What Monster would you most like to have as a pet?

[Razade]

Razade, I feel as if you really moving the goalposts as to what counts as a person here.

I have been utterly consistent. You don't know what moving the goalposts is. Simply pointing out why your arguments are flawed isn't moving the goal posts.

Like really pushing them as far as you can. Why do you care so much? You've given us a bunch of reasons why you wouldn't count Pokemon as people, yet you have yet to give us clear criteria as to what you WOULD consider a pokemon that wouldn't count as a pet.

An. Animal. I think I've been pretty clear.

Like, I don't really value pokemon the way you do. If pokemon were real, I'd much rather go capture a Ralts and a Riolu and raise them to be my best personal friends ever whose Aura and telepathy powers understand me on a level no other being can, but then I couldn't count either as pets- I wouldn't want such an unequal relationship, those tend to only be exploitive, I like my relationships being equal, mutual respect and friendliness y'know? If I went and tried to capture Arceus, god of all pokemon it'd just be this big pain:

What the hell are you talking about? Pokemon are pets in the games. Tons of people just have them outside pokeballs in their homes and talk about them like people talk about their dogs. Forming bonds of friendship isn't something you don't do with a pet. What do you think a pet is exactly? Do you think any single person owning a cat is exploiting the cat? Do you think a dog owner is somehow exploiting their animals?

1. There would be no guarantee that when I caught Arceus, that he'd ever obey me. the whole badge/level obey thing is a game mechanic, and a real pokemon world wouldn't follow the mechanics to a T. Its very possible that people have tried to catch and use Arceus for their own exploitive gain before and well, we all know how well trying to exploit godlike being like that turns out in fiction.

I'd like to earn the badges? That'd be great, I'd love to travel the world and fight trainers. That seems fine with me! Where can I do that, sign me up. Sign me up yesterday. Where do I go to get my Starter Pokemon? I pick Fennekin btw. Guess I have to start in Kalos then, that's only sorta a bummer. I'll get used to eating snails. But seriously, when can I start? I need to let everyone know I'm going on a Pokemon adventure.

Have you also missed that I don't want an Arceus to exploit it and you telling me that's the only reason I want it doesn't make it so?

2.. Even if I managed to control him enough to start these exploits, people would soon notice and start coming to beg me to solve everyone's problems. Suddenly everyone would expect me, as the controller of god, to become god. and there is no guarantee that I'd do a good job. There is a catch to everything. For some reason I doubt that if I actually had control Arceus, that things would be as simple as "hey solve this problem for me" every time something comes up.

Arceus is genderless last I checked, its a Legendary after all. Well technically Mythical but that's splitting hairs.

You making up catches also doesn't make them so no matter how wildly you invent them or how baseless they are.

Once again, I'm not saying I want Arceus for the reasons you have ascribed me. Your counter-argument is moot on merit of it countering something I haven't said.

that and one last thing to think about: would you rather have Gardevoir as a viable pet for this thread, or as an equal being who gets treated with respect? Because I'd rather not have the former myself. Better to have pokemon be people instead than to have that stupid horribleness.

The fact that you don't think an animal can't be both says a lot more about you than it does about me frankly. I've owned animals plenty of times before and guess what? I treated them with the same sort of love and respect and afforded them the same rights I'd afford any other human being I know. I had two dogs get cancer and I took the inordinate emotional and financial burden of putting them through chemo just to give them even one more day without pain and suffering and sickness. I did it because I loved them, they were everything to me and made my world that much brighter for having been in them. I don't know what you think a pet is exactly, but it certainly isn't what I think of when someone says pet. Frankly Raziere I think how I'm describing pet is better than either two options you thrust at me.

Ownership isn't slavery. It's not a blank check to just do what ever you want to a thing. Owning a dog doesn't mean it's your slave, you don't get to put cigarette butts out on it and leave it outside in subzero weather because well..it's just something you own. True, you haven't said that that is inherent in ownership but this strange dichotomy you have between the word pet and "equal being" seems to imply at least a similar division. I own a dog in the same sort of way one is responsible for their child before they can make their own decisions. Sadly dogs cannot make their own decisions in so far as our human society is concerned. We sort of bred dogs not to be able to deal with the rigors of the wilds either. Feral dogs have less enjoyable, safe and healthy lives compared to dogs living in a home. Even a non-loving home. My pets are always part of my family. My pets are given the utmost care at the ability for me to provide and pay for. My pets, no matter the circumstances, are to be respected by anyone who even hopes to come into my home. My pets, no matter the circumstances, are to be respected period. Anyone even daring to consider treating my pets differently would very swiftly find why we name storms after people. If I had a Pokemon it'd be the same.

[Lord Raziere]

Look I'm just saying:

picture a Gardevoir on a leash.

Something seems wrong about that. Your constant insistence that they are pets implies that is ok. Me, Pokemon they should be more than pets because they clearly are. They have expanded beyond that long ago. With all side games your ignoring just so you can make your argument "right", which is where you moved the goalposts by the way by saying anything but the games you like don't count because its not your canon, when really a more accurate judgement of any franchise is as a whole in its entirety rather than rabidly cutting out any part they don't like for arbitrary reasons.

I mean, its not as if any of the actual companies and corporations who make this stuff care about canon. They don't give a rats tail about it. Canon is only worth as much as the money it makes them. And given how much franchises like these love to make non-canon stuff just to make more money, that apparently isn't much. Star Wars canon? look how much Disney valued that. They just said boom, reboot, threw away everything EU made before Force Awakens. And just how many times has Marvel/DC rebooted their canon without a second thought? Or make side stories and so on that in some cases are BETTER than their "canon". Nintendo? just look at all the non-canon pokemon stuff they've made. They don't care about canon or any of that nonsense, they just make pokemon things that people like. Canon is a fan invention, and not really all that valuable of a thing.

Me, I have a more accurate view of what pokemon is, because your narrowing your view by saying that there is a "true pokemon" that is somehow "more elite" than the rest of the franchise, when really that doesn't exist, there is really no point to establishing a canon, and its stopping progress of what a story or universe can be simply because of random reasons that don't make any sense. You don't have a more accurate view of pokemon, you have narrower view of it. And I don't feel as your respecting my view of pokemon which is wider, which can be more than just what you say it is. There is so much that Pokemon can be that is more than what you say it is, and has been. Just because you have a narrower view doesn't mean your view is more accurate.

[Razade]

Look I'm just saying:

picture a Gardevoir on a leash.

Not my fetish thanks. I'd wager a "Pokemon in leashes" google search would get you exactly what you want though. Just remember to turn Google's Safe Search Filter off before you do.

Something seems wrong about that. Your constant insistence that they are pets implies that is ok.

It's only creepy because you picked one of the few (but startlingly growing number of) humanoid Pokemon. In The Biz(TM) we call that only slightly manipulative. Imagine a leash on a Zigzagoon and it becomes way less weird. Picture a Furfrou or Houndoom on a leash, it's easy. Because they're DOGS.

Me, Pokemon they should be more than pets because they clearly are. They have expanded beyond that long ago. With all side games your ignoring just so you can make your argument "right", which is where you moved the goalposts by the way by saying anything but the games you like don't count because its not your canon, when really a more accurate judgement of any franchise is as a whole in its entirety rather than rabidly cutting out any part they don't like for arbitrary reasons.

Again, you keep using the word pet as if that's some sort of pejorative and I'm not exactly sure why. Pokemon are absolutely pets in the games. I've already pointed out that people take care of them like pets. Talk about them like they're pets. There are FARMS for Miltank. There are FARMS for Skiddo and Gogoat. There are HOMELESS SKIDDO. HOMELESS. GODDAMNED. SKIDDO. You don't farm non-animals without some serious human rights violations going on. You don't cheerfully comment on how cute the homeless and soon to be feral Lumiose Skiddo population is if they're more than animals. If they're Lumiose regular Homeless People you spit on them and tell them to get a job more than likely. Well this is Pokemon and they're kids games so they probably just make them vagabond scamps like Dick Van Dike in Mary Poppins and move on with your life. My point is Pokemon are shown in the games as animals. Not as people or near people.

Moving the goalposts also isn't me saying "those aren't canon". That's not a Moving the Goalposts Fallacy. It'd be Cherry Picking, if you're going to accuse me of a fallacy make sure it's the right one instead of repeating the one you've already demonstrated you don't know. It's not cherry picking though, the main Pokemon cannon are the games made by Gamefreak. Which are the core games. Gamefreak didn't make any of the Mystery Dungeon games. Chunsoft did. Gamefreak didn't make the Pokemon Rangers series. HAL Laboratory and Creatures Inc. did. The Pokemon Company (which ALSO isn't Gamefreak) only published those games. They weren't made by or had any direct input from anyone who made Pokemon Red/Green/Blue/Yellow. They aren't canon. Gamefreak has little input on the anime as well. They have even less input on the movies. They aren't canon either. They're over glorified Fanfiction. Over glorified Fanfiction with the tacit approval of the creators but Fanfiction all the same. Gamefreak has made Pokemon Blue/Red/Green/Yellow/Gold/Silver/Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald/Diamond/Pearl/Platinum/Black(2)/White(2)/X/Y and Sun/Moon. That's. The. Canon. Because that's the series the original creators have had direct creative control over.

I mean, its not as if any of the actual companies and corporations who make this stuff care about canon. They don't give a rats tail about it. Canon is only worth as much as the money it makes them. And given how much franchises like these love to make non-canon stuff just to make more money, that apparently isn't much. Star Wars canon? look how much Disney valued that. They just said boom, reboot, threw away everything EU made before Force Awakens. And just how many times has Marvel/DC rebooted their canon without a second thought? Or make side stories and so on that in some cases are BETTER than their "canon". Nintendo? just look at all the non-canon pokemon stuff they've made. They don't care about canon or any of that nonsense, they just make pokemon things that people like. Canon is a fan invention, and not really all that valuable of a thing.

You're right, they don't. They just wanna make money. They leave it to internet nerds to argue about it. The majority of the fandom however agrees that the main games are canon so whatcha gonna do. Star War canon was always just the movies, anyone who thought otherwise was fooling themselves. It goes back to me pointing out only the direct creators get to determine what's canon and that determination is who ever owns the rights to the core series. Nintendo doesn't actually own the rights to Pokemon...kinda..that's legal stuff and legal stuff isn't allowed on the forums. Needless to say, Nintendo was just a Publisher, Gamefreak is the company with nominal creative rights. I know you want to shuck off canon because you've been told one too many times your pet theories and fanfiction are against the actual story by the author and therefore hold a grudge against it anytime it's mentioned but that's just too bad.

Me, I have a more accurate view of what pokemon is, because your narrowing your view by saying that there is a "true pokemon" that is somehow "more elite" than the rest of the franchise, when really that doesn't exist, there is really no point to establishing a canon, and its stopping progress of what a story or universe can be simply because of random reasons that don't make any sense. You don't have a more accurate view of pokemon, you have narrower view of it. And I don't feel as your respecting my view of pokemon which is wider, which can be more than just what you say it is. There is so much that Pokemon can be that is more than what you say it is, and has been. Just because you have a narrower view doesn't mean your view is more accurate.

Not only do you not have the "more accurate" view on what Pokemon is, I have never once said the words "true Pokemon" or "Elite Pokemon". You can, and do not need my permission to, put words into my mouth but I am going to call you out on it every time you do it because you are engaging in Straw Manning and since you are ever so eager to (incorrectly) try and throw fallacies at me I feel justified in doing the same to you. You have continuously strawmanned me to a point I've had to go back and read my own (utterly insufferable posts. I'm not surprised you're strawmanning me. Those posts must be way more fun to read than my pedantic scrawl) arguments to make sure we're in the same universe. All that said, you don't get to simply declare victory by saying you win. You don't get to claim a "more accurate" anything simply because you want something to be the way you want it and therefore you win either.

I get it Raziere, I do. You have some romantic ideal that Pokemon are your best buddies and can sense your emotions and all sorts of things and when someone points out that your ideas just don't hold any weight outside spin offs (the very term spin-off by the way implies mere association, not full connection to the main product) you want to stomp your feet and shout how I'm looking at things in a narrow way. It makes you uncomfortable to think of your special friends as nothing more than a highly trained pet or animal doing it's function. That's fine, that's absolutely fine. But when you come at me with your Fanfiction held high I am totally in my right to disregard it as exactly what it is and what it is is what I've said a dozen times now. It's Fanfiction.

Well Raziere I don't find your fanfiction persuasive or honestly adding anything of significant merit to the Pokemon games. I actually find they take something away.

Consider for a moment strapping your best friend down in a ball, only letting them out to see the sunlight to pummel other peoples best friends down into the dirt only to return to some claustrophobic hellhole just to do it all over again. Consider pumping your best friends full of antibiotics and medicine when they get sick and beat up because instead of letting them be free to do what ever they want to do. I could barely give my dogs shots because they'd cry and whine and hide when they knew it was time for their medicine. I couldn't even think of doing it every day because some jerk in tall grass decided he loved shorts and rattatta enough to stand around long enough to waylay me. I don't like when people try to equate Pokemon to cockfighting. I don't enjoy it when people try to explain how Pokemon are more than animals doing what they do in nature (which is fight) because I don't like it when people try to make Pokemon GRIM/DARK. But your Fanfiction, if you're going to be honest and realistic, is by necessity all the terrible horrible things people try to say the games are if you peel back the skin a little.

So you can sit there and tell me your Fanfiction is more accurate than me following the main storyline created by the original Dev Studio all you'd like. Nothing I say is going to dissuade you. But I sure as hell am glad the Dev Studio disagrees with you. I wouldn't want to play your Pokemon Game.

[tantric]

froghemoth, no question - i painted this on my kitchen divider

[Lleban]

...So I'm thinking i want an iron golem, and not just cuz I love the Iron giant.

[Lord Raziere]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because your pokemon sounds like the grimdark one. It means that only humans are people and that all pokemon are just mindless beasts who only want to eat or to mate, and that means your taking advantage of them by capturing them rather than them being intelligent enough to be willing to come with you. there is no official word on what actually occurs inside a pokeball, so given that Pokemon is full of advanced tech and people wouldn't design a pokeball that pokemon wouldn't be comfortable in, its safe to say that its probably pretty homey.

Because honestly, pokemon eating each other and being eaten by humans because they animals is more grimdark to me. pokemon being nothing but your stamps that you put in your PC as a collection is more grimdark to me than them being people who y'know, get sent to environments where they are cared for? Honestly, the pokemon your describe where sapience doesn't seem to have much meaning is more grimdark to me, as well as all the pokedex entries being canon where they are describe as predators, and so on and so forth.

and your using fan fiction as a pejorative. The only fan fiction that exists are ones that aren't made by a company. anything else is just being overly technical, and while I get that nerds love to be technical, it gets tiring being technical. I prefer to be practical and accepting rather than technical and rejecting of anything that isn't canon. your the one being angry over my views, I'm just trying to state my own, be honest and chill. And to be honest, you don't get to say that your view of something is more valid than mine in this conversation. Canon is subjective at best 1% of the time, nonexistent at all other times.

Really, I don't understand the impulse to say "there is only thing and always only this one consistent thing! everything else is invalid!" when life grows and develops and makes it so that there are thousands of possibilities more than the single one you argue for so vehemently. What makes it so special? Nothing, really. and there is no point to shutting all those possibilities off. When you can always keep them around, maybe use them someday for something you don't expect.

Pokemon as people is less grimdark because that means there is more understanding between humans and pokemon, there are more possibilities, and there is no stupid predators and prey, you can tell more stories that way, and have more humor. the way I see it, its your view that leads to grimdarkness, but hey its subjective, and you can call it fan-fiction all you want but the anime, the movies, the Mystery Dungeons, they are all things are pretty accepted as apart of pokemon, and if we're really being technical as you like since Ash-Greninja can be transferred into Sun/Moon, a Greninja who was caught on the day that Ash's Froakie was caught, has an OT of Ash, and is canon pokemon in the Sun/Moon games. So Ash by that measure is canon, therefore the anime is canon.

[Fri]

Economists are the real monster.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/golden-eggs

[Razade]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because your pokemon sounds like the grimdark one. It means that only humans are people and that all pokemon are just mindless beasts who only want to eat or to mate, and that means your taking advantage of them by capturing them rather than them being intelligent enough to be willing to come with you. there is no official word on what actually occurs inside a pokeball, so given that Pokemon is full of advanced tech and people wouldn't design a pokeball that pokemon wouldn't be comfortable in, its safe to say that its probably pretty homey.

Going "I know you are but what am I" isn't the most stirring defense. Humans are the only people. I didn't say they were mindless, I said they weren't sapient which aren't the same things.

Because honestly, pokemon eating each other and being eaten by humans because they animals is more grimdark to me.

*Ahem*

Garchomp: It can fly at speeds rivaling jet planes. It dives into flocks of bird Pokémon and gulps the entire flock down whole.
Sliggoo: It has trouble drawing a line between friends and food. It will calmly try to melt and eat even those it gets along well with.
Froslass: When it finds humans or Pokémon it likes, it freezes them and takes them to its chilly den, where they become decorations.

Just saying. It's in the games. That's not my interpretation, that's straight from Pokemon Sun.

pokemon being nothing but your stamps that you put in your PC as a collection is more grimdark to me than them being people who y'know, get sent to environments where they are cared for? Honestly, the pokemon your describe where sapience doesn't seem to have much meaning is more grimdark to me, as well as all the pokedex entries being canon where they are describe as predators, and so on and so forth.

So...you're going to say that the games hold less importance to you than others but complain that I'm being too narrow? Alright. Also yet more strawmanning. I never claimed anything like what you're saying I am claiming. There's no reason to refute you when you're just going to keep making stuff up. Strawmanning yet again.

and your using fan fiction as a pejorative. The only fan fiction that exists are ones that aren't made by a company. anything else is just being overly technical, and while I get that nerds love to be technical, it gets tiring being technical. I prefer to be practical and accepting rather than technical and rejecting of anything that isn't canon. your the one being angry over my views, I'm just trying to state my own, be honest and chill. And to be honest, you don't get to say that your view of something is more valid than mine in this conversation. Canon is subjective at best 1% of the time, nonexistent at all other times.

Sure am! Better than telling people they can't love their pets though. You have a weird definition of what can or can't be fanfiction. As soon as someone becomes an LLC their work immediately becomes not fanfiction? Ok. You're also absolutely anything but practical. I'm also not angry, stop projecting man.

Really, I don't understand the impulse to say "there is only thing and always only this one consistent thing! everything else is invalid!" when life grows and develops and makes it so that there are thousands of possibilities more than the single one you argue for so vehemently. What makes it so special? Nothing, really. and there is no point to shutting all those possibilities off. When you can always keep them around, maybe use them someday for something you don't expect.

Because there being multiple things doesn't mean all of them are correct? Or good? Or valid? Or reasonable? Or valuable? Or important? Or...etc etc etc. I love nuance. Go look at some other posts where I discuss things with other people. I'm all about the nuance. I love discussing the gray areas. I haven't said the movies don't exist or the side games don't exist. I simply said I'm talking about canon Pokemon and clarified what canon Pokemon is.

Pokemon as people is less grimdark because that means there is more understanding between humans and pokemon, there are more possibilities, and there is no stupid predators and prey, you can tell more stories that way, and have more humor. the way I see it, its your view that leads to grimdarkness, but hey its subjective, and you can call it fan-fiction all you want but the anime, the movies, the Mystery Dungeons, they are all things are pretty accepted as apart of pokemon

Back to merely saying "I'm right because I'm right!", honestly it's tiring Raziere. It's tiring to have to keep pointing out you're strawmanning me, arguing wildly divergent points I never brought up and then claiming you win because you have some rationalization to make yourself feel better. You've invalidated all of it by admitting that you don't take certain parts of the games as your own personal canon. I'm sorry, but you have. If you want to point out all the bits you don't agree with because you don't like them or make them uncomfortable you give your game away. You only care about your comfort zone and not the truth of a thing. It's absurd.

if we're really being technical as you like since Ash-Greninja can be transferred into Sun/Moon, a Greninja who was caught on the day that Ash's Froakie was caught, has an OT of Ash, and is canon pokemon in the Sun/Moon games. So Ash by that measure is canon, therefore the anime is canon.

Promotional Pokemon don't count It's not acknowledged in the story in any way/shape/form. It doesn't give you a unique pokedex entry. It is in no way recognized by the game as anything but a Greninja. Nice try though. I caught a Missingno in Red, does that mean Missingno is part of the canon? No, it was a glitch.

[lailahussain889]

I would like to have Flying Bison. :D :P

[Peelee]

How does Rotom Dex fit into the whole person-like thing in the game? He communicates through the Pokedex, but acts and speaks autonomously in ways the Pokedex never has.

[Kitten Champion]

The strength of Pokemon has been a certain elasticity with regards to how the player perceives and relates to the titular monsters, the brand benefits from their franchise-wide inconsistency more than they suffer from it.

So, I don't see a problem with both Raziere and Razade having equally valid interpretations in much the same way that your avatar trainer has some kind of personality if you want it to and no one can really say otherwise.

[-D-]

I would like to have Flying Bison. :D :P

You mean M. Bison?

[Alent]

Rule #2 basically invalidates the question, fantasy monsters typically starts at or above canine intelligence, with most being defined as human intelligence or better. Others have also pointed out pretty much anything domesticated is sapient, which seems like a waste of the whole exercise, so I'm going to take it to mean "Something that is socially acceptable to domesticate". IE - "Alf is not a pet". (No matter how much we commoners may need him to protect us from the housecat menace.)

First choice: Efreet.

Rationale: While a shortlived pet, this could be used to solve two personal two health issues. Not actually sure what I'd use the third wish for, so we'll go with getting my second choice of a pet under the same rules-

Second choice: Flammie from Seiken Densetsu.

Rationale: flying fluffy dragon! Seriously, who doesn't want an adorable flying fluffy dragon?

A small paragon pseudonatural monstrous spider with 50 Hit dice (it's size doesn't increase with HD) and sorcerer casting equal to HD.

Catches bugs, doesn't need to eat, can create a magnificent mansion with food for me (17 charisma), and can polymorph into a cat if I want it to. Pretty well rounded.

Isn't that basically just the MC from Kumo desu ga, nani ka?, before she started getting divine ranks?

You mean M. Bison?

Pretty sure Raul Julia falls outside the list of socially acceptable things to domesticate.

[Razade]

How does Rotom Dex fit into the whole person-like thing in the game? He communicates through the Pokedex, but acts and speaks autonomously in ways the Pokedex never has.

The Rotom in the Rotom-Dex can only vocalize because the dex was built specifically to house Rotom. I'd put it as sapient however. It has likes and desires and talks about people in a conceptual way.

[Forum Explorer]

Animals shape their environments. Birds build nests, apes use tools etc etc. Deliberate acts of shaping the environment isn't necessarily sapience. I agree, in some media it shows some Pokemon as intelligent. Such as the movies. Movies aren't canon though. There are no human level intelligences in the core games. Not even Mewtwo.

On one hand fair enough, on the other hand, you already chose an example of an animal I consider sapient. (Apes) Like I said it's a really blurry line.

I guess I would argue that building an entire world (or universe) would require a level of intelligence that must be greater then a humans. Afterall, humans still don't know how the world is put together and how things work the way they do. Arceus should, in order to create it anyways.

Actually, that's another point. Arceus isn't shaping his environment, he's creating it whole scale from nothing. Again, it's a task that is beyond human understanding.

[Fri]

I can't believe I'm joining the discussion, but I find the whole debate really confusing. I thought it's obvious that some pokemon are at least as smart as human and some pokemon are basically animals and you can't just lump them together into one thing. Or is it turned out to be just my headcanon, and all pokemon are actually considered same species? Like, despite being able to breed somehow (presumably, I'm too lazy to check. But you know what I mean), I really find it impossible to lump say, tauros and alakazam as the same species or group or whatever you want to call them and treat them the same. I'll definitely run a tauros ranch, but not an alakazam ranch.

[Razade]

On one hand fair enough, on the other hand, you already chose an example of an animal I consider sapient. (Apes) Like I said it's a really blurry line.

Even if apes are sapient, tool use isn't an indication of sapience unless you consider crows or octopus sapient as well.

I guess I would argue that building an entire world (or universe) would require a level of intelligence that must be greater then a humans. Afterall, humans still don't know how the world is put together and how things work the way they do. Arceus should, in order to create it anyways.

Well....no....? This is really fallacious thinking. You're assuming that creating a planet requires intelligence which is something I don't think you can even begin to demonstrate. Maybe you can. Not on these boards though. No one else that I know has proven that it requires intelligence. Our Universe and planet came about (through all current evidence) through naturalistic means. No intelligence required. So it seems that no intelligence is required at all to make a world. Also humans have a pretty good understanding on how planets come about, just saying and "work the way they do" is pretty dang vague. Humans know how plenty of things work.

Let's put it like this. You are currently breathing. Are you willing that to happen with each breath? Do you actually know how your lungs work? I hope so but you never know, there are people in the United States that can't name every state so just covering my bases. Your heart is beating, are you actively making it beat? Do you understand how all the neurons that fire to make your body do what it does in the most minute of details? No of course not. You don't need to know a thing if it's merely a function and product of you being. Arceus's function is to create a Universe. It doesn't inherently need intelligence to do it.

Actually, that's another point. Arceus isn't shaping his environment, he's creating it whole scale from nothing. Again, it's a task that is beyond human understanding.

1. Current human understanding.
2. Arceus creating the Universe does not require either intelligence or direction.
3. There is no evidence Arceus actually did it. Just myths.

I can't believe I'm joining the discussion, but I find the whole debate really confusing. I thought it's obvious that some pokemon are at least as smart as human and some pokemon are basically animals and you can't just lump them together into one thing. Or is it turned out to be just my headcanon, and all pokemon are actually considered same species? Like, despite being able to breed somehow (presumably, I'm too lazy to check. But you know what I mean), I really find it impossible to lump say, tauros and alakazam as the same species or group or whatever you want to call them and treat them the same. I'll definitely run a tauros ranch, but not an alakazam ranch.

Pokemon Breeding is confusing. Egg Groups and all that.

[KillingAScarab]

You mean M. Bison?

Having a pet M. Bison must be expensive. Just think of all the money you would spend on toothpaste alone.

I can't believe I'm joining the discussion, but I find the whole debate really confusing. I thought it's obvious that some pokemon are at least as smart as human and some pokemon are basically animals and you can't just lump them together into one thing. Or is it turned out to be just my headcanon, and all pokemon are actually considered same species? Like, despite being able to breed somehow (presumably, I'm too lazy to check. But you know what I mean), I really find it impossible to lump say, tauros and alakazam as the same species or group or whatever you want to call them and treat them the same. I'll definitely run a tauros ranch, but not an alakazam ranch.

Pokémon is a series where "evolution" always has defined ends, little variation on the path towards it and may be halted by pressing "B" or having a Pokémon hold/not hold an item; then there's "mega evolution." I'm with you on seeing a difference between Tauros and Alakazam, but you might want to stop before trying to untangle what a "species" would be in those games.

[hamishspence]

Even if apes are sapient, tool use isn't an indication of sapience unless you consider crows or octopus sapient as well.

The distinction being between using a tool and making a tool, or better yet a tool for making more tools, like a saw.

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-15-of-86/

Mallin described difference between conscious and unconscious thought pretty well later in the trial:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-71-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-72-of-86/

and Ybarra provided a summary of sapience in general:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-74-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-75-of-86/

[Peelee]

Can't crows make tools? Them suckers are scary smart.

[hamishspence]

Them and chimps - sort of. For crows, it's bending a piece of wire to make it a better "pick" or "hook" - for chimps, it's taking a reed, and fraying the tip of it to make it a better termite-attractor.

[Raimun]

If I had to go with established monsters, I would say:

Colossus of Rhodes (God of War II).

Why? It could act as a giant mecha but it's still a monster because it's really a magical animated statue that can operate on its own initiative. Strong points include:

- Gigantic and really strong
- Humanoid
- Rather dextrous with articulated hands
- Magically tough (really high level magical weapons are required to wound it)
- Powered by a strong magical force (can be a wild card in extreme situations)
- Can fight (and presumably otherwise act) with some animal cunning but it doesn't seem to be truly sentient
- Has an interior. Would require some DIY-improvements, though. There's quite a lot of space but it's mostly wooden platforms.

Having one as a pet would be really nifty. I'm sure I could come up with a lot of peaceful applications for one and as we all know, magical animated constructs don't require sustenance and aren't dangerous to people, unless instructed to be so.

[Forum Explorer]

Even if apes are sapient, tool use isn't an indication of sapience unless you consider crows or octopus sapient as well.



Well....no....? This is really fallacious thinking. You're assuming that creating a planet requires intelligence which is something I don't think you can even begin to demonstrate. Maybe you can. Not on these boards though. No one else that I know has proven that it requires intelligence. Our Universe and planet came about (through all current evidence) through naturalistic means. No intelligence required. So it seems that no intelligence is required at all to make a world. Also humans have a pretty good understanding on how planets come about, just saying and "work the way they do" is pretty dang vague. Humans know how plenty of things work.

Let's put it like this. You are currently breathing. Are you willing that to happen with each breath? Do you actually know how your lungs work? I hope so but you never know, there are people in the United States that can't name every state so just covering my bases. Your heart is beating, are you actively making it beat? Do you understand how all the neurons that fire to make your body do what it does in the most minute of details? No of course not. You don't need to know a thing if it's merely a function and product of you being. Arceus's function is to create a Universe. It doesn't inherently need intelligence to do it.



1. Current human understanding.
2. Arceus creating the Universe does not require either intelligence or direction.
3. There is no evidence Arceus actually did it. Just myths.

You are seriously reaching, and at this point I think you're trolling, so I'm not bothering to reply beyond saying I think you are wrong and that Arceus is not a valid choice for this silly thought exercise in something that doesn't matter anyways.

[Razade]

The distinction being between using a tool and making a tool, or better yet a tool for making more tools, like a saw.

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-15-of-86/

Mallin described difference between conscious and unconscious thought pretty well later in the trial:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-71-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-72-of-86/

and Ybarra provided a summary of sapience in general:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-74-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-75-of-86/

Sure, it's a nuanced and deep introspective question on what makes man man and what makes man different from animals. One I'm probably not adequately qualified to pin down or even begin to surmise where the true and full boundaries lay. Tool production would indeed be where I start to draw lines though. Understanding just how tools are used well enough to make something that can further automate or ease that creation is another. Not sure there are any animals that have created things like saws. Most tool use in animals (even chimps) are fairly simple.

You are seriously reaching, and at this point I think you're trolling, so I'm not bothering to reply beyond saying I think you are wrong and that Arceus is not a valid choice for this silly thought exercise in something that doesn't matter anyways.

If pointing out your being fallacious when you say creating a Universe necessitates intelligence is trolling I guess I'm trolling. Otherwise, I don't particularly care if you think Arceus applies or not.

[-D-]

Pretty sure Raul Julia falls outside the list of socially acceptable things to domesticate.

Pretty sure, no one knows what you are talking about

Having a pet M. Bison must be expensive. Just think of all the money you would spend on toothpaste alone.

Worse part would be when he would take over a state and cause all kinds of illegal shenanigans ("Mam, did your Bison start an illegal human trafficking ring, and then turned said human trafficking ring into a literal death ring?", "No! Bad Bison! Bad! ").

[Peelee]

Pretty sure, no one knows what you are talking about

You're on a giant nerd forum. I'm fairly confident that a large number of people both know and appreciate the reference. And not only because that dude acted his heart out in it.

Quick! Change ze channel!

[KillingAScarab]

You're on a giant nerd forum. I'm fairly confident that a large number of people both know and appreciate the reference. And not only because that dude acted his heart out in it.

Quick! Change ze channel!

You have to consider the context of both how and when this side-branch of the thread cropped up. -D- posts here all the time. For you, it might have been the highlight of the day, but for -D- it was Tuesday.

[-D-]

You're on a giant nerd forum. I'm fairly confident that a large number of people both know and appreciate the reference. And not only because that dude acted his heart out in it.

Of course!

But to true game enthusiast, that movie never happened. It was a dream.

[Peelee]

Of course!

But to true game enthusiast, that movie never happened. It was a dream.

That was beautiful.

But I cast off your shackles of true gaming, and embrace the wonderful cheesiness that made a cinematic masterpiece!

[KillingAScarab]

Of course!

But to true game enthusiast, that movie never happened. It was a dream.

Well, except there was the hilarious Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game. Proving that the monster most desired as a pet by the game developers saddled with that was an ouroboros.

That was beautiful.

But I cast off your shackles of true gaming, and embrace the wonderful cheesiness that made a cinematic masterpiece!

I'm going to bring this back around full circle by pointing out that Street Fighter: The Movie's M. Bison most desired to have Blanka as a pet. Blanka, per the opening scene to vanilla Street Fighter IV, most desired a blue whale as a pet. Whales were largely regarded as monstrous until sometime in the 1960s.

Spoiler: Blitz -> X, Y, Down, Up

Show

And now this topic has been wrenched back on track.