Pokemon vs Mortal Kombat!

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel

Indeed, they are far above us as far as modern science goes. Time machines and shit. And apparently, it isn't throwing mountains like I had thought. It's just moving them. Much more eco friendly. And yes, rarely stronger Pokemon tend not to be in the environment. Unless the place is isolated somewhat.

It's even more common sense that things can't breathe in space. Tons of cartoon characters still do it though. And no really, a developers statement is still better than common sense. Such is the world of fiction.

It does.

You said it was important to look at it within a fictional standpoint. It's written by scientists in high techy encyclopedia. Not much gets written down in encyclopedia's designed to record rather accurate info is likely to be exaggerated.

I think the fact thier just "moving it" does not change the fact theres major eco problems that go with that movement, where are they moving it to exactly? a few feet to the left, its such an ambigious thing to say over something major.

Cartoon characters are no in question here, Pokemon are. The developers seem to have created a mountain light enough, that does not fall apart and according to you their ignorant to science anyway, this all sounds like a lot of claims, if the developers are so stupid then their fictional scientists must be even more so.

Can you show me the quote from the Pokedex that says it cannot be harmed again please?

Certainly, from a fictional standing point its likely scientists designed it, but science itself is not unfallible. We already have general statements, hyperbole etc, all this "not likely" stuff is hardly a rock hard claim. Science made a fallible object, and filled it with general statements, hyperbole and some things that must based on other statements (charizard melts everything, the other pokemon is immune etc) are wrong. Also, how do you explain why whoever does this (science?) add folklore? clearly the dex does not just hold facts.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think the fact thier just "moving it" does not change the fact theres major eco problems that go with that movement, where are they moving it to exactly? a few feet to the left, its such an ambigious thing to say over something major.

I dunno. Likely not far since there is no need to radically change the environment.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Cartoon characters are no in question here, Pokemon are. The developers seem to have created a mountain light enough, that does not fall apart and according to you their ignorant to science anyway, this all sounds like a lot of claims, if the developers are so stupid then their fictional scientists must be even more so.

If I bothered, I could probably come up with a video game example. I'm just tired. And no, that is completely wrong. Just because a developer doesn't know much science doesn't mean their fictional scientists are stupid. Mary Shelly likely was no super genius but Victor Frankenstein created life. Just one example.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Can you show me the quote from the Pokedex that says it cannot be harmed again please?

"Its body can't be harmed by any sort of attack, so it is very eager to make challenges against enemies. "

Body, read armor, cannot be harmed. Tyranitar itself is vulnerable to pain and fainting, but no lasting damage.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Certainly, from a fictional standing point its likely scientists designed it, but science itself is not unfallible. We already have general statements, hyperbole etc, all this "not likely" stuff is hardly a rock hard claim. Science made a fallible object, and filled it with general statements, hyperbole and some things that must based on other statements (charizard melts everything, the other pokemon is immune etc) are wrong. Also, how do you explain why whoever does this (science?) add folklore? clearly the dex does not just hold facts.

One has to prove it's failings. Aside from making a few fallacies, I do not see any hyperbole. And they add folklore because Legendary Pokemon are creatures of legend. So, add folklore.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
"Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally"

That is the definition of a hyperbole. You have not actually sited a single one.

Also, you have no right to claim the Pokedex is garbage when it is, in all mediums of Pokemon, considered a great source of information about Pokemon. Hell, I distinctly remember Pokenerds coming up to me in-game and having a nerdgasm at it.

Yes, we did. Fallacies and hyperbole, Machamp tossing anyone over the horizon being a main example, did you forgot? Some more:

Rhyhorn:

It doesn't care if there is anything in its way. It just charges and destroys all obstacles.

Rhyhorn hit/kills people along with other Pokemon then, since it doesn't care if there is anything in its way, it just destroys it. Imagine a stampede. Except for a Tyranitar, or a Regice, or a Magcargo... of course.

Hitmonlee:

When kicking, the sole of its foot turns as hard as a diamond on impact and destroys its enemy.

''As hard as a diamond'' can be taken has either hyperbole or metaphor. If you take every line literally then you cannot read poetry. ''Destroys its enemy'' = No limits fallacy ONCE again.

Regice:

Regice cloaks itself with frigid air of negative 328 degrees F. Things will freeze solid just by going near this Pokémon.

It doesn't require an explanation, it's plain absurd.

Not to mention Magcargo's exaggerated statement saying its body being hotter than the sun. And sure, the Pokedex may be a source of information but some of its content hasn't been meant to be taken seriously and they has no basis in fact. Never mind they have no effect on the game either, they're just a pile of meaningless bullshit.

Stop bitching about the No Limits Fallacy bullshit. We don't even ****ing use those here. >_>

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Yes, we did. Fallacies and hyperbole, Machamp tossing anyone over the horizon being a main example, did you forgot?

Anything with enough strength to move a mountain can launch nearly everything over the horizon in Pokemon. Only the really big ones would be exceptions.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
[b]Rhyhorn:

It doesn't care if there is anything in its way. It just charges and destroys all obstacles.

Rhyhorn hit/kills people along with other Pokemon then, since it doesn't care if there is anything in its way, it just destroys it. Imagine a stampede. Except for a Tyranitar, or a Regice, or a Magcargo... of course. [/B]

Reaching aren't we? That entry is not meant to glorify Ryhorn, merely states that the personality of this creature is rather simple: Go straight.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
[b]Hitmonlee:

When kicking, the sole of its foot turns as hard as a diamond on impact and destroys its enemy.

''As hard as a diamond'' can be taken has either hyperbole or metaphor. If you take every line literally then you cannot read poetry. ''Destroys its enemy'' = No limits fallacy ONCE again.[/B]

Considering the other things in the pokedex, a sole as hard as diamond is not that strange. Is much more logical than dropping in a metaphor. Destroys it's enemy is again meant to mean that it does damage, since there is no 1HKO kicking move iirc.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
[b]Regice:

Regice cloaks itself with frigid air of negative 328 degrees F. Things will freeze solid just by going near this Pokémon.

It doesn't require an explanation, it's plain absurd.

Not to mention Magcargo's exaggerated statement saying its body being hotter than the sun. And sure, the Pokedex may be a source of information but some of its content hasn't been meant to be taken seriously and they has no basis in fact. Never mind they have no effect on the game either, they're just a pile of meaningless bullshit. [/B]

Not really. No more absurd than other Pokedex entries.

You haven't proven anything except that you can complain a lot. Congrats.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
I dunno. Likely not far since there is no need to radically change the environment.

If I bothered, I could probably come up with a video game example. I'm just tired. And no, that is completely wrong. Just because a developer doesn't know much science doesn't mean their fictional scientists are stupid. Mary Shelly likely was no super genius but Victor Frankenstein [b]created life. Just one example.

"Its body can't be harmed by any sort of attack, so it is very eager to make challenges against enemies. "

Body, read armor, cannot be harmed. Tyranitar itself is vulnerable to pain and fainting, but no lasting damage.

One has to prove it's failings. Aside from making a few fallacies, I do not see any hyperbole. And they add folklore because Legendary Pokemon are creatures of legend. So, add folklore. [/B]

"likely" not far, you do realise most of these ideas are your own? Not necesserily supported in the fiction.

But were not talking about creating life, were talking about simple physics, e.g. gravity. Something every junior in school could probably tell a lot more about than Pokemon scientists apprently.

"cannot be harmed by any attack", is hyperbole and is pretty general, we dont know what enemies the dex is refering to....

well it does not say armor in that description does it.. Thats what I wanted to know.

Oh so you admit it has fallacies, ergo a logical short coming and your using it as a factual source? and it claiming a Charizard can melt anything is hyperbole, for one, "destroys all foes" etc. Fallacies, hyperbole etc. Add folklore onto that and we have a source that could be talking about anything, either a fanciful folklore, some random general statement based on a failure of logic and your defending the Dex like its unfallible or something.... 😬

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Stop bitching about the No Limits Fallacy bullshit. We don't even ****ing use those here. >_>

Were clever enough not to apprently (most of the time anyway) but the Pokemon scientists are not.

Originally posted by Burning thought
"likely" not far, you do realise most of these ideas are your own? Not necesserily supported in the fiction.

How far it pushes it is actually irrelevant to the feat so it's not like it matters.

Originally posted by Burning thought
But were not talking about creating life, were talking about simple physics, e.g. gravity. Something every junior in school could probably tell a lot more about than Pokemon scientists apprently.

You said that since developers didn't know science, their scientists would logically no know. I used one fictional example to disprove that. Point is, science is often ignored in fiction.

Originally posted by Burning thought
"cannot be harmed by any attack", is hyperbole and is pretty general, we dont know what enemies the dex is refering to....

well it does not say armor in that description does it.. Thats what I wanted to know.

Strong Pokemon probably. It's body cannot be harmed, which is logical considering it is rock armor.

No, but Armor Pokemon and given the fact that it appears to have an armored body and armor is known to be quite sturdy.

Remind me again why we're talking about a Pokemon not in this thread?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Oh so you admit it has fallacies, ergo a logical short coming and your using it as a factual source? and it claiming a Charizard can melt anything is hyperbole, for one, "destroys all foes" etc. Fallacies, hyperbole etc. Add folklore onto that and we have a source that could be talking about anything, either a fanciful folklore, some random general statement based on a failure of logic and your defending the Dex like its unfallible or something.... 😬

A source which you can't prove wrong. Charizard was retconned with a newer Pokedex, making it no longer a fallacy. Legendary Pokemon come with their legends. Things done in legend still qualify as feats so it is irrelevant. And yes, I am defending an item in the game that is known for, oddly enough, knowing shit about Pokemon.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Pokedex is a bit better than a broken clock.

And just because it's fallible sometimes doesn't affect other times. For example, no one is arguing Beheeyem's Pokedex entry doesn't make sense. And that one is really the only one needed to write this thread down as spite.

Basically it says Mickey's first cartoon was Steamboat Willie. Which isn't strictly true I believe. Two were made before it but I don't know whether they were shown in theaters. I could look it up but I don't mind.

I was speaking metaphorically. My point was that just because something is right a few times that doesn't mean that its omniscient and unfallible.

Yeah, it does. Something is either fallible or not. That is the literal definition of the word: 'Something that is capable of fault.' Theres no middle ground here. Either it perfectly records the pokemon abilities or it is subject to scrutiny. Now I'm not saying that we should throw them out as evidence, just that we shouldn't take the entries as absolute fact the way you guys are. The entries that make sense can be taken the same way as if any character in the game said it, as 'well thats seems to be reliable', not as facts, but as things that logically seem to be accurate. But the things that don't make sense should be thrown out as bullshit. Basically the Pokedex is not Word of God, and shouldn't be treated as such.

If they were made but not shown, do they still count?

Originally posted by Nephthys
I was speaking metaphorically. My point was that just because something is right a few times that doesn't mean that its omniscient and unfallible.

Yeah, it does. Something is either fallible or not. That is the literal definition of the word: 'Something that is capable of fault.' Theres no middle ground here. Either it perfectly records the pokemon abilities or it is subject to scrutiny. Now [b]I'm not saying that we should throw them out as evidence, just that we shouldn't take the entries as absolute fact the way you guys are. The entries that make sense can be taken the same way as if any character in the game said it, as 'well thats seems to be reliable', not as facts, but as things that logically seem to be accurate. But the things that don't make sense should be thrown out as bullshit. Basically the Pokedex is not Word of God, and shouldn't be treated as such.

If they were made but not shown, do they still count? [/B]

Aside from some fallacies, the Pokedex seems perfectly fine.

I don't, fallacies like Charizard being able to melt anything are worthless. Among others. However, the problem comes when trying to decide what is bullshit and what is not. In a fictional world where absurd things happen, how do you sort through things and decide which are the most absurd? Also, people are going to have different opinions on what they consider bullshit or not. So it's inevitable that some will consider something the Pokedex says as valid while others refuse to believe it because it falls under what they deem to be bullshit.

I'd imagine.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Anything with enough strength to move a mountain can launch nearly everything over the horizon in Pokemon. Only the really big ones would be exceptions.

Reaching aren't we? That entry is not meant to glorify Ryhorn, merely states that the personality of this creature is rather simple: Go straight.

Considering the other things in the pokedex, a sole as hard as diamond is not that strange. Is much more logical than dropping in a metaphor. Destroys it's enemy is again meant to mean that it does damage, since there is no 1HKO kicking move iirc.

Not really. No more absurd than other Pokedex entries.

You haven't proven anything except that you can complain a lot. Congrats.

That doesn't take the fact it's an exaggerated statement, thus hyperbole. We're still waiting on you to prove he can do it or if he has done it or it if somehow this affects the actual game, etc. Otherwise we can't trust this in a versus fight 'cause it's null and obsolete.

And destroy all obstacles, except... you know, Tyranitar. We made some progress, though, you didn't took the entry literally. Machamp tossing anyone is not meant to glorify Machamp either then, merely states that this muscular creature is: Strong = Hyperbole.

Other entries just as Tac said just contradict each other. And just because there are more exaggerated entries doens't mean this one isn't one of them. 'As hard as diamond' can be also a figure of speech, just to emphasize that this Pokemon delivers strong kicks. 'Destroy its enemy' has no limit = No limits fallacy.

Yes, really...

I don't have to prove your claims. Your not proving anything with your ''science'' theories.

It's painfully obvious to anyone that's ever been involved in Pokemon, and anyone with a brain, that Pokemon have control over their powers. Which is why people can catch and train Koffing and Weezing, hug Muk, pet Ponyta, and shit like that.

None of this means the Pokedex is hyperbole. Stop being ****ing stupid.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
That doesn't take the fact it's an exaggerated statement, thus hyperbole. We're still waiting on you to prove he can do it or if he has done it or it if somehow this affects the actual game, etc. Otherwise we can't trust this in a versus fight 'cause it's null and obsolete.

You have no right to claim it is an exaggerated statement to begin with. Nothing in the game indicates that it is.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
And destroy all obstacles, except... you know, Tyranitar. We made some progress, though, you didn't took the entry literally. Machamp tossing anyone is not meant to glorify Machamp either then, merely states that this muscular creature is: Strong = Hyperbole.

Ah, I see. So anything the Pokedex says that indicates that a Pokemon might be strong is hyperbole. Good to ****ing know you're not being biased matey.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Other entries just as Tac said just contradict each other. And just because there are more exaggerated entries doens't mean this one isn't one of them. 'As hard as diamond' can be also a figure of speech, just to emphasize that this Pokemon delivers strong kicks. 'Destroy its enemy' has no limit = No limits fallacy.

Destroy it's enemies is actually to vague to be considered a No-limits fallacy. All it's enemies sounds better in that regard.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Yes, really...

I don't have to prove your claims. Your not proving anything with your ''science'' theories.

Nah, you're just trying to disprove the Pokedex. It's quite humorous actually. ****ing game doesn't know what the **** it's talking about I guess.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
How far it pushes it is actually irrelevant to the feat so it's not like it matters.

You said that since developers didn't know science, their scientists would logically no know. I used one fictional example to disprove that. Point is, science is often ignored in fiction.

Strong Pokemon probably. It's body cannot be harmed, which is logical considering it is rock armor.

No, but Armor Pokemon and given the fact that it appears to have an armored body and armor is known to be quite sturdy.

Remind me again why we're talking about a Pokemon not in this thread?

A source which you can't prove wrong. Charizard was retconned with a newer Pokedex, making it no longer a fallacy. Legendary Pokemon come with their legends. Things done in legend still qualify as feats so it is irrelevant. And yes, I am defending an item in the game that is known for, oddly enough, knowing shit about Pokemon.

Maybe not but the root of the matter is what evidence gives a clear idea of how the Pokedex source comes up with its information.

Well my point is that a realistic scientific law like gravity is known by everyone. Science is often ignored? so your saying theres no science, such as physics, biology etc here then?

Probably, but we dont know do we. Its generally saying it cannot be harmed by any attack and your evidence is that it has rock armour, as if no creature in Pokemon can damage rock armor?

Because it, and many other pokemon listings/descriptions disprove the pokedex as a literal factual piece of equipment because its full of hyperbole, folklore and overall, things that are not necesserily true, ergo its fallible.

I dont have to prove a negative, although I dont know what you mean by that, it has failures of logic and fanciful claims based on hyperbole, therefore I have everything I need to claim it fallible. Charizard is not the only one questioned here, although I would like to see the newest pokedex entry for it. Seems to me it simply "knows" things, or shit as you say it, I know "shit" but I am not an unfallible source.

You really don't follow directions well at all.

You may know shit, but you're saying you could not know something about yourself. Like I can't ****ing believe you if I asked you what your birthday was.

Not sure if were argueing if the Pokedex knows about itself, what a funny thing to say. Also you may not belive me if I was a bare faced liar.

Stop being an idiot and pretending like you cannot grasp the argument, and that a technicality defeats the argument.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Aside from some fallacies, the Pokedex seems perfectly fine.

I don't, fallacies like Charizard being able to melt anything are worthless. Among others. However, the problem comes when trying to decide what is bullshit and what is not. In a fictional world where absurd things happen, how do you sort through things and decide which are the most absurd? Also, people are going to have different opinions on what they consider bullshit or not. So it's inevitable that some will consider something the Pokedex says as valid while others refuse to believe it because it falls under what they deem to be bullshit.

I'd imagine.

Said fallacies prove that it is a fallible construct.

Just debate over the absurdities. Or, alternatively, just throw the goddamn Pokedex out altogether. We have no idea where the info is coming from nor the reliability of it. Its basically no more believable than a rumour at this point.

Nah.

The only reason those fallacies are fallacies is because we've applied them to the multiverse of gaming. In universe, where they're actually intended to be read, they are not fallacies.

Even the parts that directly contradict each other?

I can't think of any that do that, so yeah.

And don't use the Mew example. It's painfully obvious that it does contain the DNA of all Pokemon, it even has the move Transform.