The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Advertise here

Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old February 7th, 2013, 01:00 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet

Advertise here
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
"Saving the environment" is inherently unnatural human meddling with the environment. Global warming is a myth. The Earth's environment naturally changes on its own.
If we have the ability to do something collectively as a species, or at least acknowledge it cognitively... I don't see how that's "unnatural"?

The planet's climate does change naturally on its own, yes. Even if climate change is a myth (I don't believe that to be the case), wouldn't we, as humans, want humanity to last on this earth as long as possible?

Like with China, where they have to wear masks to counter the heavy smog, I would think it is in their interests crack down on that. It isn't healthy.
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; February 19th, 2013 at 08:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27    
Old February 7th, 2013, 01:21 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
Is it "meddling" if humans try to undo damage that they've caused?

That was a rhetorical question aimed at showing the futility of using the word "meddling" in this context.
I reject your premise that humans have damaged the environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
If we have the ability to do something collectively as a species, or at least acknowledge it cognitively... I don't see how that's "unnatural"?

The planet's climate does change naturally on its own, yes. Even if climate change is a myth (I don't believe that to be the case), wouldn't we, as humans, want humanity to last on this earth as long as possible?

Like with Chine, where they have to wear masks to counter the heavy smog, I would think it is in their interests crack down on that. It isn't healthy.
If our species is meant to go extinct, then meddling with our fate is also unnatural. The same goes with polar bears. The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.
Reply With Quote
  #28    
Old February 7th, 2013, 01:40 PM
.EJ's Avatar
.EJ
Arrow<3
Community Supporter Tier 1
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: FL
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
I reject your premise that humans have damaged the environment.



If our species is meant to go extinct, then meddling with our fate is also unnatural. The same goes with polar bears. The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.
Are you actually serious? There is significant scientific evidence that says otherwise and that indeed humans have played a role in global warming. Yes, I'm aware that the Earth naturally goes through changes but these aren't natural.
__________________
What is this, some sort of basketball manga?
Reply With Quote
  #29    
Old February 7th, 2013, 01:48 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
If our species is meant to go extinct, then meddling with our fate is also unnatural. The same goes with polar bears. The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.
If meddling in our fate is unnatural, why is the meddling that works towards our supposed extinction quicker than what fate may have in store not unnatural? If we speed it up or slow it down, its unnatural either way. I'd rather slow it down.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30    
Old February 7th, 2013, 01:55 PM
François's Avatar
François
#FutureHoennRemakesMod
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
I reject your premise that humans have damaged the environment.
Do you also reject the premise that the sky is blue?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #31    
Old February 7th, 2013, 02:14 PM
Pinkie-Dawn's Avatar
Pinkie-Dawn
I Am Become Death
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
Well, I'm glad that's been settled. Time for my daily routine of raping, stealing, and murdering! I guess since "good" and "evil" are socially defined, that makes them meaningless and means my actions are completely justified. Your friend's an idiot.
Funny you should say that, because here is what Person A said about the moral issue:

Spoiler:
"To answer, morals are basically rules that we create in our head so that we don't go around killing people, Which is our original animalistic behaviour (At least, that's what I think)."

"Morality can be different for each person; It's not the same for everybody; Neither does it fall into the hands of a deity because the deity could say that rape and murder could be considered as 'good'."


"Although, you have to ask, what's stopping me from doing what people consider to be "bad" or "good"?"

"I don't believe in morality tbh."

"Plus, I'm a nihilist, so, there's really no point."


And here's what Person B says:

Spoiler:
"Indeed... though the chances of US thinking that are somewhat unlikely; at least, in my case, black and grey morality."

"Ok, take black and white morality for example. The notion that everything is either good or bad. In black and grey, this is the notion that things are bad, and the good aren't necessarily good either; so, for example, true evil acts, with the 'good' guys being *******s to boot."


In short, saving the environment may not be considered good nor evil.
__________________
Credit goes to grundo80 from imgur for the gif
Reply With Quote
  #32    
Old February 7th, 2013, 02:19 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Pinkie-Dawn, morals aren't dependent upon individuals are deities or laws. Morals form through society and cultural environments by relatively like-minded people and differ, to varying degrees, across the world. It isn't black and white, but who says it is? O_o
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33    
Old February 7th, 2013, 02:34 PM
Pinkie-Dawn's Avatar
Pinkie-Dawn
I Am Become Death
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
Pinkie-Dawn, morals aren't dependent upon individuals are deities or laws. Morals form through society and cultural environments by relatively like-minded people and differ, to varying degrees, across the world.
He doesn't care, which is why he doesn't care about saving the environment. To him, a moral is still a moral no matter what made them.

Quote:
It isn't black and white, but who says it is? O_o
As you said, society and cultural environments, which is why Person A doesn't believe in morals, because they're not official, so he could do pretty much whatever he wants in his life, including cutting down trees, killing little critters, and burn everything which pollutes our air.
__________________
Credit goes to grundo80 from imgur for the gif
Reply With Quote
  #34    
Old February 7th, 2013, 02:48 PM
.EJ's Avatar
.EJ
Arrow<3
Community Supporter Tier 1
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: FL
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
@Pinkie: I laughed when they mentioned "nihilist". How old is this "Person A"? Just sounds like an edgy teenager that picked up a philosophy book. There are so many counterarguments to that philosophy.
__________________
What is this, some sort of basketball manga?
Reply With Quote
  #35    
Old February 7th, 2013, 03:01 PM
Pinkie-Dawn's Avatar
Pinkie-Dawn
I Am Become Death
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
Quote:
Originally Posted by .EJ View Post
@Pinkie: I laughed when they mentioned "nihilist". How old is this "Person A"? Just sounds like an edgy teenager that picked up a philosophy book. There are so many counterarguments to that philosophy.
Person A has been a nihilist since he was 10, but he says he's a positive nihilist. He never read a philosopher book. He admits that he likes the environment; he's just saying that it can't be saved by us. As for counterarguments, here's what he said:

Spoiler:
"Yup, nothing's stopping me from murdering or anything. So, why haven't I killed anyone yet?"

"It's that very kind of judgement made by people who have morals that tick me off. And, there are so many counterarguments to all philosophies. Fixiating on just one isn't good."

"Anyways, you don't need morals. If you do, then go ahead have them. But I don't. What good will killing people do me? Nothing. That's my thought process. Also, what good will it do anyone? (Well, if it was Hitler, maybe...) Nope."
__________________
Credit goes to grundo80 from imgur for the gif
Reply With Quote
  #36    
Old February 7th, 2013, 06:04 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn View Post
As you said, society and cultural environments, which is why Person A doesn't believe in morals, because they're not official, so he could do pretty much whatever he wants in his life, including cutting down trees, killing little critters, and burn everything which pollutes our air.
There's a lot of things that aren't official. Humanity functioned before there great degree of order to it. Things are relative :\

And should he do those things, that doesn't mean morals don't exist... it just means that he lacks them. Or fails to obey them. They exist in the societal collective and some of them function as laws (which I guess would be "official"), he just ignores them. Doesn't make it true.

Regardless, they really says nothing about protecting the environment or not. Just shows your friend thinks weird
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37    
Old February 7th, 2013, 07:10 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
@twocows, there are arguments that go beyond animals merely being emotional attachments of people. There are some intelligent species of animal out there, possibly who feel emotions and are self-aware.
Then I'm fine with offering those species more protections, so long as they're also beholden to a basic moral code themselves. For instance, the "dolphin rape pods" (Google it) that have taken humans for that purpose should be hunted down just like a human rapist would be.

Quote:
It makes the idea of "human" seem more of a spectrum than a disparate identity. There are clearly more intelligent and less intelligent humans so we accept variations in intelligence are not enough to keep someone from being "human" (or in other words, of having rights and protections).
The easiest and most reasonable way to define what is human (or any species, really) would be through genetics. The total variation in human genetics is not really that much, if I remember my science correctly. If one member of a species is "intelligent" (or whatever standard you want to use to define the scope of morality), then all members should be considered "capable of intelligence" and thus informed of and held to some reasonable moral standard.

Quote:
I'll just cut to the point I'm trying to make, which is that many of the things we as humans have which make us human and deserving of rights can be found in animals (or to flip the idea around, there are people who are not too dissimilar to animals) so perhaps we should think more about how we define out ethics.
If you can prove a species is capable of some degree of moral understanding, then yes, I'm fine with treating them the same as we treat ourselves, provided they're also held to a reasonable moral standard as I said above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by .EJ View Post
@twocows: to go along with what Scarf is saying, there have been experiments conducted to prove whether or not intelligent animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins are self-aware and the studies seem to say yes, there does seem to be a level of self-awareness and higher cognition in these animals present.
I haven't seen these studies, but I'm not going to belabor that point since I addressed the implications above.

Quote:
I agree that animals are not humans but I also don't agree with just letting them die "cuz it's fine". No, it's not. All you have to do is take a simple Biology class to understand the actual ecology and how human beings threaten it.
Like I said originally, protecting our own interests is an important endeavor. This means, among other things, not disrupting the environmental status quo more than necessary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn View Post
Funny you should say that, because here is what Person A said about the moral issue:

"To answer, morals are basically rules that we create in our head so that we don't go around killing people, Which is our original animalistic behaviour (At least, that's what I think)."
With you so far.

Quote:
"Morality can be different for each person; It's not the same for everybody;
While some moral philosophers might agree on that point, I am not one of them. While some of the more minor rules might vary by society, the basic principles of right and wrong are universal.

Quote:
Neither does it fall into the hands of a deity because the deity could say that rape and murder could be considered as 'good'."
Agreed.

Quote:
"Although, you have to ask, what's stopping me from doing what people consider to be "bad" or "good"?"
Other people, presumably. This seems non sequitur and I'm not sure how it ties into anything else that's been said.

Quote:
"I don't believe in morality tbh."

"Plus, I'm a nihilist, so, there's really no point."
Good for him/her. Morality is socially defined, that doesn't mean it "doesn't exist." You can choose not to believe in the air you breathe, that doesn't mean it's not there. Right and wrong do exist.

And nihilists are intellectual pariahs for a reason (or rather, there's a reason why most of them are young or stupid or both). The "point" is that happiness matters to most of us, even if you're unable to appreciate it yourself. You might not have any self-interest, but others do, and the axiom "there's no point in harming others" breaks pretty fast when there actually is a point (that being to serve one's own self-interest).

Quote:
And here's what Person B says:

"Indeed... though the chances of US thinking that are somewhat unlikely; at least, in my case, black and grey morality."

"Ok, take black and white morality for example. The notion that everything is either good or bad. In black and grey, this is the notion that things are bad, and the good aren't necessarily good either; so, for example, true evil acts, with the 'good' guys being *******s to boot."

In short, saving the environment may not be considered good nor evil.
I'm not sure how that really relates to the issue at hand. Of course there are things that are going to have multiple implications, of course you're going to have people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the right reasons or whatever variation on that theme you want. I don't think it's relevant here, though.

I think environmentalism isn't really a matter of morality, at least not from the typical "save the planet" drivel you hear most people spout. Like I said earlier, it's a matter of self-preservation and, potentially, self-perfection. It's "right" to protect the environment because, even if we don't see the consequences today, at some point down the line our descendants will. And that much is black and white: either we take steps to preserve our interests as a species down the line, or we don't. There aren't really any other moral implications to it that I can think of.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS

Last edited by twocows; February 7th, 2013 at 07:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38    
Old February 8th, 2013, 07:05 AM
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
There are a lot of intelligent responses here, so naturally I skipped most of them.
Disregard this post if we've covered what I'm about to say.

On topic:
Is the environment worth saving?
Only until we can transport entire continents and their inhabitants to an exoplanetary body similar to Earth so we can start over and not eff it up this time. As intelligent as we are, we're also incredibly oblivious to wide scale consequences of our mainly industrial progression but our furthering of our knowledge base.

In response to the food-chain topic (Humans > animals)
What happens when we finally shove it and decide "Humans ARE smarter for a reason so we declare ourselves top of the food-chain. Every other animal is inferior and must be slaughtered"?
We eventually run out of meat and end up having to eat genetically engineered beef patties whilst explaining to our grandchildren the now mythical beast, once known as the cow.
Animals are what put us on the top of the food chain. In fact without them, what chain?
This isn't a moral question this is a logic and common sense question.

In regards to morality in general.
Morality is a philosphical stand-point on a matter. It differs in every single existing organism because there is no scientific way of examining morality and wrapping it into a nice little package. Like for example Newton's 3 laws. There will never be 3-laws of morality because there are infinite variables and infinite scenarios to act out these infinite variables with infinite organisms(over time) to manage the infinite variables within infinite scenario's.

When it comes down to it, use your brain. Make a massive pro's and con's list and take into account every variable you can think of. It's why you have that massive chunk of stuff in your skull.
Reply With Quote
  #39    
Old February 8th, 2013, 07:13 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumpyfoof View Post
What happens when we finally shove it and decide "Humans ARE smarter for a reason so we declare ourselves top of the food-chain. Every other animal is inferior and must be slaughtered"?
We eventually run out of meat and end up having to eat genetically engineered beef patties whilst explaining to our grandchildren the now mythical beast, once known as the cow.
Animals are what put us on the top of the food chain. In fact without them, what chain?
This isn't a moral question this is a logic and common sense question.
That's not how farmed food supplies work. Someone doesn't chase down a wild cow with a pitchfork. They're farmed for a particular reason and populations are controlled to meet demand. It's more of a product than an animal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40    
Old February 11th, 2013, 11:42 AM
F1ygon's Avatar
F1ygon
Unhatched Egg
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Me, I keep the environment clean, other people "HERP DERP I iz gonna trash teh world lawl"
Reply With Quote
  #41    
Old February 18th, 2013, 11:10 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Although it is very difficult to define morality, I don't think it makes it any less significant. It is clearly very useful, and makes most people happy. I think morality has something to do with responsibility to a collective, arising from the realization that the individual is interdependent with its surroundings, and therefore the interactions involve compromise to ensure the survival of both individual and surroundings, without which neither will survive - although the argument that our environment doesn't need us to survive XD is fine and dandy as it is.

I think morality can dig real deep into our psychology and culture, and we can learn from the introspection of our own morality about how we feel about relationships, responsibility and commitments. We can tap into concepts like courtesy, respect, and honour to describe our emotional motivations for protecting the environment. And while satisfying your personal needs of courtesy, respect, and honour sounds pretty selfish - it's not as bad as it sounds Just as long as it goes both ways instead of in one direction. And I think that is also the liberal viewpoint of the world - one that we can all relate to, living in liberal democracies.

So. Protecting the environment can have a moral basis stemming from the recognition that humanity is interdependent with it, and the relationship is two way for both - i mean humanity - to survive. Everything else is a detail. Whether or not polar bears are worth saving depends on a good study of ecology - they really might not be worth saving, but it's important to find out whether or not they are first. And because these ideas of environmental protection resonate within our societies, there is no reason not to.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #42    
Old February 19th, 2013, 06:53 AM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Pokémon Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14;
The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.
Well yeah, that couldn't have happened, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a Velociraptor. Common knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post

I think environmentalism isn't really a matter of morality, at least not from the typical "save the planet" drivel you hear most people spout. Like I said earlier, it's a matter of self-preservation and, potentially, self-perfection. It's "right" to protect the environment because, even if we don't see the consequences today, at some point down the line our descendants will. And that much is black and white: either we take steps to preserve our interests as a species down the line, or we don't. There aren't really any other moral implications to it that I can think of.
This.
__________________

Last edited by Lance; February 19th, 2013 at 08:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43    
Old March 13th, 2013, 04:31 AM
Abydos
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Gender: Male
i think that the universe is made for us too admire it in its beauty we shouldn't change them in any way.And that friend of you think that he is superior to others but he isn't we are equal to each other we have all the right to live(and i mean all the beings in the universe).I think that this man who want to destroy everything just need to open the eyes and see the beauty of all the things and beings and see how thin the universe balance is....a little mistake and the life as we know will end.He need to watch the ''DOCTOR WHO'' series maybe that will change his opinion and the perception about life
Reply With Quote
  #44    
Old March 17th, 2013, 10:51 AM
Guy's Avatar
Guy
just a guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Florida
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Send a message via Skype™ to Guy
The earth is a beautiful place, why should we not protect it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
I reject your premise that humans have damaged the environment.
I'm human, and I'm saying we've definitely had an impact on the environment; both in a negative and positive way.

Quote:
If our species is meant to go extinct, then meddling with our fate is also unnatural. The same goes with polar bears. The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.
To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, every action has a reaction.

Whether we do something to preserve the earth or not, meddling with our fate is nearly impossible to avoid. I for one would like to preserve it as long as possible for future generations to live a life that we got the chance to live today. We certainly may not be able to keep the human race alive forever, but we can certainly try to keep it going for as long as we can.
Reply With Quote
  #45    
Old March 17th, 2013, 01:39 PM
Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu's Avatar
Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu
Yep, that's me
Community Supporter Tier 1
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hastings, New Zealand
Age: 24
Nature: Naughty
We should save the environment, while we still have one!

What are we going to do in the year 2030 or 2040 when there is a severe climate crisis, Greenland sliding into the ocean or when New Zealand only one Island left.

There is only one way that I know that will fix all of the environments troubles:
STOP BURNING OIL AND COAL PEOPLE, YOU ARE KILLING THE EARTH.
__________________

Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu
My favorite evolution series

Kiwi Land|Thunder Bolt Forums|ProBoards After Dark|New Zealand


Reply With Quote
  #46    
Old April 3rd, 2013, 08:47 PM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Pokémon Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
I like the planet I'm on. I like Oxygen and clean water, and I don't like barren desolate voids like Mars. That alone should suffice in giving you impetus enough to conserve resources and pollute less. We can't just fly over to Mars for a vacation while the planet fixes itself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47    
Old April 3rd, 2013, 08:58 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
The environment does change on its own, it's just that we won't be there to enjoy it XD There's nothing wrong about humans doing "unnatural" things. It's in our nature to preserve our own life, and we're doing it out of self-interest anyways. I see no problem with humanity doing whatever it takes to protect ourselves. It's part of the founding principles of the Western Liberal tradition, anyways.

And how would one take account for CO2 concentration changes if not human activity? You can't just reject evidence with the absence of evidence. At least have an alternate hypothesis.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Advertise here
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 07:19 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.