>>11942402>>11942402>I feel like you're looking at Pokemon as if they're victims. You take pity on them.Well I don't think they're real so... no?
>The truth is, to me Pokemon know what they're doing. I think that every order they commit, is consensual. Not meaning to sound disrespectful but what you think makes no difference to anything. What matters is what is presented to us in the games. Before Gen V I would have agreed with you that GF pretty much intended to portray the Pokemon/human relationship as being totally consensual but Gen V questions that, so its at least possible that the relationship isn't consensual and there are examples of this being unambiguously the case (Such as various villanous teams capturing and harnessing legendary Pokemon)
>the truth of the matter is that we don't own them, we're partners with them.And yet N is capable of being partners with Pokemon without using Pokeballs and campaigns against their use, and doesn't change his stance in the sequels. So the question is, what ARE Pokeballs if they aren't to some degree non-consensual capture devices? Why do we use them at all if they're totally unnecessary and Pokemon can choose to fight for you without them, as they clearly can? Isn't it all just a waste of tech and money?
Either way you're arguing about the actual canon of a kid's game and that doesn't really impact the central argument. GF can go any way they like with that and will do whatever suits them. It's a kid's game so realistically they'll never draw a strong slavery comparison nor show any extreme forms of abuse. My point is that, fundamentally, owning another person is wrong, which surely you can agr-
>Masters are supposed to be caring and loving. This is how slavery originally was intended toOh my god you're defending slavery
