "wet, but even more so").

GW

I was going to interject that the reason I wouldn't call an object covered in mercury "wet" is because mercury adheres to itself much more strongly than it adheres to other things, and thus it tends to not "wet" things. (By which I am pointing out that a pipette full of mercury will have a meniscus pointing down while a pipette of water will have a meniscus pointing up). However, Grey_Wolf_c's example of a mercury soaked rag calls my worldview into question. I must therefore engage in a bloody crusade to cleanse the world of all things that challenge my worldview. Waaagh!:smallfurious:

[Peelee]

I was going to interject that the reason I wouldn't call an object covered in mercury "wet" is because mercury adheres to itself much more strongly than it adheres to other things, and thus it tends to not "wet" things. (By which I am pointing out that a pipette full of mercury will have a meniscus pointing down while a pipette of water will have a meniscus pointing up). However, Grey_Wolf_c's example of a mercury soaked rag calls my worldview into question. I must therefore engage in a bloody crusade to cleanse the world of all things that challenge my worldview. Waaagh!:smallfurious:

Also, to be fair, I present water adhering to itself much more strongly than it is adhering to the other surface, yet we would still call that surface wet:https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/wet-floor-square-tile-raining-day-63653070.jpg

[Rockphed]

Also, to be fair, I present water adhering to itself much more strongly than it is adhering to the other surface, yet we would still call that surface wet:[IMG]

Burn the offending evidence!:smallfurious: Wait, it is wet, so it will be hard to burn.

[Peelee]

Burn the offending evidence!:smallfurious: Wait, it is wet, so it will be hard to burn.

Nah, it's just on the internet. That should be easier to burn, right?

[Rockphed]

Nah, it's just on the internet. That should be easier to burn, right?

The internet is mostly made of plastic-encased glass tubes. How well does glass burn?

[Peelee]

The internet is mostly made of plastic-encased glass tubes. How well does glass burn?

It's even easier than that (https://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg?t=3). Especially if it's made in Britain.

[Zea mays]

What about a duck’s back? Does it ever get wet?

[Maelstrom]

What about a duck’s back? Does it ever get wet?

Sure, when they're young ;)

But more back to the original question, with a forum name like yours, you should have the definitive answer ;)

[2D8HP]

:eek:

This may be the most wide-ranging and argumentative threads in so few posts I've every seen!

I'm in awe!

:biggrin:


...a more practical question: Brush first, or floss first?


Floss, to get the food particles out of the way so more gets brushed.

[AuthorGirl]

:Floss, to get the food particles out of the way so more gets brushed.

No no no, you're objectively wrong because my mom taught me to brush first.

(Am I doing Internet arguments right?)

[Peelee]

No no no, you're objectively wrong because my mom taught me to brush first.

(Am I doing Internet arguments right?)

Mostly. You need more capital letters, and I see a very sad dearth of personal insults.

[Rockphed]

Mostly. You need more capital letters, and I see a very sad dearth of personal insults.

I'm fairly certain she needs fewer capital letters, more spelling errors, and pretty colors!

[Peelee]

I'm fairly certain she needs fewer capital letters, more spelling errors, and pretty colors!

I would expect as much from a PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE! BTW, love your avatar. Go Dragons!

[gooddragon1]

I would expect as much from a PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE! BTW, love your avatar. Go Dragons!


https://www.ragu.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2.1.1_OWS_Traditional1.png
+
https://thecardsoflife.com/wp-content/images/cod-jc-183x260.jpg

= Saucy Knave?

[Rockphed]

I would expect as much from a PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE! BTW, love your avatar. Go Dragons!

Of all the insults I have received, "Pretentious Fopdoodle" is probably the best.

I love your avatar back. Dragons forever! Also, I think the last 3 people who have posted have dragon avatars.

[Peelee]

Of all the insults I have received, "Pretentious Fopdoodle" is probably the best.

I aim to please.

[2D8HP]

No no no, you're objectively wrong because my mom taught me to brush first.

(Am I doing Internet arguments right?)


Objectively?

Well I'm convinced.


PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE!


I've a lot of history with "2D8HP", but so very tempted to change to "PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE!"

[Peelee]

I've a lot of history with "2D8HP", but so very tempted to change to "PRETENTIOUS FOPDOODLE!"

I hear it gives you an extra hit die.

[Heliomance]

Yes, that is most definitely your definition, but since the actual definition of wet is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid.", you are literally arguing that a word doesn't mean what it means, therefore you are right. Which is a rather unsustainable argumentative position.

If I wet a dishcloth, and then partially squeeze the water out again, I would still describe that cloth as wet despite the fact that it is neither covered nor saturated.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If I wet a dishcloth, and then partially squeeze the water out again, I would still describe that cloth as wet despite the fact that it is neither covered nor saturated.

So would I, but I can't defend that with a dictionary definition.

GW

[Keltest]

So would I, but I can't defend that with a dictionary definition.

GW

Conceivably, one could make the argument that it is still covered in water, ie there is water spread over it. Alternatively, that it is invested with a large amount of water relative to its default state of having little to no water in it.

[Razade]

So would I, but I can't defend that with a dictionary definition.

GW

That shouldn't be a problem though, dictionaries are just compelations of words and their common phrases. They're not authorities on words.

[Keltest]

That shouldn't be a problem though, dictionaries are just compelations of words and their common phrases. They're not authorities on words.

While this is technically correct, without a mutually recognized authority on the meanings of words, you end up with the Humpty Dumpty problem where anybody accused of being wrong can just say that they were misunderstood, and obviously they meant something else, because otherwise they would have been wrong. And while dictionaries don't have the power to actually enforce themselves, theyre also by far the most convenient way to reach mutually agreed upon meanings for words. Which is, you know, the whole point of having them in the first place.

[Plus one]

That shouldn't be a problem though, dictionaries are just compelations of words and their common phrases. They're not authorities on words.

Yeah. I sometimes check a dictionary with a few specific words.
Erebus for instance has three definitions and most small (normal) physical dictionaries list only one definition that’s an excessively abbreviated version that actually makes it wrong.

[Razade]

While this is technically correct, without a mutually recognized authority on the meanings of words, you end up with the Humpty Dumpty problem where anybody accused of being wrong can just say that they were misunderstood, and obviously they meant something else, because otherwise they would have been wrong. And while dictionaries don't have the power to actually enforce themselves, theyre also by far the most convenient way to reach mutually agreed upon meanings for words. Which is, you know, the whole point of having them in the first place.

You have it backwards. Dictionaries are the product of us all agreeing the mouth noises we make mean what we say they mean. Consensus was reached, that's why words are added to the dictionary rather than us using a word out of it after we uncover it.

I'm not arguing against dictionaries. I'm just pointing out saying "I can't defend it with a dictionary definition" is near pointless. It doesn't matter even if you could defend it with a dictionary definition.

[Keltest]

You have it backwards. Dictionaries are the product of us all agreeing the mouth noises we make mean what we say they mean. Consensus was reached, that's why words are added to the dictionary rather than us using a word out of it after we uncover it.

I'm not arguing against dictionaries. I'm just pointing out saying "I can't defend it with a dictionary definition" is near pointless. It doesn't matter even if you could defend it with a dictionary definition.

Replace "dictionary definition" with "mutual consensus about the meaning of words agreed upon by a large majority of the speakers of the language" in your head then. The point is to reinforce the correctness of the statement.

[Razade]

Replace "dictionary definition" with "mutual consensus about the meaning of words agreed upon by a large majority of the speakers of the language" in your head then. The point is to reinforce the correctness of the statement.

Except that mutual consensus would call a wrung out towel wet. Which is why defending it with a dictionary definition fails. Because the definition of wet in the dictionary precludes the wrung out towel being wet. But it is wet. We're agreeing it's met. So. The dictionary is WRONG which was my point.

[Keltest]

Except that mutual consensus would call a wrung out towel wet. Which is why defending it with a dictionary definition fails. Because the definition of wet in the dictionary precludes the wrung out towel being wet. But it is wet. We're agreeing it's met. So. The dictionary is WRONG which was my point.

But as I demonstrated above, it isn't wrong.

[Razade]

But as I demonstrated above, it isn't wrong.

You didn't. Mutual consensus says a non-saturated thing can be wet. The dictionary defines wet as "saturated with a liquid". The dictionary (and there isn't just the dictionary, lots of different ones with different definitions) defining it that way doesn't change the fact those people are right. Because the dictionary, in question, isn't an authority on definitions. It's just a compilation. How is this so hard?

[Keltest]

You didn't. Mutual consensus says a non-saturated thing can be wet. The dictionary defines wet as "saturated with a liquid". The dictionary (and there isn't just the dictionary, lots of different ones with different definitions) defining it that way doesn't change the fact those people are right. Because the dictionary, in question, isn't an authority on definitions. It's just a compilation. How is this so hard?

No, it defines it as "covered or saturated", and I then demonstrated how it could be considered covered.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That shouldn't be a problem though, dictionaries are just compelations of words and their common phrases. They're not authorities on words.

Given the whole problem I was addressing is that Obscuraphile is trying to redefine the meaning of the word "wet" to support their point, I find that having to rely on an agreed definition is crucial. Unless you have a way to demonstrate that sufficient people would consider a wrung towel "wet" (and I can't), and that such demonstration will convince Obscuraphile, it is a barren approach. It is simply two people, both claiming to know better than the other what "wet" means. Since the dictionary definition was sufficient to show that Obscuraphile's definition is incorrect, insisting on using a definition that makes Obscuraphile even more in the wrong, but that I'd have to base on "everyone I know agrees with me" is not really conductive to my intention.

Grey Wolf

[Rico]

I eat corn with my hands, I take gnawing.

[hamishspence]

You didn't. Mutual consensus says a non-saturated thing can be wet.



Isn't "damp" the preferred term for something with plenty of moisture in it, but not saturated?

[Peelee]

Isn't "damp" the preferred term for something with plenty of moisture in it, but not saturated?

Wetness is a funny concept. It's one of those "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" things. Same for damp. A towel, for instance, can be not saturated and wet, or not saturated and damp, and those have very different feelings. Or the tile flooring I threw up at some point. I think most everyone would call that wet, but not damp.

[Celestia]

Actually, that one is easy. Something that was ALMOST a chicken (99.999..% there) laid the egg that hatched into the first chicken. So the egg came first.

Now, at what point in the evolutionary cycle did that moment happen? (ie, WHICH egg hatched the first chicken)? That's another argument entirely.
Such an event never occurred because species evolve, not individuals. A creature can never give birth to a being of a different species, and species are not strictly regimented and defined properties. Groups of similar individuals are broadly described as belonging to a species, but nature does not work in absolute mechanics such as that. Any creature that is close enough to being a chicken that we call its offspring chickens is, itself, a chicken. Anything that is almost, but not entirely, a chicken would not have offspring we would call chickens. There is, in fact, no point where the two meet because evolutionary change is simply far too slow and subtle for us to adequately differentiate.