Separate names with a comma.
The server transfer is complete, but there is a known issue occurring with posts lagging when they are sent! We apologize for the inconvenience. A fix is underway, so please bear with us.
UPDATE: The issue with post lag appears to be fixed, but the search system is temporarily down, as it was the culprit. It will be back up later!
Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Mid, Sep 12, 2015.
So um...do people eat pokemon?
Hell, would YOU eat a pokemon?
I'd totally eat a farfetch'd.
If you're referring to fan theories about what people do for food when there is very little example of 'normal' animals and edible plants in Pokemon media, you can talk the lack of exposure up to story relevance. People watch to see Miltank, not cows, so they show Miltank. Where the cows the hamburgers came from are is not relavent to the story, so it's not addressed.
In the St Anne episode though, team rocket deciding to try and eat a Magikarp is presented as a desperate measure, so I think that speaks a lot to the 'real animals offscreen' side. There is also the pokedex comparisons like 'electric mouse pokemon'. People would have to be familiar with mice for that to make sense.
I have to agree with Minibit, it's probably just a case of most normal animals being seen off screen.
That being said though, cultural differences of what to eat exists in our world, the same could be true in Pokemon where some societies or individuals might eat pokemon.
The Manga already establishes that pokemon can still be prey to other pokemon, why not humans in some cases? Especially if you go with the fan theory of that Humans are in fact Pokemon.
Personally I believe that they eat pokemon and that they are treated like normal animals. Not all animals in our real world are treated the same, we don't eat all animals. We don't eat lions, we don't eat elephants, most countries don't eat cats and dogs, but other countries do. Heck there are even animals we breed specifically to be eaten or to provide us with food. (For example cows are either eaten or meant to give us milk.)
So I think there are certain pokemons that are more acceptable than others to eat, and maybe even that different countries sees different pokemons as normal for food. Of course this won't be mentioned in a TV series for little kids. Most kids doesn't think about that the meat they put in their mouth once was a chicken that walked around just minding its own business. Or a pig that once was happy and rolled around in the dirt.
If they start saying stuff like "Oh, this pikachu is delicious." There will definitely be some kids out there that are like "they eat a pikachu?? WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT D: T-T". If there were normal animals in the world, they would at least have a cat sleeping in a tree while they walk by to show it, but no. No animals in sight. Pokemon is the animals that has been PROVEN to exist in this world. Butterflies are replaced by butterfly like pokemons, cats are replaced with cat like pokemons. They might not mention a pokemon slaughter house, but really, would that be appropriate for your kid to know about?
If I lived in this world, I would eat pokemons, because that would be our animals, our meat. One could probably say that "We don't befriend the same animals we eat though D:" While you might not befriend the food you buy in the store, there is a possibility that the farmer befriended that piece of meat once. Some farmers will certainly just feed them and make sure that they grow and not bond with them on any level, but others will enjoy their time with the animals, they will befriend them, even tough they know their ultimate fate. Heck, China eats cats and dogs, which is one of the most common animals in western culture. Has no Chinese person ever had a cat or dog as a pet?
At the end of the day it all comes down to cultural differences. In the world of pokemon they would have gotten used to both eating and befriending them. Maybe they won't eat the same species of pokemons they themselves has caught and befriended... Or maybe that's exactly what they do. Let's face it, people can own mini-pigs and still eat that Christmas ham. It all depends on how you grew up and what your culture says about a certain animal. If your culture says "This animal can be food but it can also be a pet." You would probably have no problem with eating a cat, cause you knew that it was meant to be used for both. You won't eat your own cat of course, and you won't kill cats yourself (most likely), but you will probably not have anything against buying cat meat from the store, because your culture has said it's alright. In the world of pokemon where only pokemon and humans has been proven to exist so far, we can assume that their culture says that pokemon can be used as pets/fight partners and food.
Reality is not a pretty place o_o
This is why I can't ever be a farmer, other than doing poorly with physical labour and outdoor work because I like Generally like Animals, and living with them would guarantee a close attachment. And there's no way in hell I'm killing something I've bonded to like that.
I wish they would make an adult themed pokemon. Now that...ohman
Considering pokemon express human or near human levels of intelligence, I'd have severe difficulty justifying consumption of them. Speaking strictly in-universe, I'd have an equally frustrated time justifying why it's morally acceptable to send them into death matches and keeping them in balls for my own entertainment. We look down on dog fights, but the more intelligent Pikachu going into a battle? I don't think so.
Our own moral standards as a society generally would prevent us from wanting to see most of them hurt and killed in death matches, leave alone consumed. Pokemon battles would be an underground sport and pokeballs would be contraband of the highest order--considered significantly worse than even lethal shock collars.
The only reason the universe functions as it does is because these philosophical and ethical questions are never really addressed in the games or show. There's no reason for them to be addressed, really. The closest I can even remember (though I haven't watched Pokemon in years, as a disclaimer) is the first movie, where it repeatedly tries say that violence is wrong via showing pokemon fighting in a very negative light... Only to turn right around and not give a shit for the next movies/tv shows/games and continue on with the non-lethal death matches.
So, no, I wouldn't eat a pokemon, because it's a blatantly intelligent and sentient creature. If they aren't on par to my own intelligence, they're close enough that eating them would upset my ethical standards.
Also, you couldn't eat some of them even if you tried. Like how would you eat a ghost type pokemon?
This user has been banned for: Disruptive behavior, arguments, and harassment. Escalating a situation that could have been resolved peacefully.
Actually I have heard there is a peta like organization in the pokemon world that wants to free the pokemon from these endless fights because it is inhumane. Of course these people are presented as villains and tries to achieve their goals with illegal means :9 So they are touching on the subject of it being wrong, but only from a "villain" point of view, and no one cares to think about it in any other way. (I know they are in one of the games, but not sure about the TV series. I grew up with season one then I got bored with it, and the games has never really been my thing. xD)
And the reason they didn't give a shit in the future of the show after that movie was cause everyone's memories were erased, so they literally couldn't give a shit about it. :9 Which is a shitty way to end things xD "Hey kids, violence is wrong, but as long as you can't remember it, who gives a shit? :D" Oh pokemon. You crazy :3
I know that it often seems as if normal animals don't exist in the Pokemon universe, but, the way I see it, it was never meant to be that way at first, as there are signs in Gen I at least of other animals existing (I can recall illustrations on a number of Pokemon cards showing real animals in the background, for example, and, as mentioned, the Pokedex entries refer to real animals as a comparison), and really, it makes a lot more sense that normal animals would exist, given the diversity in real animal life that could never be matched even by 700+ Pokemon, much less 150. But, also mentioned, it makes sense that the Pokemon would be more interesting to have on-screen, and so they replaced other animals with Pokemon whenever possible, and then, with each new batch of Pokemon, it became easier to replace more and more normal animals, until the occasional hints we got in Gen I that would be evidence for their existence is simply never seen anymore.
So, I'm assuming that people wouldn't need to resort to eating Pokemon meat, although, there have been several examples of Pokemon-eating in-canon, I feel I should point out. Anyone remember Slowpoke tails? Or the fact that Farfetch'd was nearly hunted to extinction for its meat? Still, both of those were examples of Pokemon being hunted not just because they were every-day meat but because they were considered a delicacy of sorts, and, in the eyes of many, hunting them was still looked down upon, so, it makes sense to say that, in-universe, eating Pokemon is a thing that happens, but it's generally considered unethical.
You should read the "Pokemon Adventures" manga. Ah, it sounds like such a kid-friendly title, doesn't it? But you'd be wrong about that.
It pre-dates the anime and was based strictly off of the original games, which, without any preconceived notion of what the TV series is supposed to be like, can be interpreted in a rather gritty way, and they were.
Like, let's start with the fact that Pokemon actually suffer clearly visible injuries as a result of battle (hell, there's a bit in volume 1 where an Arbok gets fucking sliced in half with its blood spilling everywhere), and the fights just seem a lot more realistic in general (well, as realistic as it gets when you have tiny super-powered creatures blasting fire and ice at each other).
Also, I recall one instance where some Team Rocket grunts inject a Rhyhorn with what appeared to be steroids of some kind to force it to evolve, among other fucked-up experiments on Pokemon -- oh, and the ghosts in Pokemon Tower were replaced with zombies. I don't know why -- I just know that Pokemon zombies with their flesh rotting and their bodies falling apart are a lot more creepy to look at than ghosts.
But yeah, overall it's just a much darker imagining of Pokemon that actually feels a lot closer to what the original games were like, at least when you manage to shove the anime out of your mind and pretend it doesn't exist. Pokemon sure does look like it was originally meant to be slightly more adult in nature, that way (which would explain some of the fucked-up aspects of the universe that are never really explained and seem sort of out-of-place in a kids' series when you think about it too hard).
Fuck yeah, I would.
GOTTA CATCH 'EM ALL... IN MY STOMACH.
Or an Onyx. >.>
As I told Mid last night, I cannot imagine trying to consume a pokemon. My brain just doesn't allow this. To me it would be the same as trying to eat a beloved household pet.
Has anybody seen my pikachu?
Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content)
That was team Plasma from Pokemon Black & White.
And in all honesty they had executed it rather well, except for two rather large/significant factors.
Which are honestly significant enough to break it entirely. >.<
1) The Grunt's were clueless at times.
By this I mean their methods of 'helping' pokemon were taking them away from people, or physically beating pokemon into servitude.
2) The Leader has ulterior Motives
The Leader actually turned out not to give a shit about Pokemon rights. That was just a bluff he made up so people would give up their pokemon, leaving him as the only person left with pokemon.
In other word's they weren't actually Pokemon Rights Activist but rather a Pokemon Version of PETA.
Which now that I think of it was probably Nintendo's goal, to make a spoof/tease of PETA.
I have no desire to have any of those things near me, much less in me. So, the answer is no. >:|
Heh, yeah, I was actually going to say in response to your first point -- at least they didn't euthanize the Pokemon they stole, which already makes them better than PETA. :P
In fact, hell, does anyone remember "Pokemon Black and Blue"? The Pokemon parody that PETA made? The whole thing was about Pokemon rebelling against their cruel trainers freeing them from other trainers, and then, at the end of the game, there was a Slowpoke, a fucking Slowpoke, that showed up and said "Hey, did you hear there's some group called Team Plasma trying to liberate all Pokemon??"
Also, I vaguely recall that Ghetsis was actually one of the villains in that game, and, yes, they definitely brought up the fact that he didn't actually care about liberating Pokemon -- and then they commented on that being a "spoiler" and I think followed up with something like "wait, what is anyone even doing here if they haven't played the real game?"
Yeah... despite how stupid of a concept this was (and yes, it was actually made by the real PETA, and not someone trying to parody PETA), that game sure was weirdly knowledgeable about the source material and the fan culture surrounding it. @_@
mm prob tastes like chicken.
I mean, eat a Pokemon? I'D NEVER!
I remember playing that. XD
I have a feeling that PETA probably has a few Pokemon Fans among them.
Those who can separate reality from fiction, but were still more than willing to make a 'realistic' Pokemon Parody.