>>46274517>This is not always the case visuallyThat is...literally how it's been depicted since Gen 3. You're getting desperate now.
>You mentioned them once and threw them to the windYou mean, 'mentioned them as the basis of my argument'. If you're so hung up over the once thing, I said humans again in
>>46274378.
>that if I spoke about a growing region which focuses on Pokemon, the shrinking region would also focus on Pokemon.So then why post a bunch of pics of humans getting shrunk? Who's shifting the goalpost now, huh pal? You think I can't clearly see through bullshit?
>Humans have minimized by being placed in PokeballsWe don't quite understand the mechanic by how something is placed in a Pokeball - it seems to be some strange esoteric process that converts a Pokemon into data rather than physically reducing their volume. I don't think this is applicable here.
>The only sad thing here is how you keep putting forth rules as if they're factYou mean, 'reciting off basic physical laws and acting as if they're fact' when I'm clearly justified in doing so. Thermodynamics seems fairly normal in Pokemon. Gravity seems fairly normal in Pokemon. Chemistry seems fairly normal in Pokemon (maybe not biochemistry, admittedly). You can't just assume something doesn't follow a physical law just because you don't want it to, and you accused me of that before.
>who literally every single IP that has ever posted on this board confidently knows is making a coomer threadI don't care about you making a coomer thread. I'm pointing out shrunken humans cannot logically work in Pokemon, and you took offense. This is all your fault, really.
>but you're next in line at this therapistLol, was that your attempt at a wisecrack? Learn how to English, first, sweetie. That way you won't sound so jilted and unnatural.
Are you even actually human? You sound like one of the Jewish cyborgs I decommissioned over in Afghanistan. Your wiring sounds like it's running a little hot, kike.
