>>39276673Okay, I think I see the problem here. You're frustrated because I've switched to a different method of thinking about it, and I tried to make it clear that I was, but you're not picking up on it so I'll try and clarify as much as possible.
For any piece of media, there are two ways to think about them! The first is to take them at surface level, as a piece of media and only a piece of media - this is important because, for example, that piece of media can break every single piece of logic and you have to accept it because it's a piece of media. If pokemon says an eevee is an eevee and nothing else, and the devs say that's what it is, it is that. You cannot logic around it, it is an objective fact. This is the way most people discuss pokemon, and the way I am talking about it when I refer to nipples and Vaps being kinda catty or doggy or so on.
However! There is another way to do so, and that is to treat it as more than a piece of media. This is difficult because in doing so, you have to implicitly suggest that certain things the creator has dictated as fact actually aren't fact - that thing that doesn't make logical sense has to make sense somehow. The way you're doing it is to link pokemon to animals directly, to say 'well, these things are like animals, and I understand animals, therefore I can understand pokemon as animals', which of course is fine! I apologize for suggesting that you can't do that, you're just deciding that certain things implied in the pokemon universe are no longer valid to do so. I didn't do a particularly good job of arguing my point, but my point was that, if you take as much of what Pokemon is as literal fact, you have to throw out a significant portion of your already existing logic to do so, since Pokemon is very illogical. Your response was that you don't have to, and I disagree with your response.
Would you say we're up to date now?
