This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Verbatim
Pages: 1 ... 475476477 478479 ... 1601
14281
« on: September 01, 2016, 01:45:54 PM »
The main point of any argument ever made by anybody ever:
"I believe this because it makes me feel good"
Speak for yourself.
14282
« on: September 01, 2016, 01:43:27 PM »
I'm guessing you can have a few different Pokemon with a Z move The way the Z-ring works, I think they're having it so you can only have one Pokémon with a Z-move at a time. But yeah--nothing is gonna make me like the idea of a free kill move. It just seems inherently toxic.
14283
« on: September 01, 2016, 11:49:28 AM »
Honestly Mega Evolutions should be removed. I mean, they're cool and all, but they make the game a total joke. I know Pokémon isn't supposed to be a challenging game, but still.
Well, battle mechanics are added specifically with multiplayer in mind, not single player. Single player has always been piss easy unless you self-impose some challenging rules, like in a nuzlocke.
14284
« on: September 01, 2016, 11:45:41 AM »
You know I'd like those trainer moves a lot more if they didn't have that permanent smile stuck on their faces. What happened to the older games when they looked serious? Even in Black/White when fighting your rival and the champion your character looked serious.
Now it's just constant C:
Yeah, I caught that too. Just looks silly.
14285
« on: September 01, 2016, 11:45:07 AM »
Honestly, fuck this "Z-move" shit. If all they're gonna end up being is just high-power moves that are capable of OHKOing anything, then that's just stupid and boring. But what else could they do? What other effects could they have?
I was hoping they'd have lasting effects like changing the weather, terrain or stats of all Pokemon or something. Apart from taking up your item slot I think there should be some sort of drawback to it that really makes you think about using it.
The drawback is only being able to use it once, and having it be a set type, I guess.
14286
« on: September 01, 2016, 11:03:52 AM »
Verb you antisemite, why does Ornstien have to echo like that?
cause, y'know, orn stein
14287
« on: September 01, 2016, 11:02:18 AM »
Dunno if I could say that I'd be glad someone left this site.
honestly this is how i feel too but there are some users i just don't miss
14288
« on: September 01, 2016, 10:48:28 AM »
Honestly, fuck this "Z-move" shit. If all they're gonna end up being is just high-power moves that are capable of OHKOing anything, then that's just stupid and boring. But what else could they do? What other effects could they have?
14289
« on: September 01, 2016, 10:46:28 AM »
are alolan forms battle sensitive like mega evolutuons or do they last outside of battle?
They last outside of battle, and that's just how they... are in this region. Like, you can't change the form, or anything, and you won't be able to get normal forms unless you trade them from elsewhere. That's what I gather.
14290
« on: September 01, 2016, 10:06:53 AM »
 The prospect of a viable Raticate seems interesting. Why are people so convinced that Mega Evolutions are being removed?... Are people that stupid?
14291
« on: September 01, 2016, 09:05:18 AM »
Of course there would be a Direct right when I have class. Guess I'll watch later 
14292
« on: September 01, 2016, 08:04:41 AM »
Cindy, or whatever the fuck her name was.
hasn't left afaik, just pops in every once in awhile to stir shit OT Kupo Naoto
14293
« on: September 01, 2016, 07:34:18 AM »
it wasn't THAT good of a zinger, guys
not 11 likes good
i know it's fun to gang up on someone that you disagree with, but you look pretty silly and petty from the outside
14294
« on: August 31, 2016, 09:12:20 PM »
why would you put money ON your Steam account
if i buy something, i just put in my credit card info
Because it's the method I prefer. I don't see why this matters though.
i just don't get it i don't trust my money being anywhere other than my own pocket
14295
« on: August 31, 2016, 08:59:49 PM »
why would you put money ON your Steam account
if i buy something, i just put in my credit card info
14296
« on: August 31, 2016, 08:53:36 PM »
OH GOD, HOW DID I FORGET TO BRING THIS UP!? This happened to me. A lot. Okay, like three or four times--but way more than necessary. That's something they should've fixed, I think.
14297
« on: August 31, 2016, 08:33:08 PM »
why is that when a men has sex he's a stud, but when a woman has sex she's a whore?
i think this question has eclipsed "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" in terms of stupidity
14298
« on: August 31, 2016, 07:58:07 PM »
Verb should do LPs.
Yeah, I've dabbled in LP a few years ago. Trouble is, I can barely keep a tight schedule. Otherwise I'd be on top of that.
14299
« on: August 31, 2016, 06:28:39 PM »
tfw O&S made you drop the game for like 2 weeks.
tfw you finally gave in and had to use Solaire
tfw took me like 2 years to beat them solo
What finally clicked? What strategy did you end up using?
14300
« on: August 31, 2016, 04:23:37 PM »
It's not.
14301
« on: August 31, 2016, 01:22:46 PM »
precisely
So where the hell do you even disagree with me?
We agree on principle, but here's where we disagree: When I make a negative assertion, like "there is no monster under your bed," you assume that I'm speak strictly in terms of what can be empirically proven--when I'm not, necessarily. What I'm arguing is that all negative assertions are non-empirical by nature. We can seek empirical data to help assure us that the assertion is true or false, but empiricism only goes so far. In reality, there are limitless explanations for any given phenomena that go beyond empiricism. I, for one, am an empiricist. All I'm doing is merely acknowledging the other side of the coin.
14302
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:53:46 AM »
The key here is that it's entirely possible to disprove propositions with well-defined empirical content.
If you say to me "there is a perfectly normal black bear with no supernatural abilities sitting in my living room eating from a jar of honey" I can quite easily disprove this. I mean, even if you change the proposition I have still proven the negative of the original proposition, since there would certainly be no "perfectly normal black bear" turning invisible. i'll have to come back to this later, but i would just like to point out that that is not a negative assertion so of course you can disprove it if you add the word "no" or "not," i can just say "yes there is--you just can't see it" it's not that the bear is supernatural--you just have faulty vision, or something
14303
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:41:42 AM »
[...] we could go to the point where what you're defining is no longer a bear [...] not necessarily--if it got to that point, you would just have to expand your definition of bear obviously, what i'm seeing is some kind of magical reality-bending bear, but it's still a bear No, but if you have a totally non-empirical entity neither its existence nor non-existence is demonstrable. . .
precisely
14304
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:35:58 AM »
the unicorn could be invisible and ethereal
At which point I would fall back on epistemic noncognitivism, and claim that something defined entirely with non-empirical metaphysics is functionally meaningless, making the proposition void in the first instance.
this is what we call a "copout" the functional meaninglessness of some entity does not demonstrate its nonexistence
14305
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:31:52 AM »
What's your point?
It's absolutely, utterly, totally incorrect to think you can't prove a negative.
edited the post, i thought you were being rational for a second and being sarcastic because you can't prove that there isn't a unicorn in your shed--i can just keep postulating explanations for why you aren't currently seeing one
14306
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:28:22 AM »
"There is no unicorn in my shed".
Excuse me while I go prove this.
edit: i misread this the unicorn could be invisible and ethereal "There is no visible, corporeal unicorn in my shed." it could just be hiding when you look--you literally cannot prove that there's not
14307
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:24:16 AM »
I remember managing to get a full set in a trade with that one kid who inexplicably had every single card that you could ever want, but they were all totaled with water damage to the point where there was obvious discoloration and whatnot.
I didn't care, though--I was in it for the duels, not the collector's value.
Then my friends proceeded to ban Exodia from play as soon as I showed them.
14308
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:20:40 AM »
and the only person cheeky enough to claim otherwise is Meta. literally wat
you've argued many times that it's possible to prove a negative, which would technically nullify any burden of proof out there
14309
« on: August 31, 2016, 10:42:46 AM »
Yes, it should, and the only person cheeky enough to claim otherwise is Meta.
The thing about proving negative assertions is that, even if you could do it, there is zero obligation to do so. If you take that logic in stride and apply it to positive assertions as well, I can just apply Hitchen's razor and call it a day.
14310
« on: August 31, 2016, 09:00:55 AM »
Pages: 1 ... 475476477 478479 ... 1601
|
Show Posts