>>51850163> them having characters and feelings doesn't make them not animals.> Sapience is an Old French word that comes from the Latin sapientia, "good taste, good sense, intelligence, or wisdom." The Proto-Indo-European root is sep-, "to taste or to perceive." Definitions of sapience. ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight. Sapience is nothing more than application of intelligence in a specific way. Sapience as well as *COMPLEXITY* of a persona and a character is what distinguishes us from animals. So yes, if Pokemon's complexity is way above classical animals, as we know it, and closer to human then they are not animals. Animals can't reflect on their behavior, they dont have fetish (in its classical meaning) objects (see Braixen's wand), they dont form complex social structures governed by rules and order, they emotional expressiveness and range is very limited, they abiltiy to understand complex things is limited.
Everything, *EVERYTHNG* so far we know and see in Pokemon universe about pokemon is fairly easily puts them just barely below humans (I suppose it varies from species to species, some of the pokemon probably not that far off animals or just weir creatures).
> it just makes them fictional animals. You keep treating them like they're real. They're not real, anon.Huh, odd.
You keep resorting to this fallacy, even though just a few responses back I clearly stated that for the sake of an argument I entertain the thought "what if they were real". Yet like a blind bull you keep -- absolutely unironically -- tryin to to hammer the idea I'm so delusional I think cartoon characters exist. I think this speaks about *your* intelligence, rather than mine.
