>>45896998Now partially I agree with you, since Pokemon are all stated to be of relatively human-level intelligence (some above, some slightly below) and thus can make their own choices. If we're talking about, say, whether it's morally ok to be 'interested' in a Pokemon, the fact that Pokemon are smart enough to understand human speech and make their own decisions factors a lot into it.
But, anon, there IS a scale of something varying from non-human to more-human. Both are animals, but an Ape is more comparable to a human being than a Dog. It's silly to pretend the same doesn't apply to Pokemon. Hatterene, Lucario, Arcanine, etc, they're all non-human creatures that much is obvious. But in terms of design, Hatterene is objectively more human than the other two examples listed because it's much closer to a human in terms of it's appearance and body structure (albeit quite deformed). So I would say that there is a difference between them. Gardevoir's probably one of the most human pokemon in the series as far as aesthetic's go, which is partially what helped it become so popular.
We don't need to get into the sliding scale of "Monster Girl vs Furry" debate here, and no, I'm not going to call you a Furfag, because as a collective, yes, Pokemon *are* roughly the same if you're talking about the level of intelligence they exhibit and how sapient they are. But some Pokemon are objectively more human than others when it comes to how they appear and look.
