>>50980591You are obviously missing the context here. A Pokémon isn't a human, it isn't even a person within their own universe. People here get too hung up over actions Pokémon do that are standard across fiction. Yes, a Pokémon can cook a meal but so does many fictional critters, there's nothing unique about it. Verily indeed I already made a point that Pokémon fall short of some of these examples, a big one is the fact that most of them are never shown speaking which is big. And this is no simple coincidence, the product approval guide makes it very clear that Pokémon do not speak except under special circumstances which are usually tied to special storyline. This means the people who run the series are perfectly aware of the humanizing elements of being able to speak yet they barely grant this boon to Pokémon.
It's more so about taking context in and what specific actions Pokémon do. When I point out the many pet and critter like behavior of Pokémon I do so to make the point that the series is trying to sell Pokémon as a familiar image we are familiar with, this being natural creatures. And to share once more, there is a reason a distinction between real critters and Pokémon is made by official sources rather than between what a critter is and what a Pokémon is, Pokémon themselves exist within the boundaries of what a critter is but in a fictional context.
As such the series makes extensive use of behaviors and imagery associated with critters from the real world in order to anchor Pokémon with the concept. It's telling, once more, that a Pokémon isn't recognize as a person because critters in the real world aren't recognized as people and neither are they in fiction. The series is more concerned with selling this idea more so than simply saying pokemon are people and the Pokémon themselves are mostly sweet and innocent creatures. The ideal relationship should be platonic and one with respect towards the natural world.
