>>51873474That's not human legs.
You resort to multiple fallacies at once: composition/division ad as as the fallacy's fallacy.
> We dont see Delphox legs fully therefore it can be anything past the paws!The fallacy lies with the fact that you conveniently forget it is not just the legs that arent human, but whole creature as well. you disregard the fact that in light of this fact the chances for the creature to have human anatomical parts is insanely low, as compare do to opposite.
Beside that, since we already see they have a variation of paws at the end of their legs it is already a indication that them having human legs is more than unlikely.
You escaped actual argumentation of you position an resorted to comfortable stance "well you can't disprove can you, heh, thought so, kid"
>>51873474>>Straight thigh to single knee joint to straight calf to planted ankle.A lot of Pokemon have the same amount of joints as humans, in fact, a lot of real-life animals too. And?
Picrelated
you.ve posted does not have human legs. It has a leg anatomy that leans into generic evolutionary design of bipedal legs, but it is not human, as here:
>>51872608> X=X until proven otherwise is an intresting logic to deny.It is not a logic, it is a fallacy. you use it when you can't defend your position otherwise.
Expanding this logic further, if pokemon, legs of which we dont see, had human legs then why stop here? Why not humanize it further then, clearly its body align to it, according to your statement.
> "Oh no, I dont want it to be fully human, it just convenient for me for it to have: human legs, human breast, human vagina. That will be all, thank you! :^) " 
