>>48943010Why would they ever need to write any of that drivel? That's not what Pokemon is about or what the Pokemon are. A Pokemon is closer to being a wild animal and being someone's pet than being a person in-universe while also attaining some anthropomorphic trappings in their behavior. This has been the foundation of the franchise since Gen I since, as I have said many times, Oak told us Pokemon are kept as pets or used for battle.
It's a fantastical setting for one and Pokemon designers stray from anything close to the OP. At the very best you'll get something that looks like a muppet but generally Pokemon when it comes to bipedal ones tends to stick to more fantasy designs.
Verily it's like asking why didn't Hanna-Barbara make an episode dealing with why Magilla Gorilla, an intelligent talking gorilla, is being sold in a pet store, why won't someone think of the intelligent cartoony hominids, our closest biological cousins? You see that would be silly and it would be silly to the setting of Pokemon as well. The only reason many here try to put emphasize on misguided labels that simply do not exist in Pokemon and the series gives these folk no respite, a Pokemon is a Pokemon not a person no matter what inane headcanon one cooks up that doesn't reflect the source material.
