>>53593277> as long as the person doesn't start looking for comparable experiences in real life.Why not? Just a few hundred years back "gay experiences" were considered taboo and people known to be practicing them were prosecuted and often killed as punishment. Hell, some south-asian countries still do that.
Yet in US this is now accepted norm. "it's okay to be gay". Okay to be something that wasnt okay for a very long time not so far back. How the turntables, eh? I know that you just went for low-hanging fruit fallacy and is talking about pedophilia, because obviously , "pedo is bad, rite guize?!", and nobody will be arguing with you, but I'm gere to tll you that your logic is flawed. Or rather, there is no underlying logic at all, it just dumb US dogmas speaking, hammered into your empty head during the childhood.
If pokemon were real or at least there wasa chance they were/are real, I would see no issues with
> "person doesn't start looking for comparable experiences in real life."because pokemon are just anthropomorphic creatures, they are as far removed from plebeian definition of am "animal" as humans are, the only thing in common is appearance to a degree.
> Understanding that boundary that separates fantasy from reality exists for a reason is crucial.That is the most retarded take. You are talking schizophrenia. I. as a healthy person, understand pokemon dont exist and I'm not going out, looking for them, because that would be actual, unironic mental illness. However, it is not the same context when they would actually exist.
