The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

[sunyshore]

As much as I don't care (and never have cared) for a Light-type, people can speculate about whatever they want @sunyshore; regardless of your personal dislike for the topic or not.

i never said they cannot speculate, and am i not also just speaking my opinion of shock that it is still going on? why are you replying to me like i told everyone they can no longer discuss it as if i am a mod? what did i do wrong now? @_@

 

[Zeb]

As much as I don't care (and never have cared) for a Light-type, people can speculate about whatever they want @sunyshore; regardless of your personal dislike for the topic or not.

i never said they cannot speculate, and am i not also just speaking my opinion of shock that it is still going on? why are you replying to me like i told everyone they can no longer discuss it as if i am a mod? what did i do wrong now? @_@

I never said you were acting like a mod or anything like that, so not really sure where you're getting that from. I was just saying people are free to speculate as you were complaining that people are still talking about the Light-type despite any basis for it being killed at this point. I replied to you like I would have replied to anyone else.

 

[sunyshore]

As much as I don't care (and never have cared) for a Light-type, people can speculate about whatever they want @sunyshore; regardless of your personal dislike for the topic or not.

i never said they cannot speculate, and am i not also just speaking my opinion of shock that it is still going on? why are you replying to me like i told everyone they can no longer discuss it as if i am a mod? what did i do wrong now? @_@

I never said you were acting like a mod or anything like that, so not really sure where you're getting that from. I was just saying people are free to speculate as you were complaining that people are still talking about the Light-type despite any basis for it being killed at this point. I replied to you like I would have replied to anyone else.

i am AM going to complain about it. its my opinion that it has been killed off. i am asking what exactly did i do wrong to warrant a mod response as though i need to be reprimanded and have it pointed out i can't stop people just because i dislike it? does everyone with an argument about light type being dead on arrival get a mod response? i am seriously confused here. why are they free to speculate and i am not? i just want to know what i did wrong.

 

[Aves]

I'm not saying that light type is going to be introduced any time soon, if ever. All I'm saying is that they could introduce it into the game, that the arguments against it conceptually (rather than practically, per sunyshore's consideration) are not very good arguments, and that as a staple archetype it would be very popular, fulfill a mechanical and aesthetic role for its archetype better as its own type than being covered by another type which does not have that theme, etc. I'm also making the point that the light type archetype for pokémon is not dependent on a specific interpretation of another type (such as the dark type).

 

[Zeb]

As much as I don't care (and never have cared) for a Light-type, people can speculate about whatever they want @sunyshore; regardless of your personal dislike for the topic or not.

i never said they cannot speculate, and am i not also just speaking my opinion of shock that it is still going on? why are you replying to me like i told everyone they can no longer discuss it as if i am a mod? what did i do wrong now? @_@

I never said you were acting like a mod or anything like that, so not really sure where you're getting that from. I was just saying people are free to speculate as you were complaining that people are still talking about the Light-type despite any basis for it being killed at this point. I replied to you like I would have replied to anyone else.

i am complaining about it. its my opinion that it has been killed off. i am asking what exactly did i do wrong to warrant a mod response as though i need to be reprimanded and have it pointed out i can't stop people just because i dislike it? does everyone with an argument about light type being dead on arrival get a mod response? i am seriously confused here. why are they free to speculate and i am not? i just want to know what i did wrong.

But it wasn't a mod response. I post in this section to talk about stuff just like all regular users do; I was replying to someone posting in a thread, that is all. Apologies if it came across as a mod post, but it really wasn't.

 

[sunyshore]

As much as I don't care (and never have cared) for a Light-type, people can speculate about whatever they want @sunyshore; regardless of your personal dislike for the topic or not.

i never said they cannot speculate, and am i not also just speaking my opinion of shock that it is still going on? why are you replying to me like i told everyone they can no longer discuss it as if i am a mod? what did i do wrong now? @_@

I never said you were acting like a mod or anything like that, so not really sure where you're getting that from. I was just saying people are free to speculate as you were complaining that people are still talking about the Light-type despite any basis for it being killed at this point. I replied to you like I would have replied to anyone else.

i am complaining about it. its my opinion that it has been killed off. i am asking what exactly did i do wrong to warrant a mod response as though i need to be reprimanded and have it pointed out i can't stop people just because i dislike it? does everyone with an argument about light type being dead on arrival get a mod response? i am seriously confused here. why are they free to speculate and i am not? i just want to know what i did wrong.

But it wasn't a mod response. I post in this section to talk about stuff just like all regular users do; I was replying to someone posting in a thread, that is all. Apologies if it came across as a mod post, but it really wasn't.

mod response or not, i just posted my (short) piece on light type and was told everyone is allowed to discuss light type whether i like it or not. i do not understand the point of that reply at all. i never asked for mod action against light type discussion, nor did i attack anyone personally or tell anyone to shut up. everyone is apparently allowed to speculate about light type - unless your opinion is that it is pointless because you speculate it is done for? i don't understand this place one bit.

so have fun discussing light type i suppose...because i never said you can't... and sorry i butted my opinion in where it was unwanted.

 

[LimitCrown]

I guess that you forgot about Sunny Day, then.

What about it? The relevant aspect there is the heat, not the luminosity.

It does reflect the luminosity because otherwise, Leaf Guard wouldn't work.

How are those types abstractions? Fire is fire. Grass is grass? Electric is electricity. Fire burns Grass, melts Steel, and is squelched by Water.

So? What's your point? Those are all relational aspects of fire. Fire can be understood in a non-relational manner as being a general (that is, not specific) abstraction which includes phenomena like combustion, heat, and magma. Psychic is a general concept for mental powers which includes specific instantiations like telepathy, telekinesis, etc. Normal is extremely general and covers quite a lot of miscellaneous concepts in addition to its neutral concept. Dark is a general concept for badness, the way that badness is conveyed uses darkness as a metaphor. Light would be a general concept for holiness; it would express itself by things such as radiant and celestial motifs.

There are already celestial motives in the Psychic type. Where do you think fire comes from, by the way? It surely doesn't appear by itself!

Since you aren't explaining the reactions between "Light" and Dark, Poison, and Ghost, why should I trust your statement if you aren't justifying your opinions? You repeat that light could stand alone as a concept without describing how it would react to the other types.

There is more than one possible array of relationships that light could have. What is strong against what, and what resists what, and so on, would be more so dictated by the needs of the type chart balance since conceptually the relationships are somewhat interchangeable. So I am not making a specific claim about what sorts of relationships should be here. That would be a different conversation, whereas currently I am only concerned with what the light archetype, as a concept, provides by being its own type.

And again, you are avoiding my question.

They should react to each other in obvious ways depending on the description.

Sure. But that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Of course it does because you aren't explaining anything at all.

You also said that Dark types (directly)references literal darkness, but you now say that placing those references were meaningless.

Obviously I don't think they're meaningless. Rather that seems to be your claim; dark just happens to have a minority of blatant references in its type to literal darkness. According to you, they are there for no reason, and aren't meant to be illustrative of the dark type concept at all. I disagree.

"But there is no reason to place references to darkness in the dark type other than the fact that an association is intended."

Light as a type in the Pokémon universe is meaningless compared to Dark types. You say that Light represents purity and life, which seems like it would be an opposite to Dark. The problem is that while Dark types are ostracized, what are Light-types supposed to be? How will they be treated?

Sure, light can be considered as an opposite to dark. This, however, is only a relational consideration of light, as related to dark. In other words, it is part of light's external meaning, including dark as part of a system. Light's internal meaning, on the other hand, is abstracted from this relational system.

How is that a problem exactly? I imagine the treatment of the light type will be similar to other games. I don't think there will be sharp moral implications for the type, and its religious themes will be more subtle.

So Psychic types are not abstracted from this relational system? Stop making excuses for why it might fit in the Pokémon universe in your eyes while ignoring the implications of introducing it or how it will interact with the other types without actually explaining it. Also, there are many Pokémon that are considered to be "divine" or "holy"

Since you denied two of my points without explaining why or giving examples, your denial isn't justified. If Dark was renamed Evil, you would've understood.

It doesn't matter what we call the dark type itself. Even if the English name were "evil type," it would still be clear that this evil type makes use of darkness motifs. Your criteria for the presence of these motifs, on the other hand, seem to be very limited and misses a lot.

According to my criteria:
Assurance: Uses a shadowy motif
Beat Up: Uses a shadowy motif
Bite: Has used a shadowy motif
Crunch: Has used a shadowy motif
Dark Pulse: Here, "evil thoughts" are depicted as being similar to or manifesting themselves as darkness
Dark Void: This is not even ambiguously about darkness
Embargo: Uses a shadowy motif
Faint Attack: Uses a shadowy motif
Memento: Uses a shadowy motif
Night Daze: Clear and blatant reference to darkness.
Night Slash: Use of the word "night" here conveys a double meaning (being sneaky, but also a connection to night, which is dark). Also uses a shadowy motif.
Payback: Uses a shadowy motif.
Punishment: Uses a shadowy motif
Pursuit: Uses a shadowy motif
Sucker Punch: Uses a shadowy motif
Thief: Uses a shadowy motif

Umbreon: Associated with the time of night. (This gives the implication that Espeon is already a Light type. Meaning, introducing one is pointless.)
Mightyena line: Nocturnal
Darkrai: Associated with night. Physically resembles shadows. ( Darkrai causes nightmares, which is malicious, and can consume them. this is "Evil".
Zoroark line: Use of illusion has a double association with trickery and shadows
Honchkrow line: Nocturnal
Houndoom line: Nocturnal (Noctowl is Normal/Flying, but it is also nocturnal.)
Sableye: Lives in dark caves
Spiritomb: Composed of material depicted as shadowy (This is a Ghost/Dark Pokémon)

Regardless of whether there is more to the interpretation of these cases, with regard to the figurative nature of the dark type, the fact remains that it nevertheless expresses itself as darkness.

None of those directly reference literal darkness except for Dark Void and Night Daze. Dark Void is basically Darkrai dragging someone into a world of nightmares and basically torture them. That is an example of maliciousness and "Evil". Zoroark Uses Night Daze and sends a shockwave to attack others. This is basically Zoroark using a powerful illusion which is an example of its trickery.

You haven't proven anything by listing those move that "look" dark because their names and descriptions all reference foul play/trichery/maliciousness/evil. Night Slash's Japanese name is Crossroad Killing. Research what that means.

 

[Aves]

It does reflect the luminosity because otherwise, Leaf Guard wouldn't work.

Fire happens to be luminous. So does electricity. There is not, however, additional meaning to the luminosity attached which would be in the case of instances of literal light in the light type.

There are already celestial motives in the Psychic type.

The meaning conveyed is different, however. Psychic type tends to be associated with celestial motifs because of the ancient belief that stars influence human minds. In other words, the use of the motif there conveys psychic's relationship to astrology. But you can interpret celestial motifs in a somewhat different way, as metaphors for what is heavenly or spiritual. While I would agree that there is some overlap there with psychic, it's also true that a lot of types overlap on a lot of things. But what psychic is not very effective at conveying, which light would be, is the holy archetype. While it is possible for psychic to cover this theme, it's not a good use of psychic's design space, and not a good implementation of that theme.

Where do you think fire comes from, by the way? It surely doesn't appear by itself!

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

And again, you are avoiding my question.

I don't have a specific opinion on the matter.

Of course it does because you aren't explaining anything at all.

Well I'm certainly not making some kind of statement about how light should not interact with dark. I've tried to explain it, but you seem to just not get it.

"But there is no reason to place references to darkness in the dark type other than the fact that an association is intended."

Exactly. Dark, as a type "mainly" about "sneakiness" would not in itself have any reason to have a few moves which directly reference darkness. There is no literal relation between sneakiness and darkness. There is, however, a metaphorical relation. If the dark type, which is generally metaphorical about darkness, also includes some instances of literal darkness, I find it unlikely that these inclusions would be merely coincidental.

So Psychic types are not abstracted from this relational system?

They are, if we are talking about psychic as a concept in itself. But we weren't talking about psychic.

Stop making excuses for why it might fit in the Pokémon universe in your eyes while ignoring the implications of introducing it or how it will interact with the other types without actually explaining it.

What implications? And why do you want to talk about how it will interact with the other types, exactly? That's a pretty superficial issue. For all I care, it could be weak to poison, dark and ghost, or strong against those three. Or some other combination.

Also, there are many Pokémon that are considered to be "divine" or "holy"

So? Many pokémon evoked fairy themes before the fairy type was made. The Magnemite line was made of metal before the steel type was made. The light archetype is large and fruitful enough to account for its own type, not to simply appear on only a few individuals with other types.

This gives the implication that Espeon is already a Light type. Meaning, introducing one is pointless.)

Not really. Espeon as a psychic type is not a very good paradigm of the light archetype.

Darkrai causes nightmares, which is malicious, and can consume them. this is "Evil".

I never said it wasn't.

None of those directly reference literal darkness except for Dark Void and Night Daze.

I don't feel a direct reference is an important distinction.

Dark Void is basically Darkrai dragging someone into a world of nightmares and basically torture them. That is an example of maliciousness and "Evil". Zoroark Uses Night Daze and sends a shockwave to attack others. This is basically Zoroark using a powerful illusion which is an example of its trickery.

True. But they're also examples of darkness.

You haven't proven anything by listing those move that "look" Dark because their names and descriptions all reference foul play/trichery/maliciousness/evil. Night Slash's Japanese name is Crossroad Killing. Research what that means.

Sure I have. They look dark because they're supposed to look dark. The metaphor conveys meaning.

 

[Jukain]

So we're going to argue over what CURRENTLY EXISTING types are about? How in the world are we supposed to figure out a new type when we don't understand the nature of the currently existing ones?

BTW, I still go by the notion that Dark is twofold, both maliciousness and literal darkness

 

[Aves]

So we're going to argue over what CURRENTLY EXISTING types are about? How in the world are we supposed to figure out a new type when we don't understand the nature of the currently existing ones?

This made me smile and think of Socrates.

BTW, I still go by the notion that Dark is twofold, both maliciousness and literal darkness

I agree.

I think dark is teleologically malicious, and light is teleologically holy. Dark has shown that it can use darkness as a means to its malicious end. Light would use radiance as a means to its end.

 

[LimitCrown]

It does reflect the luminosity because otherwise, Leaf Guard wouldn't work.

Fire happens to be luminous. So does electricity. There is not, however, additional meaning to the luminosity attached which would be in the case of instances of literal light in the light type.

There are already celestial motives in the Psychic type.

The meaning conveyed is different, however. Psychic type tends to be associated with celestial motifs because of the ancient belief that stars influence human minds. In other words, the use of the motif there conveys psychic's relationship to astrology. But you can interpret celestial motifs in a somewhat different way, as metaphors for what is heavenly or spiritual. While I would agree that there is some overlap there with psychic, it's also true that a lot of types overlap on a lot of things. But what psychic is not very effective at conveying, which light would be, is the holy archetype. While it is possible for psychic to cover this theme, it's not a good use of psychic's design space, and not a good implementation of that theme.

Where do you think fire comes from, by the way? It surely doesn't appear by itself!

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

And again, you are avoiding my question.

I don't have a specific opinion on the matter.

Of course it does because you aren't explaining anything at all.

Well I'm certainly not making some kind of statement about how light should not interact with dark. I've tried to explain it, but you seem to just not get it.

"But there is no reason to place references to darkness in the dark type other than the fact that an association is intended."

Exactly. Dark, as a type "mainly" about "sneakiness" would not in itself have any reason to have a few moves which directly reference darkness. There is no literal relation between sneakiness and darkness. There is, however, a metaphorical relation. If the dark type, which is generally metaphorical about darkness, also includes some instances of literal darkness, I find it unlikely that these inclusions would be merely coincidental.

So Psychic types are not abstracted from this relational system?

They are, if we are talking about psychic as a concept in itself. But we weren't talking about psychic.

Stop making excuses for why it might fit in the Pokémon universe in your eyes while ignoring the implications of introducing it or how it will interact with the other types without actually explaining it.

What implications? And why do you want to talk about how it will interact with the other types, exactly? That's a pretty superficial issue. For all I care, it could be weak to poison, dark and ghost, or strong against those three. Or some other combination.

Also, there are many Pokémon that are considered to be "divine" or "holy"

So? Many pokémon evoked fairy themes before the fairy type was made. The Magnemite line was made of metal before the steel type was made. The light archetype is large and fruitful enough to account for its own type, not to simply appear on only a few individuals with other types.

This gives the implication that Espeon is already a Light type. Meaning, introducing one is pointless.)

Not really. Espeon as a psychic type is not a very good paradigm of the light archetype.

Darkrai causes nightmares, which is malicious, and can consume them. this is "Evil".

I never said it wasn't.

None of those directly reference literal darkness except for Dark Void and Night Daze.

I don't feel a direct reference is an important distinction.

Dark Void is basically Darkrai dragging someone into a world of nightmares and basically torture them. That is an example of maliciousness and "Evil". Zoroark Uses Night Daze and sends a shockwave to attack others. This is basically Zoroark using a powerful illusion which is an example of its trickery.

True. But they're also examples of darkness.

You haven't proven anything by listing those move that "look" Dark because their names and descriptions all reference foul play/trichery/maliciousness/evil. Night Slash's Japanese name is Crossroad Killing. Research what that means.

Sure I have. They look dark because they're supposed to look dark. The metaphor conveys meaning.

1. What type of move do you think Sunny Day is? It causes the sun to glow brighter and the sky to become clear.

2. You are making excuses about why Psychic doesn't contain celestial motives in that way. For example, Cresselia, the counterpart to Darkrai, would not be considered, in your eyes, to have any relation to your "Light" type even though it does what are considered to be divine things. It's associated with the full moon, something that "gives off" light.

3. Fire gives off and requires heat. What did you think I was talking about. Fire's theme is heat.

4. You don't need a specific opinion on the matter. You need to explain your current position clearly without making generalizations.

5. Again, you didn't explain anything about how Light would interact and react with the other types. You intentionally being vague so your statements wouldn't be falsified.

6. You still emphasize the darkness part, not realizing that this is not what the main idea of the type is. It doesn't matter what the symbolism is to understand the Dark-type moves.

7. You need to treat all types as the same, like how you interpreted what the Fire type was. Using your logic, Psychic is a counterpart to Dark; there are many examples like Espeon/Umbreon and Cresselia/Darkrai which demonstrate this. Using your logic, Espeon and Cresselia are "light", and Umbreon/Darkrai are "dark". You use this to show that Umbreon is dark, but you deny that Espeon is "light". You are being hypocritical.

8. "For all you care" So, you only guessed. You still haven't explained how Light will react with those types in a non-vague way.

9. Why do you feel that a direct reference isn't an important distinction, then?

10. I've shown that Dark represents a single idea: things that are considered to be evil or bad. You insist that the darkness is a metaphor when attacks like Fling, Switcheroo, Snarl, Pursuit , Memento, and Payback clearly show foul play. You place so much emphasis on the name "Dark" and a metaphor for darkness that you downplay what the moves actually show.

 

[Aves]

1. What type of move do you think Sunny Day is? It causes the sun to glow brighter and the sky to become clear.

So? Brightness and clarity for the sake of brightness and clarity are just literal light. In this case it relates to the fire type in a fairly intuitive relationship. The light type I'm discussing uses light not for its own sake, but for the sake of a value (e.g., holiness, purity, life, etc).

2. You are making excuses about why Psychic doesn't contain celestial motives in that way. For example, Cresselia, the counterpart to Darkrai, would not be considered, in your eyes, to have any relation to your "Light" type even though it does what are considered to be divine things. It's associated with the full moon, something that "gives off" light.

Well, so what? Perhaps Cresselia would be retyped. Perhaps it would not. Either way, psychic types overall are defined only by mental power, or pure intentionality. The way you have discussed dark types places it under certain kinds of intentions. So, too, with light (the other kind). Psychic feels intuitively neutral on this matter.

3. Fire gives off and requires heat. What did you think I was talking about. Fire's theme is heat.

So?

4. You don't need a specific opinion on the matter. You need to explain your current position clearly without making generalizations.

Why?

5. Again, you didn't explain anything about how Light would interact and react with the other types. You intentionally being vague so your statements wouldn't be falsified.

What statements?

6. You still emphasize the darkness part, not realizing that this is not what the main idea of the type is. It doesn't matter what the symbolism is to understand the Dark-type moves.

I'm fully aware of the "main idea" of dark. I think the symbolism does matter.

7. You need to treat all types as the same, like how you interpreted what the Fire type was. Using your logic, Psychic is a counterpart to Dark; there are many examples like Espeon/Umbreon and Cresselia/Darkrai which demonstrate this. Using your logic, Espeon and Cresselia are "light", and Umbreon/Darkrai are "dark". You use this to show that Umbreon is dark, but you deny that Espeon is "light". You are being hypocritical.

Not really. Espeon has some ties to (literal) light. The light type, as I've established, is more than just literal light.

8. "For all you care" So, you only guessed. You still haven't explained how Light will react with those types in a non-vague way.

I have not intended to make any statement to imply that I favor any particular way which light interacts with those types. Since I don't know all of the interactions of the fairy type yet, I've withheld judgment on what would be balanced.

9. Why do you feel that a direct reference isn't an important distinction, then?

You can get a sense of the dark type's themes without direct references. You are ignoring indirect references in order to make a false generalization about the dark type.

10. I've shown that Dark represents a single idea: things that are considered to be evil or bad. You insist that the darkness is a metaphor when attacks like Fling, Switcheroo, Snarl, Pursuit , Memento, and Payback clearly show foul play. You place so much emphasis on the name "Dark" and a metaphor for darkness that you downplay what the moves actually show.

Your representation of that idea is incomplete.

 

[Jukain]

The moves are not all that define a type. The pokemon do as well. Most Dark pokemon could be seen as malicious, but there are also ones known for being nocturnal. I will grant I can't think of any that live in dark places, but I haven't fully researched it. In any case, I find it hard to believe an entire type has just one personality to it, when we know pokemon does not work that way. This sentiment is even discussed quite often. Dark types are largely misunderstood.

My feelings on more possible types, despite the fairy reveal, remains that they just can't keep adding types forever. There's too many as it is. As for countering Dark, like what Fairy is doing now, one would have to redefine what the current types are supposed to do. Emitting light is covered by a lot of things, not just one type. Being "good", it depends on how far you want to take the concept. Like with Dark, I cannot conceive of a type that is totally good. Technically, I think most of the other types counter it just by not having trickery. (for th most part)

 

[LimitCrown]

The moves are not all that define a type. The pokemon do as well. Most Dark pokemon could be seen as malicious, but there are also ones known for being nocturnal. I will grant I can't think of any that live in dark places, but I haven't fully researched it. In any case, I find it hard to believe an entire type has just one personality to it, when we know pokemon does not work that way. This sentiment is even discussed quite often. Dark types are largely misunderstood.

My feelings on more possible types, despite the fairy reveal, remains that they just can't keep adding types forever. There's too many as it is. As for countering Dark, like what Fairy is doing now, one would have to redefine what the current types are supposed to do. Emitting light is covered by a lot of things, not just one type. Being "good", it depends on how far you want to take the concept. Like with Dark, I cannot conceive of a type that is totally good. Technically, I think most of the other types counter it just by not having trickery. (for th most part)

I already explained that Dark-types are misunderstood because they do things that are considered to be bad. The issue is that Aves is stretching the definition of the Dark-type. When I mentioned the Psychic-type Pokémon and their interactions with Dark-types , he dismissed that. I also pointed out a problem: how could you ascribe goodness or holiness to a Pokémon? He dismissed that, too.

I think that someone made calculations and concluded that Fairy-type moves may not be strong against Dark-types.

 

[FaerieStar]

But seriously... Why would GameFreak name the type "Aku" if they intended the type to represent literal darkness? Why not simply call it... Yami type? :/
The names in western versions that mean "dark" just seem to be using euphemisms for "evil".

 

[Aves]

I already explained that Dark-types are misunderstood because they do things that are considered to be bad.

Well, let us not apply the same misunderstanding to the light type. Even if it does represent a theme of holiness does not automatically make it morally good. In many other games where holy themes are present, they don't convey a sense of inherent moral good. Presumably, the other side of the coin for holiness is self-righteousness.

The issue is that Aves is stretching the definition of the Dark-type.

How am I stretching it? You've ignored empirical data so that your definition would apply. But your definition is overly reductive. You also misapplied the idea of statistical significance to ignore my refutation of your generalization. My definition incorporates all empirical data.

When I mentioned the Psychic-type Pokémon and their interactions with Dark-types , he dismissed that.

Psychic is often used as a counterpart to dark, yes (because of their type relations). But psychic is about being psychic. There's no intrinsic relationship between the idea of mental powers and the idea of divine powers. Psychic's coverage of those themes thus feels somewhat tacked on. It would be more effective to give those themes their own type.

I also pointed out a problem: how could you ascribe goodness or holiness to a Pokémon? He dismissed that, too.

Dark types exist. Evil is ascribed to them, yet we understand that it's not that simple. It's just the same for light types.

But seriously... Why would GameFreak name the type "Aku" if they intended the type to represent literal darkness? Why not simply call it... Yami type? :/
The names in western versions that mean "dark" just seem to be using euphemisms for "evil".

Why would they make so many dark type moves and pokémon have ties to literal darkness if this theme were not meant to have significance for the meaning of the type? Most translations of the dark type are darkness. Is it a euphemism? Yes. But the euphemism also ends up being expressed with references to literal darkness.

 

[Dakhem Uaid]

Well, that does raise the question: why is Dark SE against Ghost?

Because... devils torture souls? xD

What, Dark types are devils now?

 

[LimitCrown]

@Aves It is harder to say that something is especially good or holy than it is to say that something is especially evil.

Do you even know what statistical significance is? Your evidence is statistically insignificant. I guess you like to use terms like modus tollens or empirical evidence in order to make your statements sound believable. You're inflating the amount of Pokemon who actually have ties to literal darkness.

You are stretching the definition by saying it uses metaphorical darkness which basically means evil.

Those two Pokemon that I listed had definite ties to Light, but you say that those were tacked on. You used how Eevee became Umbreon in order to a relation to the Dark type and darkness.

 

[Aves]

@Aves It is harder to say that something is especially good or holy than it is to say that something is especially evil.

I don't see how.

Do you even know what statistical significance is? Your evidence is statistically insignificant. I guess you like to use terms like modus tollens or empirical evidence in order to make your statements sound believable. You're inflating the amount of Pokemon who actually have ties to literal darkness.

No, you're merely deflating it. I have a substantial amount of evidence which you have dismissed, so it's not insignificant, you just refuse to recognize it.

In any case, there isn't exactly an outlined methodology for determining what would be statistically significant for the dark type. I honestly expect to see more direct references to darkness in the dark type as more generations with dark types are released.

You are stretching the definition by saying it uses metaphorical darkness which basically means evil.

Dark's usage of "metaphorical darkness" or "evil" is shown to be very much like actual darkness. Furthermore, many other cues tie the dark type to darkness or night.

Those two Pokemon that I listed had definite ties to Light, but you say that those were tacked on. You used how Eevee became Umbreon in order to a relation to the Dark type and darkness.

Yes, they are tacked on. If you want to go on with your theory that all types represent a single, specific idea (when in fact they represent a general idea with multiple particular instantiations), then psychic using light is actually pretty inappropriate considering they don't even have the metaphorical relation that is seen in the dark type with darkness. I don't find the instances of light in psychic to be particularly problematic, because they aren't the type of light that I'm discussing (metaphorical light).

 

[LimitCrown]

You never had a substantial amount of evidence that indicated that the Dark -type moves indicated literal darkness. You don't have enough. 2 moves out of 29 is not significant. Nocturnal behavior isn't special among Dark types; the majority of nocturnal Pokémon aren't Dark-types in game.

Most Pokémon are already "good". How far can you take that concept and apply it to Light-types?

How does Dark's usage of "metaphorical darkness" resemble actual darkness? Don't you even pay attention to the Pokémon moves? That is the major flaw of your argument.