PETA Plays Pokemon

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Elementary - Dear Watson:
PETA like animals right? They don't like animals dying... But animals kill other animals... sometimes for fun! (My dog kills spiders... just because he can! Incidentally, he is my hero!) So they are being hypocritical there for a start... how can you hate the killing of animals, but like lions that kill wilderbeast?

PETA approves of no human to animal interactions at all
They euthanize huge numbers of animals instead of caring for them
Their ceo bragged about how many animals she has personally euthanized
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Airsoftslayer93:

bravetoaster:

Airsoftslayer93:
If you all really cared about animal rights you would all be vegans and would support PETA.

Correct. Thankfully, most people care about animal welfare, instead. Animals are not of equal (or even comparable) value to humans nor do they deserve (or can they use, comprehend, or appreciate) "rights". Animals used by humans (as pets, for labor or peaceful entertainment, for food, or for advancing medicine [for both animals and humans]) should be treated with kindness and compassion and should be treated with the respect that animals deserve (i.e., don't kill them or cause them pain for no reason). Also, while not eating meat is nice, it's not a luxury everyone can manage, and veganism is downright silly, if only for the "no honey" aspect of it.

I disagree with you, Animals may not be seen as equal to humans (natural emotional bond to other humans), but they are certainly comparible, Animals feel pain and emotions, and thus should be treated as people. Eating meat is far more expensive than eating vegetables.

I would like to know what your other objections to a vegan diet are.
And I also want you to consider, what is a person? why do animals not qualify?

Ive got an few objections
There are some amino acids totally unobtainable from a vegan diet
Until recently large amounts of carbohydrates and sugars were not a part of the human diet
You need good old fashioned animal fats in order to help the growth of your brain whilst young

Oh and PETA spend too much money on self advertisement and distract people from funding charities that actually do something like the WWF and the vigilante wing of greenpeace probably

I.Muir:

Elementary - Dear Watson:
PETA like animals right? They don't like animals dying... But animals kill other animals... sometimes for fun! (My dog kills spiders... just because he can! Incidentally, he is my hero!) So they are being hypocritical there for a start... how can you hate the killing of animals, but like lions that kill wilderbeast?

PETA approves of no human to animal interactions at all
They euthanize huge numbers of animals instead of caring for them
Their ceo bragged about how many animals she has personally euthanized
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

:(

Sickening...
Not the killing animals part... I can live with that... vets do it all the time. Sometimes an animals temprament is irreversible. But the hypocriticy is sickening... to the gorram bone!

One of the things that annoys me most in the world is when someone claims one stance but does another... it's just damn wrong... fucking liars! :/

Charli:
*Scribble scribble scribble*

I'll give Peta this they always give me a cheap laugh cartoon for my blog.

hey I still remember Tai from Digimon! oh crap......

Any who I agree PETA are the guys that are trying support something major but in all the wrong ways imaginable. they are like if a respectable organization lets say MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) decided that they weren't getting there point across about drunk driving and decided whoever had a DUI even if it was their first offense should be dragged by a car. nobody will support them if they did that at all! So the best thing PETA to do is either reformat themselves into a respectable organization with a genuine cause or disappear into nothingness as nobody will support them if they keep doing dumb stuff like this.

The game itself is actually rather clever. This time they at least chose a franchise that actually is sort of vaguely questionable in its treatment of animals, but they're a little late to the party if they think they're the first to notice that the Pokémon verse doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Of course, that's not to say that it wouldn't be better if Pikachu's lines about Pokémon abuse were all appended with "And they should all die." That would make the game both honest and hilarious.

Daaaah Whoosh:
I thought PETA was for the euthenization of domesticized animals, not the freeing of them.

They're campaigning. Nobody ever tells the whole truth when they're campaigning. Something you'd do well to remember when you head over to the voting booth this November.

Airsoftslayer93:

bravetoaster:

Airsoftslayer93:
If you all really cared about animal rights you would all be vegans and would support PETA.

Correct. Thankfully, most people care about animal welfare, instead. Animals are not of equal (or even comparable) value to humans nor do they deserve (or can they use, comprehend, or appreciate) "rights". Animals used by humans (as pets, for labor or peaceful entertainment, for food, or for advancing medicine [for both animals and humans]) should be treated with kindness and compassion and should be treated with the respect that animals deserve (i.e., don't kill them or cause them pain for no reason). Also, while not eating meat is nice, it's not a luxury everyone can manage, and veganism is downright silly, if only for the "no honey" aspect of it.

I disagree with you, Animals may not be seen as equal to humans (natural emotional bond to other humans), but they are certainly comparible, Animals feel pain and emotions, and thus should be treated as people. Eating meat is far more expensive than eating vegetables.

I would like to know what your other objections to a vegan diet are.
And I also want you to consider, what is a person? why do animals not qualify?

I think we're (at least possibly) in agreement, just defining our terms differently. Much as I love animals, I would never say that they should be treated as humans because of the broad implications that come with that. I see nothing wrong with owning animals as pets or to help with labor, provided that the animals have all their needs provided for and treated well. "Owning" humans is absolutely vile. I'm fine with other animals killing each other, whether for food, entertainment, whatever. I'm not okay with humans killing other humans. Ever. Animals can certainly feel pain, and, thus, should NOT be subjected to pain or go untreated when in pain (unless necessary or it's impossible to help them). Here's the big difference, though: while most mammals can react to things and behave in such a way that you or I may think "AWWW! It's scared!" or "It's angry!" or project any number of human emotions onto them, there's no way (that I'm aware of--if anyone's seen scientific evidence otherwise, please let me know about it) to know that they actually feel emotions or, for that matter, can suffer as humans can. So, when it comes to most animals--rodents, rabbits, cats, dogs, sheep, cows, etc.--we should treat them well and care for them to the best of our abilities, but until/unless they achieve a level of intelligence that they can communicate complex ideas with us, I'd argue that they're not comparable to humans and thus should not be regarded as having human rights. Animals should be entitled to humane treatment when humans use them (and humans who mistreat animals should be punished). (Note: Let's leave primates out of this--they've got big ol' brains and are very close to human and that can be its own separate matter entirely that I'm not even remotely able to discuss in an intelligent manner.)

My objection to a strict vegan diet pretty much begins and ends with honey. That one is genuinely silly. If you don't understand how/why, find a local beekeeper or beekeeping organization and talk to someone who's got a few hives--beekeepers love their bees, take care of them, protect them from disease, the elements, and other threats, and, if there's honey to spare, will harvest some of their honey once or twice a year. Bees get to merrily do their thing for their short lives, keepers get a share of honey and wax, farmers get their crops pollinated (so you and I can have fruits, veggies, and nuts). Everyone wins--it's a pretty cool, symbiotic relationship. Beyond that, the only thing I could think of objecting to about veganism is self-labeling; if you don't eat meat, awesome, but if you eat meat sometimes, I don't see anything wrong with that (and if you must have meat for every meal, you may want to try new things).

Lastly (sorry, this is all long), re: "What is a person/why aren't animals people?" People are a) biologically humans and b) (at least when healthy and developed normally) capable of complex communication, higher thinking, experiencing complex emotions, can think abstractly and imagine things (heck, we're on a gaming forum), and are known to be capable of suffering and experiencing psychological trauma. If a living creature meets either or both of those standards, I will be the first to take its side as deserving person-hood. The problem is that most animals (again, mostly talking about wild/pet/food/research animals) can't communicate complex thoughts as far as I'm aware, so we can't know if they can imagine things, dream, empathize, or experience anything like human suffering (not pain, but suffering--the latter being psychological and able to persist long beyond the former and/or in the absence of the former).

I.Muir:

Elementary - Dear Watson:
PETA like animals right? They don't like animals dying... But animals kill other animals... sometimes for fun! (My dog kills spiders... just because he can! Incidentally, he is my hero!) So they are being hypocritical there for a start... how can you hate the killing of animals, but like lions that kill wilderbeast?

PETA approves of no human to animal interactions at all
They euthanize huge numbers of animals instead of caring for them
Their ceo bragged about how many animals she has personally euthanized
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Airsoftslayer93:

bravetoaster:

Correct. Thankfully, most people care about animal welfare, instead. Animals are not of equal (or even comparable) value to humans nor do they deserve (or can they use, comprehend, or appreciate) "rights". Animals used by humans (as pets, for labor or peaceful entertainment, for food, or for advancing medicine [for both animals and humans]) should be treated with kindness and compassion and should be treated with the respect that animals deserve (i.e., don't kill them or cause them pain for no reason). Also, while not eating meat is nice, it's not a luxury everyone can manage, and veganism is downright silly, if only for the "no honey" aspect of it.

I disagree with you, Animals may not be seen as equal to humans (natural emotional bond to other humans), but they are certainly comparible, Animals feel pain and emotions, and thus should be treated as people. Eating meat is far more expensive than eating vegetables.

I would like to know what your other objections to a vegan diet are.
And I also want you to consider, what is a person? why do animals not qualify?

Ive got an few objections
There are some amino acids totally unobtainable from a vegan diet
Until recently large amounts of carbohydrates and sugars were not a part of the human diet
You need good old fashioned animal fats in order to help the growth of your brain whilst young

Specifically, what amino acids are you referring to? I'm not a vegan or knowledgeable about nutrition and my wife's not around to confirm/debunk/clarify your claim for me.
If we're talking on a scale of hundreds/thousands of years with "recently" then the same is true for protein and fat; our ancestors didn't have supermarkets, planes and trains and boats capable of transporting food thousands of miles across countries and oceans. Given that our brains require sugar to function, however, it's a safe bet that we've been eating carbohydrates pretty consistently throughout time (although it's also likely that, historically, we had a much more varied diet than the standard American diet).
Regarding fats--if you change "need" to "can use", then you're correct. As it is, you're mistaken: http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/fats.html#fattyacids (if you don't feel like following the link: you can get essential fatty acids through vegetables, nuts, and various plants/plant oils.)

bravetoaster:

Airsoftslayer93:

bravetoaster:

Correct. Thankfully, most people care about animal welfare, instead. Animals are not of equal (or even comparable) value to humans nor do they deserve (or can they use, comprehend, or appreciate) "rights". Animals used by humans (as pets, for labor or peaceful entertainment, for food, or for advancing medicine [for both animals and humans]) should be treated with kindness and compassion and should be treated with the respect that animals deserve (i.e., don't kill them or cause them pain for no reason). Also, while not eating meat is nice, it's not a luxury everyone can manage, and veganism is downright silly, if only for the "no honey" aspect of it.

I disagree with you, Animals may not be seen as equal to humans (natural emotional bond to other humans), but they are certainly comparible, Animals feel pain and emotions, and thus should be treated as people. Eating meat is far more expensive than eating vegetables.

I would like to know what your other objections to a vegan diet are.
And I also want you to consider, what is a person? why do animals not qualify?

I think we're (at least possibly) in agreement, just defining our terms differently. Much as I love animals, I would never say that they should be treated as humans because of the broad implications that come with that. I see nothing wrong with owning animals as pets or to help with labor, provided that the animals have all their needs provided for and treated well. "Owning" humans is absolutely vile. I'm fine with other animals killing each other, whether for food, entertainment, whatever. I'm not okay with humans killing other humans. Ever. Animals can certainly feel pain, and, thus, should NOT be subjected to pain or go untreated when in pain (unless necessary or it's impossible to help them). Here's the big difference, though: while most mammals can react to things and behave in such a way that you or I may think "AWWW! It's scared!" or "It's angry!" or project any number of human emotions onto them, there's no way (that I'm aware of--if anyone's seen scientific evidence otherwise, please let me know about it) to know that they actually feel emotions or, for that matter, can suffer as humans can. So, when it comes to most animals--rodents, rabbits, cats, dogs, sheep, cows, etc.--we should treat them well and care for them to the best of our abilities, but until/unless they achieve a level of intelligence that they can communicate complex ideas with us, I'd argue that they're not comparable to humans and thus should not be regarded as having human rights. Animals should be entitled to humane treatment when humans use them (and humans who mistreat animals should be punished). (Note: Let's leave primates out of this--they've got big ol' brains and are very close to human and that can be its own separate matter entirely that I'm not even remotely able to discuss in an intelligent manner.)

My objection to a strict vegan diet pretty much begins and ends with honey. That one is genuinely silly. If you don't understand how/why, find a local beekeeper or beekeeping organization and talk to someone who's got a few hives--beekeepers love their bees, take care of them, protect them from disease, the elements, and other threats, and, if there's honey to spare, will harvest some of their honey once or twice a year. Bees get to merrily do their thing for their short lives, keepers get a share of honey and wax, farmers get their crops pollinated (so you and I can have fruits, veggies, and nuts). Everyone wins--it's a pretty cool, symbiotic relationship. Beyond that, the only thing I could think of objecting to about veganism is self-labeling; if you don't eat meat, awesome, but if you eat meat sometimes, I don't see anything wrong with that (and if you must have meat for every meal, you may want to try new things).

Lastly (sorry, this is all long), re: "What is a person/why aren't animals people?" People are a) biologically humans and b) (at least when healthy and developed normally) capable of complex communication, higher thinking, experiencing complex emotions, can think abstractly and imagine things (heck, we're on a gaming forum), and are known to be capable of suffering and experiencing psychological trauma. If a living creature meets either or both of those standards, I will be the first to take its side as deserving person-hood. The problem is that most animals (again, mostly talking about wild/pet/food/research animals) can't communicate complex thoughts as far as I'm aware, so we can't know if they can imagine things, dream, empathize, or experience anything like human suffering (not pain, but suffering--the latter being psychological and able to persist long beyond the former and/or in the absence of the former).

I.Muir:

Elementary - Dear Watson:
PETA like animals right? They don't like animals dying... But animals kill other animals... sometimes for fun! (My dog kills spiders... just because he can! Incidentally, he is my hero!) So they are being hypocritical there for a start... how can you hate the killing of animals, but like lions that kill wilderbeast?

PETA approves of no human to animal interactions at all
They euthanize huge numbers of animals instead of caring for them
Their ceo bragged about how many animals she has personally euthanized
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Airsoftslayer93:

I disagree with you, Animals may not be seen as equal to humans (natural emotional bond to other humans), but they are certainly comparible, Animals feel pain and emotions, and thus should be treated as people. Eating meat is far more expensive than eating vegetables.

I would like to know what your other objections to a vegan diet are.
And I also want you to consider, what is a person? why do animals not qualify?

Ive got an few objections
There are some amino acids totally unobtainable from a vegan diet
Until recently large amounts of carbohydrates and sugars were not a part of the human diet
You need good old fashioned animal fats in order to help the growth of your brain whilst young

Specifically, what amino acids are you referring to? I'm not a vegan or knowledgeable about nutrition and my wife's not around to confirm/debunk/clarify your claim for me.
If we're talking on a scale of hundreds/thousands of years with "recently" then the same is true for protein and fat; our ancestors didn't have supermarkets, planes and trains and boats capable of transporting food thousands of miles across countries and oceans. Given that our brains require sugar to function, however, it's a safe bet that we've been eating carbohydrates pretty consistently throughout time (although it's also likely that, historically, we had a much more varied diet than the standard American diet).
Regarding fats--if you change "need" to "can use", then you're correct. As it is, you're mistaken: http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/fats.html#fattyacids (if you don't feel like following the link: you can get essential fatty acids through vegetables, nuts, and various plants/plant oils.)

Nothing I'm sure you can't take supplements for but I guess that's the point
It's hard to remember the names of specific amino acids complexes when I'm having difficulty remembering the amino acids themselves for biochemistry

Now vitaman b 12 or lack of it appears to cause problems in maternal situations
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01963568?LI=true

or 'T. Kühne, R. Bubl, R. Baumgartner, (1991), Maternal vegan diet causing a serious infantile neurological disorder due to vitamin B12 deficiency, European Journal of Pediatrics, pages 205-208' if you prefer Harvard references

Whilst sugars and carbohydrates are likely to have been present due to having to eat whatever we could find. The statement above that being able to ship foodstuffs around has only occurred for the past thousands years might also imply increases in these two particular substances beyond normal.

I guess what I was trying to say was not that those substances were not present at all but the sheer amounts we consume nowadays mean that they may have well not have been in comparison. It's anybodies guess as to whether humans have fully adapted to the beginning of agriculture meaning large increases in grains and therefore carbohydrates in our diet but way before then most of our natural uptake of energy would have been from meat. It's easy to get the right amount of energy we need out of it than from the huge amounts of more or less unprocessed plant matter we would otherwise need so it would make sense for humans to be more fully adapted to a diet consisting of at least some meat than none at all.

Gilhelmi:
PETA are trolling.

Do not feed the trolls.

That is all.

Damn. You beat me to it.
People, just ignore PETA. Easy as that.

Frank_Sinatra_:

Gilhelmi:
PETA are trolling.

Do not feed the trolls.

That is all.

Damn. You beat me to it.
People, just ignore PETA. Easy as that.

I want their organization to crash and burn
Ignoring it has not proven effective so far.

Here's my theory. Pokemon can breath fire, shoot electricity out of their ass, and make earthquakes by jumping up and down. If they really wanted to escape bitches would rape shit.

Nintendo please sue them for everything they own

I.Muir:
Nothing I'm sure you can't take supplements for but I guess that's the point
It's hard to remember the names of specific amino acids complexes when I'm having difficulty remembering the amino acids themselves for biochemistry

Now vitaman b 12 or lack of it appears to cause problems in maternal situations
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01963568?LI=true

or 'T. Kühne, R. Bubl, R. Baumgartner, (1991), Maternal vegan diet causing a serious infantile neurological disorder due to vitamin B12 deficiency, European Journal of Pediatrics, pages 205-208' if you prefer Harvard references

Whilst sugars and carbohydrates are likely to have been present due to having to eat whatever we could find. The statement above that being able to ship foodstuffs around has only occurred for the past thousands years might also imply increases in these two particular substances beyond normal.

I guess what I was trying to say was not that those substances were not present at all but the sheer amounts we consume nowadays mean that they may have well not have been in comparison. It's anybodies guess as to whether humans have fully adapted to the beginning of agriculture meaning large increases in grains and therefore carbohydrates in our diet but way before then most of our natural uptake of energy would have been from meat. It's easy to get the right amount of energy we need out of it than from the huge amounts of more or less unprocessed plant matter we would otherwise need so it would make sense for humans to be more fully adapted to a diet consisting of at least some meat than none at all.

Biochemistry's rough, especially the first time through. Good luck.

That case study sounds depressing. Poor baby. Nutrition's something I know very little about, but, if you're choosing to be vegan (whether or not you call yourself such or how 'strict' you are about conforming to every aspect of veganism) in a primarily non-vegan society, you owe it to yourself--and, in this case, your baby--to learn a LOT about nutrition and your dietary needs and what foods and/or supplements are needed to keep yourself and your baby healthy. Or at least eat/use nutritional yeast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritional_yeast) that's been fortified with B12 (I'm not, never have been, and never will voluntarily be vegan, but meat's expensive and don't care for milk or cheese and nutritional yeast is delicious and full of many vitamins and amino acids and makes amazing sauces and cheesy popcorn... so good).

I agree with you, overall, I think. It's the extremes in any form of one's diet that 'bother' me--eating meat constantly is awful (for basic health reasons, environmental/sustainability reasons, economic reasons, etc.) and never eating any animal products can be harmful if you're not aware of your needs (and/or don't pay attention to your body--if you crave meat, have some).

(lol, thanks Escapist, for the "more chocolate" captcha)

Hmm...I couldn't really be bothered, it lost all semblance to Pokemon in the first battle, I'm pretty sure that the main characters don't attack their own Pokemon, plus, I am also pretty sure that if a Pokemon wanted to leave, then the main cast would let it/if it would be best for the Pokemon to leave/they thought it would be best for it to leave, they would let it (from what I remember of the first series, it was the storyline of Bye Bye, Butterfree, and whatever the name of the episode where Ash thinks that Pikachu is unhappy with him as a trainer and tries to do the best thing for Pikachu). Well, that, and I don't remember there being garden shears in Pokemon...plus Ash would be a normal type because humans do not have elements attached to them.

PETA is probably quite like Team Plasma, I think they would be willing to kick baby animals in hopes of getting something useful. Besides, a Pokemon can leave any time it wants, it is proven that they can easily escape a Pokeball even if they are technically caught (I think that Pikachu was in a Pokeball at the start, I think that Psyduck and Wobbuffet can also escape, and I can't remember if there were any others). Also, it is proven that Pokemon could quite easily overpower humans, as shown by Mewtwo (if I remember correctly), so it is pretty much certain that the only reason they don't attack/kill humans is because of the fact that it is their choice to not do so (obviously speaking from the point of 'if this were actually real').

...Also, Pokemon (excluding Meowth and ones that converse with telepathy) can't speak the human languages, they can only say their own name (well...we only hear them say their name, it obviously means something different to them), so therefore, Pikachu could not have said anything at all... also, items are kept in Pokeballs, not chests in Pokemon (I think this excludes Mystery Dungeon, but I can't remember).

I knew nothing about this game until this morning, when Chilled Chaos did a playthrough...

Very stupid idea but it is obvious the creator did play Pokemon Black and White and also the graphics are actually quite nice.

I.Muir:

Frank_Sinatra_:

Gilhelmi:
PETA are trolling.

Do not feed the trolls.

That is all.

Damn. You beat me to it.
People, just ignore PETA. Easy as that.

I want their organization to crash and burn
Ignoring it has not proven effective so far.

I'm hoping that their organization will collapse through public education and increased public awareness of all that "animal rights" entails. Maybe we just need a large, public, vocal animal welfare organization with as strong of a PR department as PETA. That may bring over all the PETA members who have pets and are in favor of curing diseases but want animals to be treated humanely/respectfully by everyone.

Probably not going to happen, but it'd be nice.

Remember last time with the tanookie suit? PETA actually came out and said that they were not bothered by it but used it to stir up controversy and draw attention to themselves. This is the same thing.

I support animals rights... But this is Not the right way to do it, it makes them seem like a bunch of idiots, attacking anything even remotely related to their "Cause".

Capatcha "Pig's Ear".
.... That's so appropriate. Don't let PETA hear you say that Capatcha, or they'll be gunning for you next. :P

After actually playing it from start to end, it wasn't too bad gameplay-wise, the fourth wall breaking part was actually an amusing touch, they remembered the Take Down recoil damage, Mega Drain does restore HP, but I'm pretty sure that Growl/Tail Whip can't miss (whereas, in this game, their equivalents can). Was quite terrible and inaccurate story-wise, but oh well.

The last battle was quite bad because of the fact that it is completely wrong in the opening speech because Ash did show concern for Pikachu (at least from what I can remember (wasn't there an episode where he tried to stop Pikachu from fighting, except Pikachu kept going... or maybe that is a completely irrelevant anime, maybe I am thinking of Fate/Stay Night, but I seem to remember there being something like that)), plus Pikachu was never in his Pokeball, and I seem to remember an episode (the one with the Squirtle Squad in it) where Ash eventually convinced Squirtle to let him dash to the Poke Mart to get a super potion... then there was the early episode where he stole Misty's bike to get to the Poke Centre.

Either way, as a game, it isn't too bad (assuming you ignore the chests), when compared to canonitical stuff, it is entirely inaccurate (well, excluding some of the moves), graphically it was rather good, had a couple of amusing moments, sound-wise, it was rather good (although I am pretty sure they just stole Pokemon music and put it in there).

As an actual message, it is annoying and terrible, and they used the wrong thing to represent it as it completely contorted what was already there (apart from a little bit of the Ghestis part).

You know, apart from the preaching, I really enjoyed that little game. Cruel, twisted Pokemon? I could get used to that. GameFreak, get on that. I want a dark-world Pokemon game.

Also, "Pikachu, you reall have a one-track mind"? Making fun of themselves? I like their take on this.

Chaosmancer:

The last battle was quite bad because of the fact that it is completely wrong in the opening speech because Ash did show concern for Pikachu (at least from what I can remember (wasn't there an episode where he tried to stop Pikachu from fighting, except Pikachu kept going... or maybe that is a completely irrelevant anime, maybe I am thinking of Fate/Stay Night, but I seem to remember there being something like that)), plus Pikachu was never in his Pokeball, and I seem to remember an episode (the one with the Squirtle Squad in it) where Ash eventually convinced Squirtle to let him dash to the Poke Mart to get a super potion... then there was the early episode where he stole Misty's bike to get to the Poke Centre.

All that and more: pokemon can refuse to fight outright, and those who do forfit the match. This is how Ash lost in his first League tourney; Charizard decided it just didn't want to fight, and that was the end of that. Pikachu also refused to fight Misty's pokemon in her Gym. Of course we can't forget the episode in which James bought a Magicarp, treated it poorly, then when it evolved into a Garydos it turned on him.

This is represented in the games by the trainer needing to have certain badges by the time their pokemon reach certain levels, or the Pokemon will start resorting to using an AI attack roulette instead of obeying the player's commands (with a fifth possible attack, in which they do nothing).

Long story short; cataching a pokemon doesn't brainwash or domesticate it, at least not completely.

Finally, humans were introduced to the Pokemon world to control them because there have always been Pokemon powerful enough to destroy whole continents. This was the plot of the second movie with Zapdos, Articuno, and Moltres. Also the movie with Missingno, and the movie with the red godzilla wannabe, and probably more.

I.Muir:

Frank_Sinatra_:

Gilhelmi:
PETA are trolling.

Do not feed the trolls.

That is all.

Damn. You beat me to it.
People, just ignore PETA. Easy as that.

I want their organization to crash and burn
Ignoring it has not proven effective so far.

In the activism market, attention = money.
Ignore them and they'll go away.

Daaaah Whoosh:
I thought PETA was for the euthenization of domesticized animals, not the freeing of them.

Yeah people keep saying this on the comments section. What the flying fuck?! How could they possibly find that a good idea? Like.. even within their warped mind-frame-work?

Well to be fair, there already been a controversial that Pokemon encourage animal fights and what not but does these PETA parodies are actually effective? I mean do they really widen someone eyes and change they attitude toward Pokemon altogether?

Well Pokemon kill no animals, and PETA kill many.
So remember what they say about glass houses PETA.

It's enough to make you wonder what they'll go after next:

Samus Aaron's genicidal exterination of the Metorid species
Animal Testing to make the T-virus in Resident Evil
The animal poaching that's the core of most RPGs
Any meat as powerups / health restorers
All the sacrificial Prinnies in Disgaea
Epona's slavery at the hands of Link

Can't PETA stick with using naked women to get attention?

Airsoftslayer93:
If you all really cared about animal rights you would all be vegans and would support PETA, if you can honestly say that you value the flavour of meat above the suffering of animals, then I will not only respect you, but also call you an abhorant human being.

Do not confuse veganism with P.E.T.A. They are no friend of yours, if you care for the wellbeing of animals.

Regiment:
...That's not a proper Pokemon card. It's a Trainer card, but it has HP, which means it's a Pokemon.

Tedious fights would be a hell of a lot more amusing if you could just use Roar on a trainer and get them to piss off.

Elementary - Dear Watson:

kburns10:
I wonder just how bored PETA really is to come up with all these parodies. Especially ones that attack DIGITAL treatment of animals.

Not even animals... their name literally is pocket monsters... what!? We arn't allowed to make monsters fight in a world where single parents send 10 year olds off to never return?

Wow, I didn't even think of that! Doubtful that PETA did any sort of research to find out the actual name is "Pocket Monsters".

I think I'd rather have Pokemon fight to the death than give them to PETA.

They would just kill em softly is all, at least with me they get a few pokeblocks after a match and I heal em up at a magical tissue regenerating pokecenter.

PETA would just round em up and gas em all. After all PETA is not for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It is for the Non Usage of Any Animals and the Destruction of Domesticated Species.

I guess PNUAADDS didn't sound as catchy.

Also I don't think PETA knows what REALLY goes on inside a pokeball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VfqpqXuvPg

I want to live in one to :(

PS: sadly couldn't get the video to embed, just have to view it the old way.

they do know that team plasma is just a front for a terrorist organization, don't they

it's like

they don't even understand that they're making fun of themselves there

...But Peta was the whole plot point of Pokemon Black & white!? This is old news!

Freaking N is responsible for this.

weirdguy:
they do know that team plasma is just a front for a terrorist organization, don't they

it's like

they don't even understand that they're making fun of themselves there

Not only does PETA know that, but they deliberately draw attention to it in the game itself and point out that the founder of Team Plasma is an evil hypocrite.

image

image

bravetoaster:

Specifically, what amino acids are you referring to? I'm not a vegan or knowledgeable about nutrition and my wife's not around to confirm/debunk/clarify your claim for me.
If we're talking on a scale of hundreds/thousands of years with "recently" then the same is true for protein and fat; our ancestors didn't have supermarkets, planes and trains and boats capable of transporting food thousands of miles across countries and oceans. Given that our brains require sugar to function, however, it's a safe bet that we've been eating carbohydrates pretty consistently throughout time (although it's also likely that, historically, we had a much more varied diet than the standard American diet).
Regarding fats--if you change "need" to "can use", then you're correct. As it is, you're mistaken: http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/fats.html#fattyacids (if you don't feel like following the link: you can get essential fatty acids through vegetables, nuts, and various plants/plant oils.)

I hope I quoted this right. Without getting into the biochemical details. it's not amino acids, all 20 of those are in everything you eat that has "protein." Its specific fats and proteins. A large grouping of trans fats, (fight cancer) omega fats (coat the mylin layers of your nerve cells for faster impulses AKA you think faster) and a whole list of specific fats, proteins, and fat-sugar protein-sugar derivatives that are part of your everyday cell metabolic functions that only are found in good ole meat. Now of course a full grown adult can create a complex diet of beans, fruits, vege's and other supplements to create the molecules found here. But my main issue is allowing children who need these proteins, fats, etc and are too immature to deal with the complexities of a vegan diet for growing bodies. The older you are when you make the decision to stop eating meat the better off you are. And of course with all things in life gluttony creates poor health.

I want everybody on the Escapist who cares about PETA to make a rousing shout. Ready? Go!

...

I like animals but I also like Pokemon. Is that so wrong?

That sounds really funny. Its a parody done to death, but different versions are still pretty fun.

But isn't PETA more about euthanizing pets than 'freeing them?' (Penn and Teller's Bullshit)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here