>>52142848>These are fictional beings created by humans. When they're given adult voices, that's done deliberately to code them in a specific way. It's not a random genetic defect. It's consciously done to give off a specific impression for the viewer.Cool. So then if you get a Fennekin and manage to evolve to Delphox by artificial means in a span of few months you then magically have full-fledged adult with all the proper baggage?
"It is magic I aint gotta explain shit?"
How CONVENIENT.
> Because they're anthropomorphic. They adapt to human society almost instantly. Biological anthromorphism plays little in the adaptation. Cats and dogs are more adapted than monkeys.
> They even get human jobs easily.The amount of pokemon having a job even in ashnime is EXTREMELY limited to very specific types that were literally designed for that (nurse pokemon or these weird waitres pokemon). The rest are serving some kind of job along with their trainers (rescuers, cops), they are NOT independent and in this regard no different than pokemon growing with trainers.
> Ignoring that, there's also nothing stopping a technically wild Pokemon from living around humans. A lot of things do, for example basic definition of "wild". If they live with humans one way or another, they arent wild.
> For example, a lot of the Pokemon with human jobs don't seem to have trainers.See above, they arent wild. Ialso dont want to delve into the bullshit of ashnimne that does not bother explain glaring holes in settings. If you plan to drag discussion into that direction then we are done here, I had enough of it last week so I'm taking a break.
> Yeah, pretty much. In the areas that matter, it wouldn't be much different than a relationship with another human.Which contradicts the context set up by original post/discussion starter:
>>52134611> Pokemon aren't subservient.Yet they are portrayed as such, on multiple occasions. They are essential slaves in world of pokemon
