Recent content by Chiki

Hi everyone. Diancie is one of my favorite Pokemon along with Celebi, so I naturally wanted to build a team based on those two cuties. I'm looking for a team with which I can ladder relatively reliably and play consistently, so I'd really appreciate any help you guys are willing to give to...

I really like your teams, especially the Celebi+Keldeo+Diancie one. Could you make me a balance team based on SD Mega Scizor? I'd really appreciate it.

I used to be a psych major, so I have some empirical evidence in favor of this, as well. I'll post it below. Doesn't matter how wide it is. They all have one defining trait which is dangerous (not in general, but to have relationshps with): http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe05.html...

The right thing to do is break up. Borderlines are really dangerous people (speaking from personal experience).

You might want to check the philosophy thread for my response to you. Billymills deleted it just to be a dick (since the post wasn't offensive in any way at all) but I figured you might be able to read it since you're a mod. I thought your post was good.

I'd appreciate if you could explain how psychologists can decide questions such as "should I love my son?" Lol, this is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read in my life. I won't bother using reason to convince the regulars on this forum that they're plain wrong and ignorant anymore.

Lol, so according to you, everything that isn't empirically observable is meaningless? This was a famous philosophical view back in the day called logical positivism. It ran into many problems, for example this one: my lost umbrella isn't empirically observable, so its existence must be rubbish...

Lol. That's okay, as long as I know that no one here can actually address any of the points I bring up. I know the problem is not with me.

You know the truth though, right? And surely knowing the truth influences the decisions we make! What do you mean by "observe" something? If you mean empirically prove "same-personness" then that will never be possible. Ok, that sounds good. But I went a lot further than just saying past and...

I'm not sure what your distinction between free will and "independent thought" is. They sound like the same thing to me. There's two problems with this. The first is that this is the job of philosophy anyway, since this is an ethical question. Sure seems useful! The second problem is that...

Ok, so they do make sense, and I actually agree that they do, though for different reasons. But remember I'm not trying to debate on what free will actually is. We could assume, for the sake of argument, that they don't make sense. That would show how philosophy could be useful, right? My goal...

This is akin to saying it's okay to live under an illusion. But I don't think many people would be pleased about that at all. I really can't understand what you're trying to say. I couldn't understand your previous post about axioms, either. You seem to have a very confusing writing style.

When you save money for your retirement, you think "will I be around when I'm older" (when you use I, that's what it means to be personally identical with your older self, so it's already relevant) and not "will the person occupying this body be around and want the money I saved up for myself?"...

The claim you're making here doesn't make sense. It's vague and you haven't bothered explaining it at all. You should at least take some time to think and try to understand before posting. What if personal identity wasn't something that remained over time? For example, why should you bother...

A fallacy is a common mistake in an argument due to poor reasoning. The argument has to actually not be sound, i.e. it must be based on false premises or on invalid reasoning for there to be a fallacy. I don't see any mistakes in the reasoning of the article. Comments like these are dumb. This...