>>48951829>The copes you keep bringing up in these threads do not outweigh the overwhelming precedent set in the lore that pokemon are far more cognitive than the average life dog or any other pet that you can get in real life.And when have I ever said that, boychick? Do not put words in my mouth. I even brought up that an Octillery is shown being a chef in another thread when discussing this type of material. Pokemon in the anime, and in the games, for the most part display the same level of intelligence. In the anime, due to it's episodic nature, has Pokemon behave more intelligent than they do in the games. I do not deny that part at all. But that has never been my point.
My point is the type of imagery and interactions the makers use to anchor down the Pokemon to familiar real world concepts. In fact it's not even that they eat on the ground, it's the type of food that is specifically called out to be their food, what it looks like and how they eat it. Why exactly would Pokemon food look like real dry dog food unless they're trying to evoke a certain image? Another interesting tidbit that I brought up is that Pokemon eat their own food with no utensils even if they have the capacity to do so, just like dogs do yet sometimes they have no trouble showing Pokemon eating with utensils with what Brock said is "people food". Images like that add up to the image they're pushing as a Pokemon as a pet. They tying the concept of Pokemon ownership to that of a pet in the real world. Verily it's no small wonder why the game interactions such as Amie or Camp has interactions that parallel how people interact with their pets.
This is not something that is done in subtle manner yet because you lot are so into your own inane fantasies you refuse to believe it and spew unrelated nonsense. Understanding context is very important and in Pokemon the context is meant to parallel that of beasts and pets albeit in a fntastical and with sme anthropomorphic trappings in behavior.
