>>53997608That's because of the way Pokemon are conceptualized. What good is what he lists when the series itself cares naught for it? Read the 3rd party guidelines, they're there for a reason and they explicitly state they don't want Pokemon doing certain things we associate with people.
It's not "someone" who stated Pokemon are critters but people in high positions *including* the person who created the series. When Takeshi Shudo describes Pokemon as a group of critters that include plant-like, object-like and mineral-like creatures he does so because of the way the Pokemon series conceptualizes the Pokemon themselves. Verily indeed it's why I always put a strong emphasis on Tajiri comparing Pokemon to cats and dogs both in 2019 and the 90s, it's also why GameFreak employees, and the 90s Pokedex book, make the same comparison. There's a strong reason The Pokemon Company states that real critters are replaced by Pokemon or why the series goes out of it's way to deter the usage of the word "monster" or strip the supernatural elements out of Pokemon, such as Ghost types not being ghosts.
This is why I use the term "space". Pokemon may be fictional but they are meant to occupy the space of cats and dogs despite the points you bring up. This is apparent not only with the things Pokemon do, such as behave like dogs and be treated like dogs, but also from the word of mouth of the very same people who run the series. Verily indeed that's the reason people argue over this, because people notice the way Pokemon are constructed, which is not the inane groomer fantasies you lot carry but Pokemon as friendly, cute critters that exemplify an idealized relationship between humanity and nature. In short, stop having groomer fantasies.
