>>39578204>It said turning them into human beings not humanoids with biological traits that make them different.Wrong he said both through out the conversation, his whole arguement about significant changes, he never uses the word humanoid but he doesn't need to. This sounds like another strawman
>Gijinkas are changed physically to the point where they're just a human putting on clothes with residual features of the base design.Red herring. Are they significantly physically changed or are they simply putting on clothing. Putting on clothing doesn't physically change your body, what those artists did with Furfrou does.
>His argument is that it strays too far from the pokemon design which doesn't make sense to meWhich is the whole problem. Perhaps think of it this way, think of a pokemon and define by its traits. Anthropomorphize it, how many of those traits are lost, is the final product still that pokemon or is only superficially so. Anon is arguing the later and you don't understand why because to you it seems if you can recognize enough traits to say that thing represents a Furfrou then it must be one. That isn't how things are classified, you don't go by what they look like.
>I find it that he thinks Gijinka and anthro are the same thing to be retarded That is because YOU are retarded they are literally are two forms of the same thing anthropomorphism. The japanese themselves define it as such.
>Despite Gijinka most commonly used for humans wearing clothing which resembles the pokemon only in a residual way.Remember my mention of Don Giovanni that is is a guy dressing himself like a deity, putting on commonly helds aspects of one and not just in makeup and costume but personality. You don't understand anthropomorphism
