Subscription pricing
Maybe you have heard, but the newest argument is whether or not a fish is considered "wet" if it is under water. Im curious to see what the aspiring lawyers on 7sage have to say about this one.
0
Maybe you have heard, but the newest argument is whether or not a fish is considered "wet" if it is under water. Im curious to see what the aspiring lawyers on 7sage have to say about this one.
14 comments
@zmeeker91389 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
Did you know a shark will only attack you when you're wet?
False, have you seen the movie Sharknado?
Also, love the name. Is that meant to be a Kripke reference?
It is! He's my intellectual hero.
@uhinberg359 said:
Did you know a shark will only attack you when you're wet?
False, have you seen the movie Sharknado?
Also, love the name. Is that meant to be a Kripke reference?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/
Depends on contextual definition of "wet". From whose perspective is "wet" being defined--the fish or the fisherman?? LOL! A fish in its natural habitat--water--may not understand the concept of "wet" from the fisherman's view. Until that fish experience any other state--such as dry--it will never see itself, or appreciate being wet. Which it may never, since being dry means it's dead!! LOL!!
I propose that "wet" is a relational state describing something in relation to the state of being "dry." We typically don't consider ourselves wet while swimming. We do so once we leave the pool, etc. and we are trying to reach equilibrium with the dry state of our surroundings. Thus, I argue that a fish is wet immediately after emerging from water, but is not wet while it is submerged in water.
.#TeamFishy
@uhinberg359
Haha while I was typing it out I thought "this would make a good LSAT question" glad I'm not the only one!
@sendtodelali687 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
So, I think the controversy (if there really is one) hinges on this: If being covered with water is enough to be considered wet, then fishes are undoubtedly wet, but if you must contain or be soaked with a liquid to be wet, then fish, whose skin is hydrophobic, are not wet.
That's just silly. Then if we get our arm wet, we are not actually wet, because skin is pretty hydrophobic as well. If you wash your hands you consider yourself wet, even though your hand doesn't "contain liquid" or is not "soaked" in the sense of a sponge.
Same thing goes for a car. If it rains and the outside of the car gets covered in water, the car itself then is not actually wet. Since it is not soaked with liquid, and doesn't contain liquid, it cannot be wet. But we would still call the car wet...
Not to mention that most fish breath through water intake, and many fish digest through a form of water intake. So fish contain, and are covered in, water. I think this debate...is not actually a debate. It feels like one of those "IS THE DRESS BLUE?!" internet arguments...
LSATcantwin's argument proceeds by
(A) attacking the motives of the other side
(B) showing that the argument confuses cause for correlation
(C) redefining a key word
(D) showing that the argument would lead to an absurd conclusion
(E) proving that the fish cannot be wet even though they are submerged in water
@sendtodelali687 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
So, I think the controversy (if there really is one) hinges on this: If being covered with water is enough to be considered wet, then fishes are undoubtedly wet, but if you must contain or be soaked with a liquid to be wet, then fish, whose skin is hydrophobic, are not wet.
That's just silly. Then if we get our arm wet, we are not actually wet, because skin is pretty hydrophobic as well. If you wash your hands you consider yourself wet, even though your hand doesn't "contain liquid" or is not "soaked" in the sense of a sponge.
Same thing goes for a car. If it rains and the outside of the car gets covered in water, the car itself then is not actually wet. Since it is not soaked with liquid, and doesn't contain liquid, it cannot be wet. But we would still call the car wet...
Not to mention that most fish breath through water intake, and many fish digest through a form of water intake. So fish contain, and are covered in, water. I think this debate...is not actually a debate. It feels like one of those "IS THE DRESS BLUE?!" internet arguments...
Jokes aside, a similarly absurd argument would be to say that a glass is never really "full" with water, since the water merely sits on the glass's surface and none penetrates through to the glass itself.
Did you know a shark will only attack you when you're wet?
I agree. Just trying to understand the "controversy."
@uhinberg359 said:
So, I think the controversy (if there really is one) hinges on this: If being covered with water is enough to be considered wet, then fishes are undoubtedly wet, but if you must contain or be soaked with a liquid to be wet, then fish, whose skin is hydrophobic, are not wet.
That's just silly. Then if we get our arm wet, we are not actually wet, because skin is pretty hydrophobic as well. If you wash your hands you consider yourself wet, even though your hand doesn't "contain liquid" or is not "soaked" in the sense of a sponge.
Same thing goes for a car. If it rains and the outside of the car gets covered in water, the car itself then is not actually wet. Since it is not soaked with liquid, and doesn't contain liquid, it cannot be wet. But we would still call the car wet...
Not to mention that most fish breath through water intake, and many fish digest through a form of water intake. So fish contain, and are covered in, water. I think this debate...is not actually a debate. It feels like one of those "IS THE DRESS BLUE?!" internet arguments...
So, I think the controversy (if there really is one) hinges on this: If being covered with water is enough to be considered wet, then fishes are undoubtedly wet, but if you must contain or be soaked with a liquid to be wet, then fish, whose skin is hydrophobic, are not wet.
@uhinberg359 said:
First define wet, and then we can discuss whether a fish is wet.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of wet
wetter; wettest
1 a :consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
b of natural gas :containing appreciable quantities of readily condensable hydrocarbons.
I think the fish is, by definition, wet. A fish is completely covered in water when it is underwater.
First define wet, and then we can discuss whether a fish is wet.