>>55005252>Then why are they holding a piece of the journal and hesitate to leave it behind? Why the journal specifically? You're saying it's PURE COINCIDENCE?I literally addressed it, lrn2read your opponent.
> Why does she cherish it?RETARD, learn 2 read. 73 post ago I said I have no issues with the implication of romance. But romance != breeding, nor it has to have one, not it proves one or is evidence of one.
> The original legend does,Fallacy. We are working with Pokemon material.
> ESL-kun, that's not a point in your favor.Ad-hominem and deflection.
> Durr, I refused to play your gameOf course, because you know you can't defend your position there.
> Goalposts moving aside (you still haven't pointed out the fallacy), what was removed?No goalposts were moved. What?
> But I'm glad to hear you agree that you can have such topics in a kids' gameSpeaking of goalposts moving.
Look, let's play devil's advocate. Let say I agree with you and that SINGLE case of a folkore adaptation onto a kid's game is a kid-friendly way to tell "look, this is for all degens out there - pokemon can breed human and vice versa, it was known fact all along but here is your confirmation". let say the scripture posted earlier also indication of that, even thought you really have to stretch that one to pull out evidence about breeding compatbility.
Fine.
122 GAMES
ACROSS 30 YEARS
ONLY ABOUT ~3 of such kid-friendly VERY THINLY-FAR-STRETCHED-HINTS.
If pokemon human/breeding was such a common thing in PU and is a confirmed thing, don't you think we did have at least 10-12 of such "le kid friendly hints/mentions" of the fact? Like, it would be indirectly mentioned at least multiple times. Instead, you have a case of a partial folklore adaptation that, in my opinion, was clearly made for primitive worldbuilding purposes and a quest line, which you have to stretch reeeeeeeal thin to try and cover all your naked arguments.
The thinkening is real here.
