• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

Pokemon is a disgusting universe...

Status
Not open for further replies.

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
Pokemon choose to be caught too. When the Pokemon is battling a trainer it's testing the trainer that's all. @Shining Raichu, now you know that team rocket is the ones who killed the Pokemon.

Hahahahahahaha! This dude is seriously making me laugh. Pokemon isn't violence okay! Pokemon is just a FAKE universe.
 
Last edited:

Skitty1

Highlight my signature :)
171
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Jul 20, 2012
Go tell that to the people of Lavender Town.

Ugh... now you choose to step out of the blue and take a stab at me? :(
________________________________

Any way yes fighting is violence but violence is what sells these days.
 

Shining Raichu

Expect me like you expect Jesus.
8,959
Posts
13
Years
Team Rocket did not kill all of the Pokemon that were laid to rest in the tower at Lavender Town. Even if they did, it's not particularly relevant because regardless of who killed them, it still shows they can die rather than just faint. If a Team Rocket member can kill a Pokemon, why can't another Pokemon?

There is no magical force to speak of preventing Pokemon death.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
@Skitty, I bet Shining Raichu is cracking up about this right now and that's why she said that.
But seriously dude, why are you so worried about Pokemon and violence? I'm pretty sure you play M rated games and they are 100000x more violent than Pokemon will ever be.
 

Skitty1

Highlight my signature :)
171
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Jul 20, 2012
Team Rocket did not kill all of the Pokemon that were laid to rest in the tower at Lavender Town. Even if they did, it's not particularly relevant because regardless of who killed them, it still shows they can die rather than just faint. If a Team Rocket member can kill a Pokemon, why can't another Pokemon?

There is no magical force to speak of preventing Pokemon death.

Ok, ok a Pokemon can die but most often they faint (at least thats what I see) I figured Pokemon only faint so Nintendo could keep the violence toned down.

I am getting tired of arguing semantics though...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
If you think about it though, basically what everyone is debating is headcanon. Do you see Pokemon as sub-human animals, being captured against their will and forced to battle whether or not they want to? Or do you see Pokemon as sentient beings capable of making their own decisions, choosing to go with a trainer and battling because they enjoy it? Both ways are supported by various parts of canon, so nothing can truly be proved either way.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
I agree with Toujours. As I stated earlier in numerous posts actually that the Pokemon is happy battling and is testing the trainer when they are battling him/her. I can't count how many times Pokemon free willingly joined Ash's team.
 

Skitty1

Highlight my signature :)
171
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Jul 20, 2012
^^I see Pokemon as sprites (which is what they are) - granted I love Skitty (not romantically) because of how cute the way it sounds and acts but I realize it is only a fictional being.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
I see Pokemon the same way. I don't think there is violence in Pokemon I just play the game because it's interesting, fun, and very very addicting.
 
17
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Jul 12, 2012
If you think about it though, basically what everyone is debating is headcanon. Do you see Pokemon as sub-human animals, being captured against their will and forced to battle whether or not they want to? Or do you see Pokemon as sentient beings capable of making their own decisions, choosing to go with a trainer and battling because they enjoy it? Both ways are supported by various parts of canon, so nothing can truly be proved either way.

I can live with that.

What I can't get over is how the universe promotes violence byway of prize fighting entertainment, and is encouraged.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
Ask nintendo about this one. We can't help you here. We don't see it as violence we see it as interesting, fun, and have you ever played the game? It's so addicting.
 

Skitty1

Highlight my signature :)
171
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Jul 20, 2012
I can live with that.

What I can't get over is how the universe promotes violence byway of prize fighting entertainment, and is encouraged.

YES! we have converted a nonbeliever!!! الحمد لله thank goodness!
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
^don't get your hopes up yet Skitty. We may of have converted him but he still thinks the same with pokemon with violence and all that. It's just his opinion.
 
5
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Dec 3, 2012
I kinda agree with the first poster, actually. :x Though I don't try to think about the impact that doing that has on the Pokemon, I can understand how there are bad parts, however there are also good parts - some Pokemon such as Pikachu in the anime can't live w/o Ash, so I see that as a positive thing rather than negative. Sure there are bad things but I guess it relates to the trainer, but overall I guess it's up to the Pokemon. Maybe allowing a Pokemon to escape might make it a bit fairer but I doubt any Pokemon willingly would.
 

MiTjA

Poké-atheist
587
Posts
19
Years
1. If the pokemon did not want to battle for the trainer, it could
a. run away
b. attack the trainer
2. Pokemon are not the same as real world animals. They are generally more intelligent, and they are much tougher, as they survive being hit by all sorts of attacks that would be fatal to humans or animals.
3. I can only speculate what goes on inside pokeballs, but Im confident its not like being in a room staring at a wall for days. In other words, it seems like biological processes are paused. They don't feel time passing, they don't heal or get worse without immediate care, they don't starve or grow.


The pokemon are not resisting the capture within a pokeball because they dont want the trainer to catch it. Because while they do resist the pokeball, they don't even attempt to flee (except for roamers...).
Resisting the pokeball is part of checking if the trainer is worth it.



The pokemon has 2 possibilities when meeting a trainer that might try to catch it:
-it can remain wild, surviving on its own, searching for food, shelter..
-being caught by the trainer, which assures its safety, and enables it to grow stronger
 

Asuf

Dragon Tamer
108
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 28
  • Seen Jul 24, 2012
If you ever played Diamond/Pearl or Platinum, there is a man who will judge how your Pokemon feels about you as a trainer/friend. (By looking at it's footsteps, don't ask me how! :P )

If you put a Pokemon with high happiness, the man will mention wild Pokemon showing envy towards the Pokemon being trained. So this may imply that wild Pokemon want to be caught and travel around with a trainer/friend, however as others have mentioned in this thread, Pokemon test the trainer by battling them, if the trainer is skilled, he/she will catch the Pokemon.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
^ that is a very good example I never thought of it that way. I've played it and I do remember the man, I never got a negative feedback from him.
 
297
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen May 19, 2014
Seriously guys, Pokémon started out to be a kid's game. And the "ideal kid" does not act like Einstein and prove 30245 facts that Pokémon is unreal on. Forget that. You guys have a point there. It is in fact, quite odd about those things. But we just have to relate this from our life as well. We treat our pets nicely, they love us back. But if we don't treat them good, then they wont listen to you much and do mischievous things. And it also depends on THEIR personality. They too, can be Brave, Cowardly, Smart, Naive, Rash, Modest, Paranoid and other things like us. (If Pokémon rulez the world it would be da greatest xD). Like animals, poor Lapras has been extensively hunted (for transport reasons) and is endangered. And about "trapping them in Pokéballs", it was a convenient technique invented by scientists to have Pokémon with us all the time. Face it, xD. But PMD and others tell you more about this.
 
283
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Apr 14, 2013
"Trainers" capturing these innocent animals and enslaving them in these tiny pokeballs.

This was clearly not the case with Ash's Bulbasaur.

From Bulbapedia:
"Bulbasaur managed to save Oddish at the last second, and was touched when Ash dashed out to help him get to safety. It then used Vine Whip to deflect the vacuum and Pidgeotto drove Team Rocket away. Melanie encouraged Bulbasaur to join Ash, explaining that its growth was being stunted by staying too long in the village. Bulbasaur agreed to join him once Ash defeated it in battle. Bulbasaur put up an excellent fight against Pikachu, using its vines to seize and smash Pikachu onto the ground repeatedly. However, a powerful Thunderbolt fried Bulbasaur and stunned it long enough for Ash to capture it."

Bulbasaur was neither forced to battle or forced into the Pokemon against its will. It wanted to go with Ash.

"Forcing them to fight one another(causing physical and psychological harm), as something a sadist would enjoy.

Pokemon aren't forced to battle. If they don't want to fight, they won't, or in Ash's case, if he DOESN'T want it to fight, it will.

Bulbapedia:
"In The Problem with Paras, it was revealed that Charmeleon had lost its loyalty to Ash, attacking a Paras when Ash was trying to deliberately lose in order to help Paras evolve. Cassandra's grandmother explained that Charmeleon's skill level had exceeded Ash's, and therefore it did not respect him anymore"

But later...

Bulbapedia:
"In Charizard Chills, Charizard battled Tad's Poliwrath. It blatantly refused to listen to Ash's commands, continuing to try Flamethrowers despite them having no effect on Poliwrath. Tad and Poliwrath shrugged all of them off until Poliwrath responded with a Water Gun that nearly doused the flame on Charizard's tail. It was then encased in ice by Poliwrath's Ice Beam, much to Ash's horror. Ash managed to smash the ice encasing Charizard's head, and Tad walked away scornfully, telling Ash that they would have a rematch when he could control Charizard.
Ash lit a fire and thawed Charizard out, before rubbing Charizard all over to help it regain its body heat. Pikachu pointed out that Ash's hands were rubbed raw, but Ash replied that he didn't mind, Charizard's flame was so small that Ash redoubled his efforts. Charizard woke up in a panic and tried to attack, but it was so cold that it couldn't produce a flame and passed out again. Misty provided a blanket and Tracey kept the fires up whilst Pikachu watched the flame, but Ash himself worked throughout the entire night to help Charizard recover.
Ash stayed up all night trying to thaw it out and, in the process, rubbed his hands completely raw. The selfless act reminded Charizard of everything Ash had done for it since it was a Charmander. By morning, Charizard's respect for and loyalty to Ash had returned, and it helped Ash rescue Pikachu from Team Rocket"

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.

Was this a forced fight between Ash's Charizard and Tracey's Scyther?

Bulbapedia:
" Ash walks closer as Charizard uses Flamethrower on Ash. The attack also heads toward Scyther, but it deflects it with its scythes. Charizard notices as Scyther steps closer. Charizard stands up, as the two seem ready to fight. Ash stops them as the two turn away.

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

Horses have a mind of their own. They could easily resist if they wanted, which is why they are trained to do various things and become use to them. It's not as if these animals just do everything we want them to anyway.

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

At some point in time, everything and everyone is guilty of it. Even shows like SpongeBob and Ed, Edd'n Eddy. Still if you watch the anime, the Pokemon like battling. You can't tell me you have never watched a show or movie with some kind of violence or conflict in it. Even Dora the Explorer has a fox that attempts to steal from people in every episode. Is that promoting theft?

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.

Except I'm pretty sure if 2 real animals refused to fight for their "trainers", they'd be killed, unlike Pokemon. Plus these animals are trained to kill, while Pokemon are trained simply for competitive purposes. It's no different than football, where the coach sits on the side while the players are the ones tackling and getting tackled. Should we put an end to football as well, or martial arts? Again, as proven in the games and anime, battling is completely up to the Pokemon.

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?

Pokemon naturally enjoy fighting, or else they wouldn't do it. Even though Ash's Charizard refused to listen to him, it only would help him if it could show off its power, as was the case with Blaine's Magmar. Charizard thought Magmar would be a worthy opponent.

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.

Again, you are assuming the Pokemon hate battling when everything in the Pokemon universe says they are fine with it.

And, if a coach cared about his players, why does he make them run laps, or lift heavy weights, or follow the rules of the game instead of their own? The word is "team". Every team has its positions, and Pokemon is no different. The trainer is the "coach", while the Pokemon are the players, which is justified because like in sports, they compete by choice. (Ash wanted to use Pikachu against Misty's water Pokemon for his 2nd badge, but Pikachu did not want to battle her, so Ash used Butterfree instead.)

The Pokemon WANT to take part in such things. Pokemon are creatures that seek to reach their full potential, which is realized when they evolve into a more powerful form. This is where trainers come in. The trainers help the Pokemon reach that ultimate potential by training them for battles, helping them win and gain experience, which then eventually results in evolution.

There are exceptions to this as well, as Pokemon aren't forced to evolved if they don't want to either. Ash's Pikachu has refused to evolve into a Raichu, and Ash has been fine with it.

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

Is promoting 2 guys in a cage that WANT to fight disgusting if they WANT the world to watch them fight to see who is the better fighter? Or should the coaches and trainers of these cage fighters be the ones in the cage? Again, fighting WITH RULES IN PLACE TO ENSURE PROTECTION FROM SERIOUS INJURY is no different than any other sport, which is the same as a Pokemon battle.


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?

I think you're using real-world logic to explain a fictional world with fictional creatures. In the Pokemon world, capture =/= slavery. Sure, some Pokemon might prefer to be wild, but they aren't being forced to do something they wouldn't naturally do.

As for why catch them, it's a video game meant to encourage multiplayer entertainment through trading and battling.

Parents don't capture their children. Stupid comparison.

But parents DO control their children. Same thing, just no capsule. Still, catching a Pokemon is not wrong if it is treated correctly, which is why in real life, we are allowed to have pets and train them...if it is done CORRECTLY.

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.

Once again, Ash's Bulbasaur. And in the games, the Legendary Pokemon only appear before the trainers they deem worthy of their power. The battle is the test. Otherwise, why would these all-powerful, time-bending, space-warping Pokemon, or even universe creating Alpha Pokemon be able to live with itself inside a Pokeball?

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.

Pokemon is a show that teaches that through teamwork and friendship, a group of friends can all achieve more together as a team. A trainer becomes wise and through training his Pokemon and battling, while the Pokemon can become for stronger than they possibly could have on their own. (Yes, Pokemon DO seek to become stronger, which is proven in the fact that once they hit a certain level of strength, they transform into a stronger and often bigger form.) And overall, the trainer and his Pokemon become allies and friends. Pokemon could be basically called "Superpowered Creature Football", and seeing as how football (despite being violent itself) is still accepted in society, I doubt Pokemon could be called "terrible". In the end, it's just a video game and a children's cartoon.
 

Dawn

[span="font-size:180%;font-weight:900;color:#a568f
4,594
Posts
15
Years
Well as it turns out in the Pokemon Universe God is not only confirmed to be as real as the dirt under your feet, but that he created pokemon to serve humans and to like it too. The struggle of catching a pokemon is a test just as the chore of training them. The notion that pokemon want to live seperately from humans conflicts directly with the confirmed fact that Arceus created them specifically to do just the opposite. Depending on how faithful your favorite alternative pokemon media is to the games they're based off of, pokemon may also be human's meat source. They were created specifically for this purpose as well. But hey, look on the bright side--In the same vein, Pokemon also reincarnate after they die. While not everyone in-game knows this for sure, and arguably most don't, we as people observing from outside do.

Regardless, pokemon are superheroes in animal form. A human is not realistically physically capable of 'abusing' a pokemon short of inventing superweapons, and even those are pretty much destined to fail. Using pokemon against eachother is literally the only way humans can protect themselves.


You can trust me on this because I'm a roleplayer, and it's therefore my job to actually study pokemon, so that I know what I'm talking about.

3Xo5V.png
Hi.


Anyway, I'm glad to see fans of Jack Thompson's work are out here discussing violent video games. Now we can clear up some longstanding misconceptions. Just the same as punching a pillow does not make you want to punch a person more, violent video games do not make you want to commit violence anymore than you already did. In fact, they suppress that urge via giving people an outlet for their emotions and are a positive influence on people of all ages. To go even further, in contrast oppressing people by taking away their outlet /does/ in fact make the urges worse.

Calling Pokemon a very violent video game is a stretch, anyway. Although the lore has some very dark premises, the actual gameplay is somehow reminiscent of wrestling, a sport, in that there are structured rules and combatants (usually) recover after their fight. Not to mention, if you've ever done actual research on animal abuse in the form of forcing animals to fight, you'll find that a resemblance to pokemon is very vague and superficial at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top