>>55004637>Dividing by zero much?Glad to see you can't argue with this point.
>This has an implication that see Pokemon as typical animalsYou missed the word "if" - that's first. Second - it's not a point against the argument. You're making a fallacious point that *if* sex works the same as with real animals, then Pokémon are animals. This is your statement, not mine.
I get that your argumentation is weak, but at least try to bring something to the table.
>Fun? Two elite battle pokemon from different trainers that visit the same gym can have casual/deep relationships (just sex or may be some lightweight enamourment). Both probably well-trained and are one of the best individual of its species, both equal in value.This is such a fringe case that I'm in awe you decided to grasp that straw and post it. Talk about collapsing arguments, huh?
>And by the way, besides the fact the trainers of such pokemon already provide all of this, nonetheless, all of this:So you're just going to bring elite trained Pokémon into the table to argue against the general. Got it.
>Do you really think YOU will be wealthy and competent enough? Really, a 4chan loser?Don't judge others by your own worth. Name-calling is one easy way to lose an argument and paints you as immature. You're scared because you know you've lost?
Besides, I find it rich that you're grasping at such straws yet your argument, ironically, collapses on itself. Do YOU think every Pokémon belongs to a wealthy and competent trainer?
>How would a wild pokemon, that grew in a forest know what romance isHoly KEK. You really are hopeless, you just made a point about Pokémon not being animals above. And now suddenly you say they are?
We have things like a wild Oranguru having a pub and his own berry plantation, and you say wild Pokémon have no concepts of romance, consolation or values?
Truly pathetic. Absolutely nothing in this franchise supports this point.
