Originally posted by SuperLuigi
fact: water is wetnonfact: rapidash I.Q. is at or above 80
how would scientific method prove my hypotheses over the internet?
H2O is, actually, not always wet. Have you ever taken any science classes? If you did, you would know about the various states that a material can take.
And your second 'statement' there I would consider to be bashing.
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
rapidash, no offense, but you have a history of being a hypocrite and well frankly you belong in the remedial classes since your brain doesnt function properly.peaches you mean to tell me that isnt bashing? because that is almost exactly what she did
Now THAT can be defined as bashing.
I'll have you know however, that being hypocritic is by no means wrong. It's stupid, but not wrong. I do have a history of this, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say what I say during my hypocritic period.
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
i didnt say H2O i said water.
Water is simply the common name for the molecule H20, and H20 is not always liquid, hence it is not always wet.
And even if you simply mean the liquid, there are still times where it can appear to not be wet. For example, if you were to grease your hand and touch a wet surface, it would not feel wet to you at all, because oils repel water.
Originally posted by Peach
Water is simply the common name for the molecule H20, and H20 is not always liquid, hence it is not always wet.And even if you simply mean the liquid, there are still times where it can appear to not be wet. For example, if you were to grease your hand and touch a wet surface, it would not feel wet to you at all, because oils repel water.
just because you can feel it doesnt mean it isnt wet.
Originally posted by XanatosForever
What about frozen water? 😉Or wait, there's also evaporated water. What about that?
ice and water vapor?
Originally posted by XanatosForever
What about frozen water? 😉Or wait, there's also evaporated water. What about that?
That, too 😛
Or, consider this. Your body is made up of ~70% water. But when you, say, touch your arm, is it wet? Most of the time, no. But there is clearly a significant amount of water there.
The air is full of water, but does it feel wet? No, of course it doesn't. Not unless it's raining, or the air is so saturated that the humidity level is over 90% (and even then there'll only be a bit of a damp, clammy feeling at best).
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
just because you can feel it doesnt mean it isnt wet.
Ahh, but you seem to have missed the part where even something that's considered a fact has allowances for something else happening, and all facts are based on perceptual evidence.
Ice and water vapor are still water.
Out of curiosity - how old are you?
Originally posted by Rapidash
You have a history of it. To be stupid is to have a poor ability to understand something or to profit from experience.
You constantly use fallacies and despite being informed of this, you continue to use them, only claiming that they aren't fallacies. I didn't say it with mean intent when I said what I did, but it's the truth.You don't see it. You don't like it. That doesn't make it any less true. In fact, it makes it more.
That post of yours just now, the one I'm responding to, also makes it true, because you fall victim to the other definition of the word: Poor ability to understand something- this time being you having a poor ability to understand what the word stupid actually means.
The fact that you consider the word in itself an insult proves this even more.Stupid is not first and foremost an insult, even though that's what people ignorantly use the word for.
Based on your perceptions, as you said before. And your simply playing opposites, you keep claiming fallacies, I claim they are not yet your speaking truth? don't be daft 🙄 No its not truth, girl, never was, there's no truth in your bias shamble of an argument and you've no provided base.
No that makes no sense in truth either....
If that what people use the word for then its no wonder I am offended by its usage and you are foolish to counter argue yourself again.
Originally posted by Peach
All she did was state her opinions based on how certain people here present themselves. If anything, the definitions that GK and I posted (the actual, real definitions), back up her perceptions that she posted more than harm them.Also, I cannot believe you are trying to argue that you are right, and actual accepted dictionary and scientific definitions are not, to try and make it fit your argument.
Have you ever taken any sort of advanced science or English courses?
And you just don't get it. Saying "You have a history of being (insert whatever here)" is bashing, because you're stating that they are stupid, an idiot, whatever. Saying "You have a history of acting in a certain way" is very different, because that simply means that [b]in their eyes
you tend to act stupid, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are stupid.That's not even close to what anyone is saying. It's very simple, I don't know why you're not understanding it. [/B]
No she was quite clear on what she was basing your apparent "opinion" on, and she did not put "in my opinion" in any part of her rant so please don't try and rub her back for her, she may not be capable of reaching it herself but you'll only cause harm. She made it "clear" she was trying to create a sense of truth in her first few words, truth she said later were based on "fact".....which according to you, are now false, even more so with her own hypocrisy.
I did not say they were wrong, my argument already fits those definitions, although I cannot believe you are trying to make my argument sound wrong based on them.
No I have not, so? is that why I cannot understand your incredibly advanced argument? don't try and play the fool, I intercepted your meaning and it does not base on anything here that important.
lol is that so?
Well you better warn/ban her because she said I have a history, she did not say "acting". Its the same sort of thing anyway, its either a troll/bait or its a insult, either deserves being reprimanded.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
You really do not know anything about this stuff, do you? A variable, by definition, is a value that may vary; that is, it has no definite amount.What you are missing here is that there is no "fact" that cannot be registered in any way except through one's perception. People are qualified when their personal perception aligns with the generally accepted perception of a subject. For example, education teaches one the generally accepted perception of various subjects (ranging from the fairly concrete, such as hard mathematics, to history, which is admittedly flawed), and when you understand the reasoning behind those accepted perceptions, you are considered educated.
To the point of people, that is the field of sociology and psychology, in which qualified individuals evaluate their perceptions of many people or individuals, respectively. That both of these are a science discredits your dismissal of being able to evaluate people in a valuable way.
Right now I'm arguing that all "fact" is based on perception. Not that anyone may be wrong at this time. This argument precludes that.
I admit that was indeed wrong to say, although my point stands the same. Science does take into account variables to come to its conclusion which was my point, science is typically based on other facts that are considered. E.g the fact an object would move based on a gravitational pull is based on the facts considered by gravity. There are no facts in the variables that are conclusions from Becci or perceptions by Becci.
But you and peach backed up my argument again, my argument was her basis was ridiculous as well as hypocritical and she disagreed with herself. You added directly wrong to this as according to you fact is not actually necessarily factual in truth making her wrong, and me correct.
Evaluating people is still not a fact, which was still again...my point..
Yes your just making a huge red herring based on your own statement to try and back Becci up, and at the same time you and your Girlfriend have simply succeeded in making sure I am indeed correct, as it stands Becci tripped up on her argument and you've now landed a weight on it making sure it stays down.
Hypocritical nonsense that contradicts itself AND now according to you, has no basis on truth as her so called facts are factually not facts....well done you.
Originally posted by Peach
That, too 😛Or, consider this. Your body is made up of ~70% water. But when you, say, touch your arm, is it wet? Most of the time, no. But there is clearly a significant amount of water there.
The air is full of water, but does it feel wet? No, of course it doesn't. Not unless it's raining, or the air is so saturated that the humidity level is over 90% (and even then there'll only be a bit of a damp, clammy feeling at best).
Ahh, but you seem to have missed the part where even something that's considered a fact has allowances for something else happening, and all facts are based on perceptual evidence.
Ice and water vapor are still water.
Out of curiosity - how old are you?
i didnt say ice nor did i say water vapor. trying to turn a simple statement into something more just to be petty is really, how would you say, childish. you missed the fact that i directly stated H20 in its liquid aka water. yet you continuously try to argue that i didnt. let's see today i am 9 tomorrow i'll be eleventy