Pokemon vs Mortal Kombat!

Originally posted by NemeBro
Hm.

So I guess you're an idiot huh?

Since the obvious definition used was the first one. 🙂

Stop being an idiot. You are better than that.

Originally posted by Burning thought
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.

I realize that a human is capable of lying and a machine is not. But the reason I chose to compare you to an inanimate object that cannot think is because you are a tool. And I just figured that was close enough.

No fallacies that are actually fallacies are to be used, for one. And there are no real fallacies that have been pointed out anyway.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
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.

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.

Never seen an attack leave any permanent damage on a rock Pokemon. Aside from burning it.

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.

"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. 😮

It may be the intension of the pokedex but clearly it has a lot of general claims and overall, one line of text to describe a pokemon, if not two is hardly "a complete guide" to anything, seems to me like the scientists or the kids who update it are not too keen on making it as complete as it says on the tin. Well clearly research is not needed, when concerning the mythologies/legendary pokemon a theory or folklore is good enough.

perhaps when looking at all fiction, but I stil think having a mountain that hardly weighs and therefore its piecies are too light to be attracted/pulled back down to the Earth and can stay solid is a pretty weird phenomenon. If thats the case it makes me wonder why theres any point in bringing it up as a feat if we cannot understand it by logical terms and compare it to other fictions that do, at least to some degrees try and keep some things generally physical.

So it is fallible? you admit it? thats what this whole argument seems to be about, the credability of the dex, if you admit its fallible then were done here because if it can lie then we dont really know for sure without another source or two whether its speaking the truth, its fallible and its designers can be fallible (being humans, possibly even kids).

Not sure that contradicts the previous one, whats Machamps most recent one?

I can certainly be fallible yes, hence why me just claiming something is not good enough, especially if its a new claim. If I said Kain could destroy planets with a punch, I would have to show other sources to prove it, I alone would not be good enough. Well thats just unfortunate, theres simply no other source? perhaps the anime should be allowed in the future or something.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice

I realize that a human is capable of lying and a machine is not. But the reason I chose to compare you to an inanimate object that cannot think is because you are a tool. And I just figured that was close enough.

No fallacies that are actually fallacies are to be used, for one. And there are no real fallacies that have been pointed out anyway.

In a way I agree, I am the best tool for unwinding, powering down and collapsing the junk that consists of your argument, and most of your fallacy glued troll nonsense 😉 tried and tested without fail time and time again.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
If it is written by someone in the game, they're still >>>Us.

Overall on knowledge? sure, but their not much less fallible because their still human. Although, in some cases we can defeat their knowledge because we can have knowledge of the whole games, their series etc wheras individual characters do not necesserily have as much information.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Speculation.

People once speculated that the sun was hot. Good guess.

If it is written by someone in the game, they're still >>>Us.

So basically you admit that you have no proof and its merely speculation?

Kewl. 👆

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5saTBior7Fk&#t=3m25s

Scenario wins thread.

I won the thread the moment I typed my first letter in it.

Stop being stupid. You're better than that.

Stupidity implies what I do is done accidently, caused by my stupidity.

Every post I make has a purpose, if incapable of being comprehended by the likes of you.

Originally posted by Burning thought
It may be the intension of the pokedex but clearly it has a lot of general claims and overall, one line of text to describe a pokemon, if not two is hardly "a complete guide" to anything, seems to me like the scientists or the kids who update it are not too keen on making it as complete as it says on the tin. Well clearly research is not needed, when concerning the mythologies/legendary pokemon a theory or folklore is good enough.

Legends coming with descriptions of their legends? Weird. Not like all of them just have legends in the Pokedex. And no, the Pokedex is designed to be a complete guide by Oak's own words.

Originally posted by Burning thought
perhaps when looking at all fiction, but I stil think having a mountain that hardly weighs and therefore its piecies are too light to be attracted/pulled back down to the Earth and can stay solid is a pretty weird phenomenon. If thats the case it makes me wonder why theres any point in bringing it up as a feat if we cannot understand it by logical terms and compare it to other fictions that do, at least to some degrees try and keep some things generally physical.

It's not being picked up. It is moved. Where and how far? Idk.

Originally posted by Burning thought
So it is fallible? you admit it? thats what this whole argument seems to be about, the credability of the dex, if you admit its fallible then were done here because if it can lie then we dont really know for sure without another source or two whether its speaking the truth, its fallible and its designers can be fallible (being humans, possibly even kids).

A scientist is fallible. However, that does not make him wrong 100% of the time. And why wouldn't the source speak the truth? Encyclopedia's like to give information based on fact.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not sure that contradicts the previous one, whats Machamps most recent one?

I can certainly be fallible yes, hence why me just claiming something is not good enough, especially if its a new claim. If I said Kain could destroy planets with a punch, I would have to show other sources to prove it, I alone would not be good enough. Well thats just unfortunate, theres simply no other source? perhaps the anime should be allowed in the future or something.

"Its four muscled arms slam foes with powerful punches and chops at blinding speed."

Difference. You exist outside of the LoK universe. The Pokedex is inside the Pokemon universe. You are questioning something in-universe. And in a way, there are multiple sources. 313

Originally posted by Nephthys
So basically you admit that you have no proof and its merely speculation?

Kewl. 👆

I speculate that you are into some weird shit.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Legends coming with descriptions of their legends? Weird. Not like all of them just have legends in the Pokedex. And no, the Pokedex is designed to be a complete guide by Oak's own words.

It's not being picked up. It is moved. Where and how far? Idk.

A scientist is fallible. However, that does not make him wrong 100% of the time. And why wouldn't the source speak the truth? Encyclopedia's like to give information based on fact.

"Its four muscled arms slam foes with powerful punches and chops at blinding speed."

Difference. You exist outside of the LoK universe. The Pokedex is inside the Pokemon universe. You are questioning something in-universe. And in a way, there are multiple sources. 313

The point being that their happy to use theories/legends. "designed to be a complete guide"=/="is a complete guide of 100% fact".

Also why do they need to change it, update it and add new descriptions for the pokemon if the previous one was a complete guide already?

moved? I cannot see how it can be moved without being picked up, so how do you think he did it, pushed it? hm...you know, this whole moving mountains thing could not mean all at once come to think of it, e.g. technically humans can move mountains/build skyscrapers with thousands of tons of materials.

No, true but again, it questions what things he is correct in. Because either kids or for some reason a scientist put something in it like "melts anything" or "cannot be harmed by any attack". That and they accept theories/folklore as a good comment under a pokemon.

That sounds less full of hyperbole, "blinding speed" being a hard to gauge term but still more straight forward.

Why does that make a difference? the scientists/kids in the pokemon world are still under the same rules of what being fallible means as do the machines they build, you could argue they know more because they live in said world but dont forget its not just knowledge were talking about here, its the credability of an already fallible source.

I know some things about the Lokverse that most if not all characters in that verse dont know, thanks to the fact I can read comments from the directors about their story.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
I speculate that you are into some weird shit.

Yeah, theres pretty much no way I'm not getting off on this somehow.

Originally posted by Burning thought
The point being that their happy to use theories/legends. "designed to be a complete guide"=/="is a complete guide of 100% fact".

For legendary Pokemon that people don't believe exist, yeah, makes sense. I know. But you said it did not look like a complete guide. Oak says otherwise and he invented the first.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Also why do they need to change it, update it and add new descriptions for the pokemon if the previous one was a complete guide already?

New Pokemon are discovered, new things about previous Pokemon are discovered, some scientists focus on different of previous Pokemon, etc.

Originally posted by Burning thought
moved? I cannot see how it can be moved without being picked up, so how do you think he did it, pushed it? hm...you know, this whole moving mountains thing could not mean all at once come to think of it, e.g. technically humans can move mountains/build skyscrapers with thousands of tons of materials.

It can move mountains with one hand. I assume by pushing but tossing it is a better feat so...Pfft.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No, true but again, it questions what things he is correct in. Because either kids or for some reason a scientist put something in it like "melts anything" or "cannot be harmed by any attack". That and they accept theories/folklore as a good comment under a pokemon.

That sounds less full of hyperbole, "blinding speed" being a hard to gauge term but still more straight forward.

Developers will not use strictly scientific terms in a kids game. Legends need legends.

Where be there hyperbole?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Why does that make a difference? the scientists/kids in the pokemon world are still under the same rules of what being fallible means as do the machines they build, you could argue they know more because they live in said world but dont forget its not just knowledge were talking about here, its the credability of an already fallible source.

I know some things about the Lokverse that most if not all characters in that verse dont know, thanks to the fact I can read comments from the directors about their story.

It means they know more than you. And it means unless the Pokedex makes a contradiction(it does at times) or a fallacy(it does at times), you have no real right to question it.

And Professor Oak knows more about Pokemon than any of us, because he studies them.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
It means Free Nerve Ending. They exist a little bit under the skin. They can detect pressure on the body. If Tyranitar is hit, a lot of pressure will be put on this nerve endings. So, yes. You can get hurt by only a touch.

Is this something everyone has? Because I don't feel pain from a touch. Or is it rare?

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
The rupture is there because you hit it with a bat.

Yeah. So hitting it with the bat caused the thing that is draining the energy. Hitting it with the bat is not the thing that is draining the energy though.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Indestructible means it cannot be destroyed. Does nothing about it's stamina. Put on football gear and let someone beat on the parts where the padding is. You'll get tired sooner or later.

No......... You wouldn't. The guy swinging the bat would, sure. Tell me. What energy are you expending by.... not doing anything? Does the armor somehow absorb your energy to deflect the blows?

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
The developers do not care about Tyranitars Pokedex while typing Charizards.

Exactly. They are just typing crap.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Word of God can contradict itself, especially when you're talking about 600 some creatures with different skills. The rest of the Pokedex isn't being questioned, just the only things one might use as feats. They also are not paying attention to Pokedex entries in the past. There is only one Pokedex entry that says he can melt anything and that's an older one. I can easily say it has been retconned for the non-fallacy.

It said it more than once.

I know. The developers aren't paying attention when they write the pokedex. That's my point. They are just typing stuff that sounds cool. Heck, they don't even bother to implement the pokedex states in the game play of the very game it's in.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Nah, gameplay says you're wrong.

And gameplay > pokedex, huh? Good to know. Because gameplay pretty much says "screw you" to about half the pokedex entries.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
For legendary Pokemon that people don't believe exist, yeah, makes sense. I know. But you said it did not look like a complete guide. Oak says otherwise and he invented the first.

New Pokemon are discovered, new things about previous Pokemon are discovered, some scientists focus on different of previous Pokemon, etc.

It can move mountains with one hand. I assume by pushing but tossing it is a better feat so...Pfft.

Developers will not use strictly scientific terms in a kids game. Legends need legends.

Where be there hyperbole?

It means they know more than you. And it means unless the Pokedex makes a contradiction(it does at times) or a fallacy(it does at times), you have no real right to question it.

And Professor Oak knows more about Pokemon than any of us, because he studies them.

You said Oak said it was designed to be a complete guide, but regardless a complete guide does not consist of one or two sentences on a spiecies so either Oaks belief on what counts as "complete" is different to others i dont know.

But why would every description change, or a lot of them (assuming I am wrong to say all of them)?, surely some things must be right or important, like the mountain thing unless it was in error.

Maybe not, does not mean much though. Developers would not make feats for kids to look into too deeply to try and gauge physical strength either, just that something cool happened. But were doing that apprently, despite you saying earlier physics does not have to work in fiction, or in this one.

All the stuff about "melt anything", "unharmed by any attack" is hyperbole. "any", being the key word.

I have every right to question it as a source of information just like I can question most sources of evidence, until it has no fallacies, hyperbole or contradictions and theres no reason to belive a single word in it is false (probably impossible considering humans are responsible of it). Someone knowing more than someone else, even within a game does not make them unfallible. For example, Kain in LoK speaks of the Elder God near the end of the game of how it burrows, when really Kain has no idea of what it does, all hes done is fight it in one room and defeat it.

Oak is also human, he can be guilty of any of the human reactions/fallacies we are. If his knowledge or at least, that which he uses in the Dex was so vast, and if it was important to him for it to be so complete then it would have far more detailed information on the pokemon, and would have zero errors.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Is this something everyone has? Because I don't feel pain from a touch. Or is it rare?

Yes, everyone has these. And of course not. Depends on the force of the touch.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yeah. So hitting it with the bat caused the thing that is draining the energy. Hitting it with the bat is not the thing that is draining the energy though.

Ever heard the expression "Got the wind knocked out of me?" That is what the bat is doing to the car. Just with gas instead obviously.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No......... You wouldn't. The guy swinging the bat would, sure. Tell me. What energy are you expending by.... not doing anything? Does the armor somehow absorb your energy to deflect the blows?

You're body does not like to take blows, even if padded. If said guy hitting you were to knock you to the ground during this beating, you're body would not suffer at all and you would get tired eventually.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Exactly. They are just typing crap.

Does not invalidate it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It said it more than once.

I know. The developers aren't paying attention when they write the pokedex. That's my point. They are just typing stuff that sounds cool. Heck, they don't even bother to implement the pokedex states in the game play of the very game it's in.

Where is it said more than once that Charizard can melt anything, no exceptions?

Adding stuff for the sake of coolness is still word of God.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And gameplay > pokedex, huh? Good to know. Because gameplay pretty much says "screw you" to about half the pokedex entries.

Nah. Gameplay>1 Pokedex entry that is later retconned to make more sense.

Originally posted by Burning thought
You said Oak said it was [b]designed to be a complete guide, but regardless a complete guide does not consist of one or two sentences on a spiecies so either Oaks belief on what counts as "complete" is different to others i dont know. [/B]

It certainly doesn't look complete but Oak says he wanted to create a complete guide of all the Pokemon. Which is one of the games objectives. This is something that legitimately cannot be argued against.

Originally posted by Burning thought
But why would every description change, or a lot of them (assuming I am wrong to say all of them)?, surely some things must be right or important, like the mountain thing unless it was in error.

The mountain thing is admittedly only mentioned in one entry. Several of them are known to repeat, like the 1000 punches in 2 seconds. Sometimes wording is different but a lot of the time it is in effect the same meaning. Like this:

FR Pokedex:"Its four ruggedly developed arms can launch a flurry of 1,000 punches in just two seconds. "

D Pokedex:"It punches with its four arms at blinding speed. It can launch 1,000 punches in two seconds."

Originally posted by Burning thought
Maybe not, does not mean much though. Developers would not make feats for kids to look into too deeply to try and gauge physical strength either, just that something cool happened. But were doing that apprently, despite you saying earlier physics does not have to work in fiction, or in this one.

Physics really do not have to be strictly followed in videogames. Like ever.

Originally posted by Burning thought
All the stuff about "melt anything", "unharmed by any attack" is hyperbole. "any", being the key word.

Well those are fallacies, not hyperbole. Hyperbole is when things are exaggerated. And actually the unharmed by any attack makes sense as it is talking about a rock armor body.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I have every right to question it as a source of information just like I can question most sources of evidence, until it has no fallacies, hyperbole or contradictions and theres no reason to belive a single word in it is false (probably impossible considering humans are responsible of it). Someone knowing more than someone else, even within a game does not make them unfallible. For example, Kain in LoK speaks of the Elder God near the end of the game of how it burrows, when really Kain has no idea of what it does, all hes done is fight it in one room and defeat it.

I've never said they were infallible. But they are smarter than you when concerning matters inside their own universe. Especially when they make a living studying these creatures.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Oak is also human, he can be guilty of any of the human reactions/fallacies we are. If his knowledge or at least, that which he uses in the Dex was so vast, and if it was important to him for it to be so complete then it would have far more detailed information on the pokemon, and would have zero errors.

More detailed information like what? And Oak is not the only Professor behind the Pokedex.

Apparently Miltank produces 5 gallons of milk daily.

WTF?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Apparently Miltank produces 5 gallons of milk daily.

WTF?

Justified. A smart person would invest in milk rather than a lot of potions. At least early on. 😛

I wonder if I am reading the argument right, since it seems to be "humans are sometimes wrong, therefore all pokedex entries are lies." Either that or "the guys who spend their lives studying pokemon are wrong because pokemon might disobey physics." Paraphrased, of course, but that is the gist of it.

Trying to question or imply that a scientists doesn't know anything about their field seems faulty, but maybe that's just me. I mean, I wouldn't immediately distrust everything a zoologist says about animals.

Please tag me out. I'm tired. >.<