PDA

View Full Version : Keep real animals?


YuuNoKami Saka
May 28th, 2008, 07:07 PM
If you made a wish that Pokemon were real, would you keep real animals (Tigers, Lions, etc.) or only have Pokemon?

Hazuki
May 28th, 2008, 07:12 PM
Hmm well having Pokemon would be cool because I can like, you know, fly, surf, and all that stuff. But I don't want to lose animals either... ^^;

ErickaVolt
May 28th, 2008, 07:59 PM
Only Pokemon.

1. They have powers and can pwn bad people.
2. They're not edible. Which means humans eat only vegetables. Also it takes out some fatty illness.
3. Every Pokemon is friendly to humans.
4. Pokemon can build their own Ecosystem easily.
5. Pokemon can understand the human's feelings and emotion.

See. Animals in this world are very opposite to Pokemon.

Snivi
May 28th, 2008, 08:02 PM
I would keep my cat and get a Skitty!

Crimson Arcanine
May 28th, 2008, 08:08 PM
Only Pokemon.

1. They have powers and can pwn bad people.
2. They're not edible. Which means humans eat only vegetables. Also it takes out some fatty illness.
3. Every Pokemon is friendly to humans.
4. Pokemon can build their own Ecosystem easily.
5. Pokemon can understand the human's feelings and emotion.

See. Animals in this world are very opposite to Pokemon.

1. Like any other being such powers can be used for both good and ill. never forget that.
2. Farfetch'd is at least. There are anime references to that. Plus humans are not meant just to eat vegetables. I won't go into detail why because I might (further) offend vegans and vegetarians.
3. In your "utopia" maybe.
4. Some can change the environment, but ecosystems aren't really "built"
5. Some animals can too.

In the end, animal and Pokemon aren't as different as you may think.

Acrutheo
May 29th, 2008, 12:10 AM
Pokemon would probably drive out many wild forms of animal anyway with their power. I can't see a lion matching up to something that can breathe fire, or freeze things, or can utilise water in a way that can cause injury.

However, I'd still keep animals. Domesticated and farmed ones could still survive, and some could still be kept in zoos. Just, I imagine most of the wild ones will be driven to extinction.

Storm-DC
May 29th, 2008, 02:31 AM
1. Like any other being such powers can be used for both good and ill. never forget that.
2. Farfetch'd is at least. There are anime references to that. Plus humans are not meant just to eat vegetables. I won't go into detail why because I might (further) offend vegans and vegetarians.
3. In your "utopia" maybe.
4. Some can change the environment, but ecosystems aren't really "built"
5. Some animals can too.

In the end, animal and Pokemon aren't as different as you may think.

i guess she used irony to make that same point

Toblerone
May 29th, 2008, 02:53 AM
I'd LOVE to only have Pokémon, as they are loyal and, yeah, you could go fly to the shops, surf somewhere else.. that would be nice..

Skaterzpenguin
May 29th, 2008, 06:34 AM
Well I always thought that the animals in real life now will turn into a pokemon form looking like a pocket monster, (pokemon) so then they will look like that animal, but different shape or size. ;]

Avey
May 29th, 2008, 07:04 AM
Pokemon or animals? Probably animals. I mean, let's face it, if Pokemon were to exist in the world right now, we would be faced with Legendaries and loads of other strong beasts that could destroy all civilisation as we have no way of controlling the Pokemon in the present.

Unless, of course, you're saying we have Poke Balls and all of the things we need to make sure no one gets horribly injured, then, yeah, kill off animals any day.

#Gecko#
May 29th, 2008, 04:19 PM
I guess I'll keep both, but animals won't survive as much since they don't got powers.
EDIT: One choice only?! Fine, I'll pick the Pokemon. At least trhey can save the world somehow.

AJ™
May 29th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Only Pokemon.

1. They have powers and can pwn bad people.
2. They're not edible. Which means humans eat only vegetables. Also it takes out some fatty illness.
3. Every Pokemon is friendly to humans.
4. Pokemon can build their own Ecosystem easily.
5. Pokemon can understand the human's feelings and emotion.

See. Animals in this world are very opposite to Pokemon.

Chu think nobody is going to try eating a miltank?
:P

Gold Tom
May 29th, 2008, 04:31 PM
I'd have only Pokemon, but only if all the animals turned into their Pokemon counterparts, you know, dogs into Houndour, Growlithe, and Poochyena, Horses into Ponyta and so on in that vein.

ErickaVolt
May 29th, 2008, 04:43 PM
Chu think nobody is going to try eating a miltank?
:P

lol. I guess so. Who would want to massacre a cute little Miltank? Also a useless Magikarp, but has a powerful evolution? :P

AJ™
May 29th, 2008, 04:52 PM
lol. I guess so. Who would want to massacre a cute little Miltank? Also a useless Magikarp, but has a powerful evolution? :P

I think cows are cute, but we eat them!
How bad would it suck if you were gunna cut up a magikarp, and it suddenly evolved.

- You'd be screwed

Motsuko Live
May 30th, 2008, 02:35 AM
Pokemon really existing, eh? No, that wouldn't work... why? Well, let me tell ya; xD

First off, Pokemon is based off of a Television series. In this television series, Pokemon and humans live in a perfect world. A prefect world where everyone gets along, for some reason, most wild Pokemon don't try to harm humans, even when the human is tormenting it with a red and white ball being constantly hurled at it's head, and the only people in the "Pokemon Utopia" to do evil are either Team Rocket, Team Aqua/Magma or Team Galactic.

In the real world, everyone does not get along! Do you know how much more dangerous a school yard would be if Pokemon came into the picture? Two kids get into a fight, one sends out his Scyther and bam! The other kid is in the hospital being treated for severe injuries if not dead.

Also in the world we live in, a lot of people "do evil things". How about all the thieves, etc. Would it not be easier for a thief to steal something from a store if he had a Pokemon? Sure, it would be easier for the police to catch him too, but it wouldn't be worth it.

And how unfair would it be if you accidentally tripped over a Geodude, who then decides that he's had a bad day, and he's going to take it out on you. I wouldn't be too impressed (as I held the ice packs up to my black eye and swollen lip!)

Anyway, I'd definitely stick to animals, for all the reasons above...Sure, I guess animals could assist humans with robbery, fights and what not, but the fact that animals don't breathe fire out their noses, or can summon a massive tidal wave at the wave of their hand helps, too. '-.-

Cassino
May 30th, 2008, 08:20 AM
1. They have powers and can pwn bad people.
2. They're not edible. Which means humans eat only vegetables. Also it takes out some fatty illness.
3. Every Pokemon is friendly to humans.
4. Pokemon can build their own Ecosystem easily.
5. Pokemon can understand the human's feelings and emotion.
1. And that can also pwn good people... makes me think they'd end up replacing guns in war.
2. The theory stands with many people that they are the eaten-animal equivilents of the Pokemon world, but for obvious reasons, with it being a show for all ages, that is not made apparent. An entirely vegetarian diet leads to malnutrition by the way.
3. Every real-world animal, if tamed, potentially is.
4. I doubt they could do it without error or imbalance in this world though.
5. I take it you've never owned a dog then, they can understand body language well enough; perhaps not in a sapient manner, but still...


Now, of the topic: Only Pokemanz, for the lulz. :D
I'll keep a Furret as a pet, and go Pidgey shooting. :)

DavyJones4our
May 30th, 2008, 10:54 AM
This is a reason why I support a larger number of pokemon, so just like in the real world, we can have variety. I want more to be exposed to us, and I want them in this plane of existance, DAMNIT!