- Pronoun
- she/her
-
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
Human Food
- Thread starter Eeveelution
- Start date
1. Their team's weakest link. I've been patient, Ralts, but you've fainted one time too many.
2. TinyMushrooms. Duuude, do you think that, like, Arceus could create a Pokemon so tough, that even he couldn't catch it?
3. Berries. Some dude in some game (shut up I don't remember, I think it was one of the GSC games) says that he ate a Pokemon berry and that people probably shouldn't eat them but it was really tasty. They probably all just give humans explosive diarrhea.
I dunno. I disagree with the "eating Pokemon would be weird", though. How is eating a somewhat-sentient being (after killing them humanely, presumably) more morally dubious than storing them in a tiny ball and making them fight each other for your amusement and, should you win, cash monies?
Besides, the Pokedex in the games say that people eat some of them. Like Farfetch'd. I think.
2. TinyMushrooms. Duuude, do you think that, like, Arceus could create a Pokemon so tough, that even he couldn't catch it?
3. Berries. Some dude in some game (shut up I don't remember, I think it was one of the GSC games) says that he ate a Pokemon berry and that people probably shouldn't eat them but it was really tasty. They probably all just give humans explosive diarrhea.
I dunno. I disagree with the "eating Pokemon would be weird", though. How is eating a somewhat-sentient being (after killing them humanely, presumably) more morally dubious than storing them in a tiny ball and making them fight each other for your amusement and, should you win, cash monies?
Besides, the Pokedex in the games say that people eat some of them. Like Farfetch'd. I think.
brandman
^ pretty amazing
I don't really think it would be weird to eat pokemon. They're close to sentience, but I see them more as pets doing very, VERY, dangerous tricks. It would also have to do with your culture. You may think that Houndour is a wonderful pet but someone else may think he is a delicasy. 0.o
Also I think they have regular animals in the world too. Though I simply think that pokemon would be animals, just in a different phylum.
Though I am surprised at how many drug references are in the game. Oh and take off slowpoke tail as a food, it's a drug since people "chew" on them. Also the mushrooms.
I heard from somewhere that the regions were based off of actual area's in Japan, well, at least the geography. So yeah, sushi would be a must.
Also I think they have regular animals in the world too. Though I simply think that pokemon would be animals, just in a different phylum.
Though I am surprised at how many drug references are in the game. Oh and take off slowpoke tail as a food, it's a drug since people "chew" on them. Also the mushrooms.
I heard from somewhere that the regions were based off of actual area's in Japan, well, at least the geography. So yeah, sushi would be a must.
Eeveelution
Among the few morons with straight A's.
Well, I recall that in one episode of the anime, they mentioned a plant called "Pokémon Nip" that "attracted Pokémon like cat nip attracts cats" or something along those lines. And sadly, Great Boo has a point: it is pretty inhumane to treat Pokémon like that. That's why Pikachu is always out of its Poké Ball: it didn't want to go back in when Ash first got it.
Blastoise Fortooate
Geographical!
Valerunner
Probably shouldn't be here.
- Pronoun
- She/her
Guys, regular animals have been RETCONNED since G/S/C. Therefore they don't exist anymore.
Oh and rice balls = onigiri. Also, the regions are enlarged versions of Japan. Sinnoh = Hokkaido, Kanto shares the name with its realworld counterpart, Johto = Kansai, Hoenn = Kyushu on its side.
As per Mimey cooking food, it could be that the fake meat doesn't have the chemicals that real meat does that makes Pokemon sense if it's Pokemon meat or not. Even so, it would only affect a select few; not many Pokemon cook food, and some Pokemon are carnivorous, and would only think of cooked Pokemon meat as "processed".
Oh and rice balls = onigiri. Also, the regions are enlarged versions of Japan. Sinnoh = Hokkaido, Kanto shares the name with its realworld counterpart, Johto = Kansai, Hoenn = Kyushu on its side.
As per Mimey cooking food, it could be that the fake meat doesn't have the chemicals that real meat does that makes Pokemon sense if it's Pokemon meat or not. Even so, it would only affect a select few; not many Pokemon cook food, and some Pokemon are carnivorous, and would only think of cooked Pokemon meat as "processed".
brandman
^ pretty amazing
Well... technically sugar is a drug too... not my point though. I meant it was an illegal drug. If you look in SoulSilver's pokedex entry for slowpoke you get that "people like to chew their tails as it secretes a sweet sap"*. And if it wasn't technicly a drug, why were people selling the tails for one million?
Also, even though chew tobago is not illegal, it is a drug and could be considered a drug because of all of it's addictives.
*not word for word
1. Luftballon
Banned
- Pronoun
- it
Ymedron
The apologetic dreamer
I personally think that eating pokemon wouldn't be weird or creepy at all.
What do pokemon eat? Pokemon are sentient, they eat each other. (at least according to the games.) Shouldn't they stop eating each other too?
The relationship between a trainer and a pokemon is like a human and their pet, while pokemon raised for their meat are probably more like the 'traditional' domesticated animals. One could even think that the pokemon that are raised for food have been bred to be of a simpler mind, just like dogs are somewhat less smart than their wild relatives.
And pokemon's opinions?
Cannibalization is far more common in animal society than most believe- Mothers eat their offspring if they are deformed or if she is too weak to take care of them. A certain species of frogs has a trait that causes half of the tadpoles to become herbivores, and the other half to become carnivores that eat the herbivores.
The general opinion of pokemon might be 'It's the way of life.' Wild pokemon should at least have this sentiment to the predation. A stantler getting angry at a pack of mightyena for eating it's brother would only spell death to the stantler.
Sure, in every group there are individuals with different opinions.
(this gives me too many ideas- People for the Ethical treatment of Pokemon?)
What do pokemon eat? Pokemon are sentient, they eat each other. (at least according to the games.) Shouldn't they stop eating each other too?
The relationship between a trainer and a pokemon is like a human and their pet, while pokemon raised for their meat are probably more like the 'traditional' domesticated animals. One could even think that the pokemon that are raised for food have been bred to be of a simpler mind, just like dogs are somewhat less smart than their wild relatives.
And pokemon's opinions?
Cannibalization is far more common in animal society than most believe- Mothers eat their offspring if they are deformed or if she is too weak to take care of them. A certain species of frogs has a trait that causes half of the tadpoles to become herbivores, and the other half to become carnivores that eat the herbivores.
The general opinion of pokemon might be 'It's the way of life.' Wild pokemon should at least have this sentiment to the predation. A stantler getting angry at a pack of mightyena for eating it's brother would only spell death to the stantler.
Sure, in every group there are individuals with different opinions.
(this gives me too many ideas- People for the Ethical treatment of Pokemon?)
Last edited:
Valerunner
Probably shouldn't be here.
- Pronoun
- She/her
This.
Though I doubt Nintendo were thinking this; Pokemon is primarily a kid's game and Nidoqueen eating their young wouldn't exactly be cute.
Dannichu
Tragically unbeyachted.
I posted on this, I swear I did )<
Pokemon's opinions wouldn't matter - Pokemon (from what we know) don't have morals, and it's silly to apply human morals to non-human animals. I don't get this argument; "They do it to each other, so we're morally justified doing it to them"? This logic leads to horrible places.
Pokemon are sentient and I can't see how killing a sentient creature for food is not creepy or weird.
Pokemon's opinions wouldn't matter - Pokemon (from what we know) don't have morals, and it's silly to apply human morals to non-human animals. I don't get this argument; "They do it to each other, so we're morally justified doing it to them"? This logic leads to horrible places.
Pokemon are sentient and I can't see how killing a sentient creature for food is not creepy or weird.
Ymedron
The apologetic dreamer
Well, that is, if you consider humans set apart from the nature. I myself think that human is an animal, and has it's place in the natural order. It wouldn't be fair for humans that they couldn't eat meat.
If the argument that eating sentient creatures: creepy, then why do you contradict that argument by saying that they don't have morals? Morals are derived from the natural rules in animal society. Wolves have morals: Have territories to divide food equally, don't kill your own species with no reason (to preserve the species), raise the cubs.
'Morals' are there to prevent the species from killing itself.
(If I understand right and morals define killing, living and interacting with others)
Pokemon would have morals, they would just be different from ours.
If the argument that eating sentient creatures: creepy, then why do you contradict that argument by saying that they don't have morals? Morals are derived from the natural rules in animal society. Wolves have morals: Have territories to divide food equally, don't kill your own species with no reason (to preserve the species), raise the cubs.
'Morals' are there to prevent the species from killing itself.
(If I understand right and morals define killing, living and interacting with others)
Pokemon would have morals, they would just be different from ours.
Dannichu
Tragically unbeyachted.
Humans set themselves away from nature. Humans have removed themselves from the natural order. Nature would have me die of an asthma attack. I have faulty lungs and can't breathe as well as other people. If I'm allowed to get old and breed and pass on my faulty-lung genes, I weaken the species. Is this "unfair" to the rest of the human race?
I think you're confusing morals with instinct. Wolves don't have morals - what they do, the way they behave, is based on the survival of the self and/or of the pack. There's nothing moral about it.
Humans have a sense of morality that means that if someone's mentally disabled, we, as a society, look after them. Humans have invented inhalers so people like me don't die every time they get a lung infection. There's absolutely no gain, from an evolutionary perspective, from looking after disabled people or making medicine to treat people with incurable chronic illnesses. Evolution says they're a drain on society and a risk to the genepool, but because we are capable of reason and empathy and morals, we look after them.
And those morals have absolutely nothing to do with the natural rules in animal society.
I think you're confusing morals with instinct. Wolves don't have morals - what they do, the way they behave, is based on the survival of the self and/or of the pack. There's nothing moral about it.
Humans have a sense of morality that means that if someone's mentally disabled, we, as a society, look after them. Humans have invented inhalers so people like me don't die every time they get a lung infection. There's absolutely no gain, from an evolutionary perspective, from looking after disabled people or making medicine to treat people with incurable chronic illnesses. Evolution says they're a drain on society and a risk to the genepool, but because we are capable of reason and empathy and morals, we look after them.
And those morals have absolutely nothing to do with the natural rules in animal society.
Ymedron
The apologetic dreamer
Well, if you pass those genes on, it won't weaken the human species any more than a drop of muddy water darkens a sea.
Morals rise from evolution- it has been advantageous for humans recently to look after the weak and sick. Every animal has moral values, people just don't want to admit that animals could contain any sense of self-awareness in them.
THe reason why humans look after sick has risen from the feelings of compassion, which have evolved so humans would work together better. If a human wouldn't care about the plight of other humans, the early tribes would have disappeared and died.
Why do you complain about the ethicality and morals of eating sentient animals (pokemon) if they have nothing to do with nature? To me, it seems that in the world of pokemon there are somewhat less humans than in our world. Also to me it seems that humans are killed by predatory pokemon, they just do not choose to show it.
Either pokemon are sapient, have complex social behaviour and moral values (or 'instincts') to define their behaviour amongst themselves and others, or they are just simple animals with an exceptional ability to decipher human speech.
Either way, if humans weren't so distant from the nature, they would consider other animals killing them just the way of the life. A tribe reveled bears as gods. They then developed a belief that stated that bears don't really want to be on earth, and when they killed and ate them, the bear-spirit was freed.
Similar beliefs and sentiments would exist in a sapient pokemon society. (Trained pokemon would find eating pokemon meat a bit more objectionable, perhaps)
PS: Humans are animals, but their population is so grotesquely large that it isn't in the order of nature here. My apologies for derailing my thoughts.
Morals rise from evolution- it has been advantageous for humans recently to look after the weak and sick. Every animal has moral values, people just don't want to admit that animals could contain any sense of self-awareness in them.
THe reason why humans look after sick has risen from the feelings of compassion, which have evolved so humans would work together better. If a human wouldn't care about the plight of other humans, the early tribes would have disappeared and died.
Why do you complain about the ethicality and morals of eating sentient animals (pokemon) if they have nothing to do with nature? To me, it seems that in the world of pokemon there are somewhat less humans than in our world. Also to me it seems that humans are killed by predatory pokemon, they just do not choose to show it.
Either pokemon are sapient, have complex social behaviour and moral values (or 'instincts') to define their behaviour amongst themselves and others, or they are just simple animals with an exceptional ability to decipher human speech.
Either way, if humans weren't so distant from the nature, they would consider other animals killing them just the way of the life. A tribe reveled bears as gods. They then developed a belief that stated that bears don't really want to be on earth, and when they killed and ate them, the bear-spirit was freed.
Similar beliefs and sentiments would exist in a sapient pokemon society. (Trained pokemon would find eating pokemon meat a bit more objectionable, perhaps)
PS: Humans are animals, but their population is so grotesquely large that it isn't in the order of nature here. My apologies for derailing my thoughts.
brandman
^ pretty amazing
^ That... somewhat.
1. Luftballon
Banned
- Pronoun
- it
brandman
^ pretty amazing
No, actually, it proves me right. Scroll down, and find this:
A chemical compound or substance that can alter the structure and function of the body.
Sugar can alter the function of your body, if you contradict this then you are most definitely wrong. There are many substances that can do this that are considered drugs, so no, I'm not wrong.
1. Luftballon
Banned
- Pronoun
- it
1. Luftballon
Banned
- Pronoun
- it