@Deleted User I mean... I feel like people don't play Pokemon for the difficulty

It's got a lot of different things going for it from a design perspective

Initial 3 choices create 3 initial branching paths. Then random encounters finding certain pokemon early, blah blah

So it's a relatively simple game... but it's like a the joy of random encounters and pulling certain pokemon

Every play through I'd always try to get an Abra after Cerulean City

The gameplay is equivalent to a RPG menu scroller

@Hagar You can even solve "Final Fantasy" in some senses... if you're a power player

A la: FFX, you always pick there characters with the multi hit limit breaks

I forget what the legit strongest party was

Waka was it in, every time though

Because his Blitzball multi hits. 9999 dmg cap * (multihit)

lulu has a multihit limit but it's really hard for her to hit damage cap

Fire has always been shit just because of it's type str/weaknesses

Grass, fire, ice? <--- were very rare types in GenI. But that's going to change based on the metagame

There's a wiki that has all these pokemon's base stats and shti

So...

Typing matters, moveset possibilities and base stats

oh shit, it's the real actual cummunist boi and gobobler

```In the contemporary English language, the nouns Polack or Polak are ethnic slurs and derogatory references to a person of Polish descent. It is an Anglicisation of the Polish masculine noun Polak, which denotes a...```

Wikipedia tells me it's a slur

🤷‍♂️

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polack

I have a polish guy in my server and he talks about how stupid the government is

and how boomer right wing it is

It's one of those that's generally acceptable words though

You're Polish... from Poland

Yea... it sounds like he's talking about contradiction, incoherence or 🤷‍♂️

Not really important for continuing the convo

and oops pronouns :\

Also, why in the fuck did companions in guilt come up?

It's a shit argument that's based on an equivocation somewhere in it

Rem's especially

digging the holes deeper 😰

I ... don't think I wanna get baited into defending Bakemonogatari

And Nisio Isin.... especially considering I hate him

@Deleted User Do you actually dislike Bakemonogatari?

It's... almost basically head and shoulders above the field but still ... meh

So it's not trash, since the author tries

But that's what's gross, he is almost like... trying so hard it's post ironic

"BRUH, when I make fun of the themes of anime... using the themes of anime"

weird comparison

SAO to Monogatari <:MonkaS:643820797605183488>

oh ... god... now semantic anti-realists ?

^ actually is self-harm against rules? Hrm

<:Feelsweirdman:644895953064820776>

What evidence do you have that ordinary people are not spawned by an infectious virus?

anti-philosophy gang needs to rise up

WHO THE F IS BRAD HOOKER oh

Another worthless moral philosopher

At least he studied under Derek Parfit but meh

I'm getting baited by papers I know that are going to be utter trash

Fuck

Fuck

fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Your father. Go to your room. Stop posting

Or you're grounded

Triggered by non-eliminativists

I mean, you could choose to "eliminate" occams razor the strongest eliminativist principle but...

What in the actual fuck does that mean to you?

Believing you can't make a distinction between identity and non identity?

🤣

And yes... all representative concepts are false as per to the concept they represent... that's obviously true

I can't imagine how this is a novel idea

```Nevertheless, the reply reveals that a mental fictionalist ought to be a kind of quietist. ``` I'm kind of biting, but that's just not the case... you can be a fictionalists of all sorts, enjoy saying false things, knowing they're literally false

So........ you're not bound to norms of old pragmatic discourse. IE: You ought not assert X unless you think X is true

Warranted assertibility

Yes? Generally? I mean, I think the world that best benefits me also happens to benefit others.

A world where I have a consumptive demand for the african slaves making blood diamonds is a better world where there isn't the demand

Granted, there's *an even better conceivable world* where there's a different demand, rather than blood diamonds

Well, this is all fictional discourse, right?

So the demonstration of the principle is that hypothesizing and constructing counterfactual situations are fictions, they are not literally true

So we've slipped into fictionalism... as always happens

So it's like... what do you want from me? To legitimately have the emotional attachment to them? Because I don't think I'll ever have that

Or do you want me to speak about the principles or belief system I have on how one ought to think about this type of hypothetical?

Ok, so my emotional attachment seems irrelevant now. So what did you want answered?

Why is that silly? If I imagine people slaving away in African, that sounds undesirable

Just the idea of merely imaging it is unpleasant

Boredom, drudgery

Heat, humidity

<:pepeLMAO:644901342216847388> fair enough

Yeah, same. I benefit from the byproduct of their labor, yes

I wasn't sure if that's what you meant to say? If you benefit from making me annoyed imagining this hypothetical?

Or receiving the benefits of their labor

Also, it could be both

Enjoying the benefits + enjoying triggering someone

You, I think, most likely... people forced to live in those conditions or merely watch people slave their lives away will necessarily be more empathic towards them though

@Castore You should look over the syllogism and see how it's very bad... intuitively

And there's an equivocation... I went over it twice

```P1. According to the anti-realist about morality, there are no categorical normative reasons.
p2. If there are no categorical normative reasons, then there are no epistemic reasons for belief.
p3. But there are epistemic reasons for belief.
p4. So there are categorical reasons. (From 2, 3)
c. So the moral anti-realist theory is false. (From 1, 4)```

And this is why writing is way more important / valuable

He's going from a particular to a general, so he's actually hiding the induction in the deductive premise

"There are no epistemic reasons for belief" means what? ... to me this means agents have reasons to believe particulars. But this doesn't get you to categorical normative reasons

So he's confirming the antecedent

Cat Norm reasons infer epistemic reasons for belief?
P -> Q
Q seems intuitively true

And then he attempts to modus tollens based off the Q

Oh, it's not quite modus tollens, it's another principle

But that's what they're doing

@Deleted User You're doing hempel's dilemma in just defining what physical is

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#HemDil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel%27s_dilemma if you want the short one