Pokemon is a disgusting universe...

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

That's like saying there is a "real bond" between a manager and his prize fighter. No, the fighter is who freely chooses to fight. A pokemon is forced to, just like animals are forced to fight or entertain us.



Animals can't communicate to us intelligently. When you see a rodeo, you can't tell if the horses "don't mind".



It isn't justified. It is still promoting violence for entertainment, at the expense of a pokemon's health.

Pokemon are shown as having near the intelligence of humans, if not equal and higher. Take Alakazam and Metagross, they're both supposedly much much smarter than humans. They understand human language and can communicate in a rudimentary way with humans, as shown in the anime. Pokemon are not animals, they're Pokemon. You can make real life analogies all you want, but you're working under the assumption that Pokemon are identical to animals except with magical powers, which has been shown in the anime and manga over and over again that that is just not true.

Edit:

No - ratings are merely a system to notify parents of probable offensive content in a game. You could be three if you wanted; anyone can buy those games, if you have the money.

I've heard of five-year-olds who play Call of Duty, so I wouldn't say that that comparison is completely invalid.

That's false. You can't buy GTA: Vice City unless you are 17 years old, or someone older than that buys it for you. It's rated Mature by the ESRB, which is an age-restricted rating for 17 and over. On the contrary, Pokemon is rated E, which is everyone 6 and above. So while GTA only has to be appropriate enough for 17 year olds, Pokemon has to have appropriate content for 6 year olds.

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Don't you realize that Pokemon is fake idk how many times we gotta tell you this. The anime is fake and the games are fake. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to harm a pokemon.

[droomph]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

That's like saying there is a "real bond" between a manager and his prize fighter. No, the fighter is who freely chooses to fight. A pokemon is forced to, just like animals are forced to fight or entertain us.

It isn't justified. It is still promoting violence for entertainment, at the expense of a pokemon's health.

Again, referring to Iris and Excadrill.

And no - the Pokémon isn't hurt seriously - they merely sustain injuries, ones that can be healed completely. It might be as severe as Paul's beatings to Ash, but in the end, everyone's happy and back to normal.

[kylio_27]

there are plenty of games glorifying killing!

Yup. It's disgusting.

there is reasonable evidence that Pokémon battles are completely voluntary

Two roosters(or whatever animal) could just refrain from fighting one another, which would suggest they voluntarily decided not to fight. The problem, however, is that the pokemon universe as a whole promotes this violent entertainment, regardless of whether or not it truly is voluntary.

Just to clarify, I am opposed to prize fighting. It is disgusting, but at least it is two human beings who voluntarily choose to do so, not animals manipulated to do so against their free will.

[Skitty1]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

Animals can't communicate to us intelligently. When you see a rodeo, you can't tell if the horses "don't mind".

Pokemon can communicate with us... they have a happiness level/system and in HG/SS if you look at your Pokemon and press "A" it will tell you how they are doing (good, bad, etc.). Bare in mind this is all programmed meaning it is not real (it is just a game).

Read me: http://www.psypokes.com/lab/happiness.php

Originally Posted by kylio_27

It isn't justified. It is still promoting violence for entertainment, at the expense of a pokemon's health.

WRONG - actually the NDS (or whatever platform the game is on) is calculating the Pokemon's digital (not real) health. These values (of health) are all managed by a numeral system.

EDIT: @OP to get technical you are abusing the NDS (wear and tear) - so can I claim "NDS ABUSE!!!" like you are (but not with Pokemon)?

[droomph]

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189

Don't you realize that Pokemon is fake idk how many times we gotta tell you this. The anime is fake and the games are fake. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to harm a pokemon.

Critical thinking is not a skill of yours, it seems.

I'm not trying to mini-mod, but I must point out that all threads in PG tray Pokémon as if it was real.

[kylio_27]

And no - the Pokémon isn't hurt seriously - they merely sustain injuries, ones that can be healed completely.

Still doesn't justify the promotion of capturing these beings against their free will, and promoting violent entertainment with them.

[droomph]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

Yup. It's disgusting.



Two roosters(or whatever animal) could just refrain from fighting one another, which would suggest they voluntarily decided not to fight. The problem, however, is that the pokemon universe as a whole promotes this violent entertainment, regardless of whether or not it truly is voluntary.

Just to clarify, I am opposed to prize fighting. It is disgusting, but at least it is two human beings who voluntarily choose to do so, not animals manipulated to do so against their free will.

Do you not realize that Pokémon battles are an agreement between four living, conscious souls, while the roosters are no more than glorified slaves in this situation?

[Skitty1]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

Still doesn't justify the promotion of capturing these beings against their free will, and promoting violent entertainment with them.

Would it be fair for me to see that you are abusing the NDS (wear and tear) - so can I claim "NDS ABUSE!!!" like you are (but not with Pokemon)?

After all since we are talking about abuse of something that is not living why can't I do it to?

[droomph]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

Still doesn't justify the promotion of capturing these beings against their free will, and promoting violent entertainment with them.

Again, Iris and Excadrill are a great counterexample.

[ShinyUmbreon189]

In the world of Pokemon there are trainers people who battle with them, breeders people who train them and raises their Pokemon, abusers ones who try to harm pokemon (team rocket for example) and trainers who don't even battle their pokemon. So not all people battle their pokemon. The poke ball isn't bad for a pokemon it actually gives it time to rest. If you watched the anime than you will notice that when they are battling trainers will return their pokemon back to their pokeball if they are getting destroyed by another trainers pokemon. Sometimes they will forfeit because they don't wanna harm their pokemon anymore. Also, explain why everytime a trainer sends out a Pokemon it looks happy? They aren't forced to battle. In some of the earlier episodes Ash's pikachu wouldn't battle. If the pokemon didn't wanna battle then it wouldn't battle.

[Skitty1]

Originally Posted by droomph

Again, Iris and Excadrill are a great counterexample.

Who and what?... ???

Also your avy is making me hungry

[kylio_27]

Do you not realize that Pokémon battles are an agreement between four living, conscious souls, while the roosters are no more than glorified slaves in this situation?

You brought up stockholm syndrome before. How did the pokemon get to a conditioned state of compliance(for the most part)? They were living free, were captured, and then all of a sudden enjoy fighting?

And the true point in all of this, is that pokemon promotes senseless violence. If a "trainer" really cared for his/her pokemon, he wouldn't even expose them to such things.

[droomph]

Originally Posted by Skitty1

Who and what?... ???

Also your avy is making me hungry :(

When Excadrill doesn't want to battle, Iris doesn't make her. Sure, she'll nag, but it's not the same as forced battling.

Originally Posted by kylio_27

You brought up stockholm syndrome before. How did the pokemon get to a conditioned state of compliance(for the most part)? They were living free, were captured, and then all of a sudden enjoy fighting?

And the true point in all of this, is that pokemon promotes senseless violence. If a "trainer" really cared for his/her pokemon, he wouldn't even expose them to such things.

Then what can we say? We keep animals in their own little Pokeballs, called a backyard.

And why do they all come out with a smile? Why doesn't Iris force Excadrill to fight? Well, it's because it's a fun way of entertainment for everyone, Pokemon and trainer alike.

[Skitty1]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

You brought up stockholm syndrome before. How did the pokemon get to a conditioned state of compliance(for the most part)? They were living free, were captured, and then all of a sudden enjoy fighting?

And the true point in all of this, is that pokemon promotes senseless violence. If a "trainer" really cared for his/her pokemon, he wouldn't even expose them to such things.

The trainer can't walk in grass without the risk of getting attacked so the trainers Pokemon partner doubles as his protection (like a dog or other companion). You would have known this if you actually played the game(s) or read a wiki or whatever.

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

You brought up stockholm syndrome before. How did the pokemon get to a conditioned state of compliance(for the most part)? They were living free, were captured, and then all of a sudden enjoy fighting?

And the true point in all of this, is that pokemon promotes senseless violence. If a "trainer" really cared for his/her pokemon, he wouldn't even expose them to such things.

Once again, you're assuming that the Pokemon don't want to fight, or are incapable of making that choice themselves. They have been shown as capable, and you can only assume they don't want to fight if you assume they are identical to beings in our universe, which isn't a fair assumption to make considering they're a fantasy creature.

In addition, you could say "if a parent really cared for their child, they would never expose the child to crossing the street because it could be dangerous", or any other activity that may beat them up such as a contact sport. However, part of caring about a friend or caring for a dependent is that you allow them to a certain point to make their own decisions. There are times when trainers do recall a Pokemon when the Pokemon still wants to fight, because any further damage is irreparable. But they're not capturing the Pokemon to keep them away from fighting if that's what they want to do.

[kylio_27]

In the world of Pokemon there are trainers people who battle with them, breeders people who train them and raises their Pokemon, abusers ones who try to harm pokemon (team rocket for example) and trainers who don't even battle their pokemon. So not all people battle their pokemon. The poke ball isn't bad for a pokemon it actually gives it time to rest. If you watched the anime than you will notice that when they are battling trainers will return their pokemon back to their pokeball if they are getting destroyed by another trainers pokemon. Sometimes they will forfeit because they don't wanna harm their pokemon anymore. Also, explain why everytime a trainer sends out a Pokemon it looks happy? They aren't forced to battle. In some of the earlier episodes Ash's pikachu wouldn't battle. If the pokemon didn't wanna battle then it wouldn't battle.

Capturing pokemon is an initiation of force. Promoting pokemon fights is thoughtless and disgusting.

If you're gonna' domesticate a pokemon, fine, but most pokemon don't seem like the type to do so(or want to, considering they fight in defence of their freedom).

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

Capturing pokemon is an initiation of force. Promoting pokemon fights is thoughtless and disgusting.

If you're gonna' domesticate a pokemon, fine, but most pokemon don't seem like the type to do so(or want to, considering they fight in defence of their freedom).

Or they fight to test the mettle of the Trainer that wants to capture them, because Pokemon inherently enjoy fighting as part of their nature and expect for that to be utilized if they are defeated.

There's a whole storyline in the B/W manga where White doesn't allow her Tepig to battle and it's shown that the Tepig desperately wants to battle even though she's banned it because she's afraid of harming it. She eventually lets it battle and it's so much happier than when it wasn't fighting.

[Skitty1]

You have completely avoided what I just said. What I typed was true and you still refuse to listen to my sound argument.

[kylio_27]

The trainer can't walk in grass without the risk of getting attacked so the trainers Pokemon partner doubles as his protection (like a dog or other companion).

Perhaps those wild pokemon attack because they know the motives of these trainers, which is to capture them.

Even then, why capture them? Defend yourself from a pokemon(or animal) all you want, but why the need to take them?

In addition, you could say "if a parent really cared for their child, they would never expose the child to crossing the street because it could be dangerous", or any other activity that may beat them up such as a contact sport.

Parents don't capture their children. Stupid comparison.

[Skitty1]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

Perhaps those wild pokemon attack because they know the motives of these trainers, which is to capture them.

Even then, why capture them? Defend yourself from a pokemon(or animal) all you want, but why the need to take them?

Real animals attack without even being provoked it is instinct to them not due to any past experience. Remember the Crocodile Hunter? he was killed by a sting ray or some other damn fish but the sting ray had nothing against him it was just out of instinct.

The player is normally though to be 10 or 11 - what the hell do you expect them to do? buy a gun or some sword and shoot or mutilate Pokemon? come on.

[ShinyUmbreon189]

? you make no sense and seem to not get what anybody is saying here. If you watch the anime some Pokemon free willingly go inside the Pokeball when they first see the trainer. A wild Pokemon battles a trainers Pokemon to see if the trainer is worth making a bond with. It's simple. If the trainer can't beat the wild pokemon than the Pokemon doesn't wanna battle for that trainer. If the trainer beats the Pokemon then they capture the pokemon and train it. Where are you getting they are forced to be caught. They wanna get caught and go on journeys with people. If I was a Pokemon I would want to battle Pokemon too. Also, when the trainer catches that Pokemon they take out their other Pokemon and send out the new Pokemon and POOF the pokemon is happy and playing with the other Pokemon and the trainer. The Pokemon want's to be with that trainer because the Pokemon knows the trainer is worthy of being the trainer of that Pokemon. If they didn't wanna be caught they would just run away or just attack the trainer. Your arguing over the same thing and nobody is agreeing with anything you are saying.

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by kylio_27

Parents don't capture their children. Stupid comparison.

Parents legally own their child until 18. If a child tries to run away and is found, they're forced to live with their parents unless the parent gives them the choice to leave. So it's not as different as you think, and watch your insults please.

In addition, that wasn't even the point of the comparison. The point is that parents can shelter children from everything the child wants to do because it may harm them, but they don't and it's not because they don't care. So to say trainers only expose Pokemon to fighting because they don't care is a fallacy, since that isn't even accurate in our universe, let alone another universe.

Edit: Umbreon makes a very valid point. Many of the Pokemon Ash owns choose to go with him, reject every other trainer and stand still and allow Ash to capture them. Because it's not slavery, it's companionship.

[kylio_27]

Or they fight to test the mettle of the Trainer that wants to capture them, because Pokemon inherently enjoy fighting as part of their nature and expect for that to be utilized if they are defeated.

So what you're implying is that pokemon are inherently willing to lose their freedom to be prize fighters for these trainers, so fight back to test them and not to defend their freedom? Sounds like we have a pokemon apologist on our hands, folks.

But I'll humour you. Even if that were true, the universe still promotes violence, violence for entertainment. Such things shouldn't be promoted. It is a social paradigm that just reeks of hypocritical values.

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Also its in Pokemon's nature to battle.