Pokemon Part 2: PETA vs Plasma
Are Pokemon battles watered down blood sport? And is Team Plasma, the self-proclaimed Pokemon Liberators, the true heroes of the Poke-verse?
Also it doesn't hurt they faint
No they aren't the pc box is a virtual reality and pokeballs are considered paradise by gamefreak
Keep in mind, Ghetsis's whole plan was to have everyone give up Pokemon, so that he could be the only one with Pokemon, and thus be the most powerful person around. So basically, the same plan Hitler had in mind when he completely disarmed the German people. In the land of the disarmed, the man with a pistol (or a Hydreigon) is king.
And, of course, there's the fact that Pokemon do grow and evolve solely by combat. Those Rattatas, Caterpies and Pidgeys attacked first. The only Pokemon that behave in a way that most real world animals do are the retreaters, like the legendary dogs and the genie trio. Everything else comes out of the grass ready to throw down, and will stop you from quitting the field if it can. This leads one to believe that Pokemon are, to a mon, a warrior race that would duel to the death without some sort of mechanism of control. Thus, humans, rather than the cruelly oppressive Michael Vicks of this world, are the referees keeping their cuddly little Klingons from their more destructive tendencies while allowing them to follow their desire to battle.
Here's the way I look at it: Pokemon can only get stronger by fighting right? Well since that Charmander won't become a Charazard in the computer I'd say yes, and since you find wild Pokemon at levels higher than 5 (the lvl all Pokemon start out as after being born...despite there being wild Pokemon at lower lvls) that must mean that they also fight in the wild, ie: FIGHTING IS A PART OF LIFE FOR POKEMON. So what does that make trainer battles? Fights where Pokemon are given commands by someone in a better position to make tactical decisions, a steady supply of food, and ease to access medical care. To me, Pokemon battles are a controlled simulation of a natural part of life for Pokemon; fighting. If a Pokemon in a battle losses a fight, they don't have lie there and hope they heal, they have someone nearby to safely transport them somewhere they can receive medical care. If anything, Pokemon "owned" by trainers are a lot safer then wild Pokemon, plus they're still able to fight. That being said, this isn't an attempt to argue or flame Matty. He's clearly done his homework and presented his finding in a fair way. While I don't agree with him, I still respect his opinion
Pokemon are not animals. They are like animals, but they are not the same thing. I put it to you that animals as we know them exist in the World of Pokemon distinct from pokemon. How do I support this theory? Think of the Specie names in the Pokedex entries for pokemon like Pidgeotto, Weedle, Beedrill and Victreebel: the first three are Bird, Hairy Bug and Poison Bee. What would these words mean if they do not exist? What is a bird Pokemon if there are no such things as birds? What is a Hairy Bug Pokemon if there are no such things as Hairy Bugs? What is a Poison Bee if there are no such things as bees? There are Plant-based Pokemon, and yet roads and forrests are strewn with grass, trees and flowers. Now let's look at Victreebel, the Flycatcher Pokemon. What is flycatcher if there are no flies? There certainly aren't any Fly Pokemon, so what does Victreebel catch? If there are real animals in the world of Pokemon, why do these cruel, savage humans not make them fight one another? because they are not Pokemon. You can't tell a snail to blast your buddy's dog with a powerful jet of water. You can't upload a squirrel to the internet, drive to grandma's house and download it from there. You can't keep a shark in a ball you can fit in a backpack. And you definitely cant make a frog push giant boulders out of your way. I personally have owned more than six cats at once, and none of them magically vanished to an online storage system to await me withdrawing them. Pokemon are not animals. They battle one another (even in nature, how else would be get wild Fearows and Metapods), develop close friendships with their trainers, and naturallly learn skills that allow them to torch the crap out of their buddies without even burning the grass they hide in, or summon snowstorms with no fear of frostbite. Pokemon battles are consequence free: you can trigger a magnitude 10 earthquake on the fourth floor of a building with no damage to the building itsself. Pokemon are certainly capable of dying. Think of places like the Pokemon tower, or the poor Cubone that lost its mother to Team Rocket's cruelty, yet Kingler and Pinsir can CUT A POKEMON IN HALF and they still heal right up. In Pokemon the rules are completely different. Wouldn't you drop boulders on a friend if you knew he would be OK? Wouldn't you call down lightning if you could do so knowing no harm would come of it? And would anyone accuse you of cruelty? Would anyone want to lock you up or label you a psychopath? I don't think so. I have the greatest respect for Matpat, and as he ends with "It's just a teory, a game theory", I would like to close by saying: It's just a game, an awesome game.
Seeing as how nobody here actually explained the cricket fail I will make an attempt. I'm American and as such, love baseball, but I always thought cricket was a fascinating game so I decided to look up the rules on Wikipedia a few years ago. From what I understand the batsman missed the ball, or didn't even swing based on his stance, and allowed the bowler to take the wicket. This is a serious error on the batsman's part and could have cost the game for his team.
I could ask you the same thing seeing as your grammar is hideous.
Are have the thing thats called "intelligence''.
A few things I would like to point out is that in both the games and even the series pokemon that do not want to fight might simply not do so, such as charizard in the earlier episodes. On top of this, also in the series, most pokemon fight for their trainers willingly, such as pikachu continuing to fight against raichu despite ash telling him to return. Many pokemon in the series sometimes even disobey their masters commands to return and continue to fight anyway. Even the pokemon of team rocket, the earlier ones ekans/arbok and koffing/weezing loved their masters (this is show in multiple episodes) and fought FOR them, they weren't being forced into combat by use of whips or other such punishment techniques. Then after the battles are said and done almost every pokemon adores their trainer and the trainer adore their pokemon, this can be seen in almost every single episode. Many trainers risk life and limb to save their pokemon. Even in the episode where the two opposing gyms force their pokemon (the most notable being scyther and electabuzz) and even themselves to physically fight against the other is later shown as being wrong. So many times in the series if fighting for the sake of fighting denied and shown as being wrong, even in the first pokemon movie.
I don't believe that you are right in saying that pokemon are forced into combat in the same way that dogs and chickens are in real life. Almost all pokemon love their trainers and go into battle willingly for their trainers, meanwhile almost all trainers love their pokemon and treat them as equals. The parts of the series where this isn't the case the trainers are put down and shown the error of their ways.
PETA has no right to judge anyone really.
It's kind of saddening that not a single animal rights group is collectively sane.
peta kills animals they dont want to protecr animals they just want them gone so they are not the ones to judge pokemon
wtf was up with the Black/White footage? The character names were wrong. Was that like a beta or something?
you forget one thing, the pokemon chose to fight for their trainers. In some cases, like ashe's cyndaquill, it just deosnt fight. (for a while at least) and your its just a game argument to those who use it, no shit sherlock, ur argumetn is invalid.
I would like to object. Here are several holes in this "theory" -The only person who truly believes Team Plasma's credo is N, who has been manipulated by his father Ghetsis, who wants everyone to give up their pokemon so he can easily come in and take over. This is more along the lines of gun control in the long run than actual animal liberating. -Peta kills around 85% of the animals they 'save' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Killing_of_shelter_animals) -Pokemon are too powerful compared to the average human, you need at least one for self-defense. -If "killing" a wild pokemon was so bad, then why doesn't their population go down after you do? As long as there is random patches of grass, water, cave, etc. they will be there. That is how the game is programmed... leading me to my next point. -Pokemon do not exist, they are fictional animals in a video game programmed by humans. They do not need to eat or sleep or poop, they don't die if neglected for long periods of time. While it is wrong to do these things to an animal, this is what the pokemon in the game are programmed to do.
This is GAME theory. in the games extra pokemon are digitized and stored in a pc storage system.
This is GAME theory. In the games extra pokemon are digitized and stored in a pc storage system.
That's why you Nuzlocke run every game.
i hate peta and their propaganda -_-
Another great, but the part will the trainer just abandon useless Pokemon is off. I going to have to agree with RiskGambits on that part, after 6 Pokemon are caught the rest are sent to the place where you got your starters. This place is a huge estate and not limited to Professor's Oak's place where they are cared for until the trainer calls for them. Although what happens if a person just decides one day to get some Poke-balls and catches a bunch of Pokemon? If they didn't register at a starter place where do the extra Pokemon go then? Is it regional or are those Pokemon just lost the ether never to be seen again.