ma·te·ri·al
   [muh-teer-ee-uhl] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed: Stone is a durable material.
2.
anything that serves as crude or raw matter to be used or developed: Wood pulp is the raw material from which paper is made.
3.
any constituent element.
Since I am a person capable of thought, it is clear to me the intended definition of the word "material" there corresponds with the second definition I just listed.
Hell, maybe it even has something to do with translation between Japanese and English. I don't really know.
Originally posted by MooCowofJusticeHm.
ma·te·ri·al
   [muh-teer-ee-uhl] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed: Stone is a durable material.
2.
anything that serves as crude or raw matter to be used or developed: Wood pulp is the raw material from which paper is made.
3.
any constituent element.Since I am a person capable of thought, it is clear to me the intended definition of the word "material" there corresponds with the second definition I just listed.
Hell, maybe it even has something to do with translation between Japanese and English. I don't really know.
So I guess you're an idiot huh?
Since the obvious definition used was the first one. 🙂
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Stop being an idiot and pretending like you cannot grasp the argument, and that a technicality defeats the argument.
I am sorry but you use too many comparisons that simply, are not comparisons so how am I supposed to "grasp" an argument that does not make sense in the first place?
Too many fallacies, hyperbole etc has been pointed out, a failure of logic is still a failure in the gaming universe or outside of it.
Originally posted by Burning thought
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.
The Pokedex is meant to be a complete guide that records information of all Pokemon. Research obviously happens in some form or another, otherwise one would get all the information needed from just seeing a Pokemon. If they're just making things up without testing them, there would be no need for me to catch them. In fact, I know at least one has had its hair looked at through a microscope.
Originally posted by Burning thought
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?
Yes, people know what gravity is. And fiction abuses the law of gravity to hell and back, Pokemon being a mild offender in all honesty.
Originally posted by Burning thought
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?
Never seen an attack leave any permanent damage on a rock Pokemon. Aside from burning it.
Originally posted by Burning thought
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 have yet to see a hyperbole aside from the fallacies which I fully accept as worthless. Yes, it is falliable. However, you cannot disprove something by saying it is capable of making mistakes.
Originally posted by Burning thought
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.
"It is said that Charizard's fire burns hotter if it has experienced harsh battles."
Indeed you aren't. But you know, I know you know Legacy of Kain junk and you're fallibe right? Well, the Pokedex is written by Scientists or at the very least children who live in the Pokemon world. However, whereas I can always ask another Kain fan for info if I doubt you, you are actually unable to here. 😮
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.
Scientists.
Originally posted by Burning thought
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?
I think you're getting a little too stuck on the science aspect of pokemon. You're failing to grasp that pokemon break every biological law I care to name, in addition to several physical ones. Are you trying to argue that rhinoceros made of rock is biologically or physically viable? Or a snail made of lava? Or a turtle with mechanical water cannons growing out of its back? There are living clouds of poison gas, 50 foot snakes made of steel, killer ice cubes, metal bugs, animated toxic sludge and piles of garbage, and whatever else you care to name.
Seems like completely arbitrary skepticism to me, if you'll accept physical impossibilities like this without a second thought but moving a mountain is suddenly too much.
Seriously, several pokemon can manipulate gravity or create alternate dimensions from nothing. Basically any rock type can pull a magnitude 10 earthquake or rock slide out of nowhere, any ice type can cause a blizzard or hail wherever it wants, pretty much any pokemon can control the weather, from making it rain to intensifying the freaking sun or making a sandstorm in the middle of a city. In that light, the "no collateral damage" argument comes across as really kinda contrived.