PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon

[MikelaC1]

I applaud PETA's actions and would urge them to move forward.
For instance, they should definitely deal with that evil, sadistic hunter Elmer Fudd and his unholy obsession with shooting rabbits.
They could also move to stop the horrible cruelty perpetuated on domestic cats by Tweety Birds, and Spike & Chester.
And then there are the constant sexual assualts mounted by Pepe Le Pew that must be stopped.
Not to mention the totally undefendable actions of corporations that constantly sell arms and ammunition to Wile E. Coyote.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone

I like to think you instead get eaten by the wild Pokemon, and after a fee is deducted from your bank account, a clone with up-to-date memory scan is activated.

Sadly less morbid than thinking about what the pokemon would do with the money...

[Dusk Eclipse]

Originally Posted by TheFallenOne

Now we're already talking about Pokemon... Is the main character really called Ash Ketchum? Is that honestly supposed to be his real name, not an alias he took when he decided to go into Pokemoning? Because such a cheap, lame pun in the name of the main character would be just sad...

Yep, it actually worked pretty well for the English dub of Pokémon 2000, even if it did make Ash more of a chosen one than the original.

[Anarion]

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone

I like to think you instead get eaten by the wild Pokemon, and after a fee is deducted from your bank account, a clone with up-to-date memory scan is activated.

I like this. It also implies that Pokemon centers have some sort of clone holding tanks I guess. That's interesting. I wonder why the human clones are all stored in Pokemon centers.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Sadly less morbid than thinking about what the pokemon would do with the money...

I think the PETA game answers this one. Obviously, the pokemon take the money to buy paper and clipboards for all their petitions.

[The Glyphstone]

Originally Posted by Anarion

I like this. It also implies that Pokemon centers have some sort of clone holding tanks I guess. That's interesting. I wonder why the human clones are all stored in Pokemon centers.

They're just general all-purpose hospitals, but are branded as 'Pokemon centers' because the majority of their cloning tanks are used to replicate replacement Pokemon after they've "fainted" in battle.

[Dusk Eclipse]

10 Gp says there is (or will be) a fanfic based on that premise.

[Wyntonian]

Originally Posted by Anarion

I think the PETA game answers this one. Obviously, the pokemon take the money to buy paper and clipboards for all their petitions.

Not to mention signs and red paint to dump on people wearing fur coats.

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Anarion

Apparently PETA believes that Pokemon encourages animal abuse and glorifies cruel treatment of animals. Here's a quote from the article.
"The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods"

Anyone else notice that when PETA puts out some kind of notice, they speak in really long run-on sentences? It's like they start out with one issue, and in the process of arguing it, get sidetracked by 3 other issues.

Why can they not juse some comma's to break up what they are saying at least? Are comma's now being mistreated too? Are commas being exploited "only to perform confusing and often painful tricks" of grammar?

[Herpestidae]

Some guy plays the game so you don't have to (language warning)

I think the attack names make the game itself So Bad It's Good, IMHO.

[Kinslayer]

Just realised watching that video ; the beartraps when you're talking to Nurse Joy look like hearts.

LOVE IS A TRAP.

[Ravens_cry]

*sigh* PETA, even when I agree with you, I disagree with you.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Herpestidae

Some guy plays the game so you don't have to

I think the attack names make the game itself So Bad It's Good, IMHO.

That was..... something.

You might want to put a tag on that about the youtube poster's language. It doesn't bother me any, but it could offend more sensitive viewers.

[Isolder74]

You know on the subject of PETA complaining about Circus Elephants riding in a railroad car on their list of 'Cruelties' against animals I must point out one minor detail.

That is no less room usually given to people on trains, cars, busses, or most other vehicles. I think the only mode of transportation where a passenger gets more room in general would be an ocean/cruise liner and personal jets.

[Asta Kask]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

Exactly, there is an arrangement, a covenant between dinosaurs and humans. Did pokemon ask to be enslaved? No, they are taken from the wild by force. The fact they try to escape is proof enough of that.
I'm not saying it's as big an issue PETA is making it Gods no, overreacting is basically their watchword, their primary mode of operation, but gods, we still should stop and think about these things.

Yes. We should think about the MST3K Mantra.

[INoKnowNames]

Shouldn't Nintendo be able to sue them? That's blatant copyright enfringement on their game right there. Not to mention they've done so little research as to what actually goes on in the games, especially considering the themes of the latest version.

Why does Peta thing animals deserve -more- rights than humans? I'm of the opinion that they deserve -equal- rights, but why -more-? Why does Peta hate humans?

[The Succubus]

Because we are lacking in several traits that make animals superior. We can't be sliced up, fried and made into rashers, we can't carry heavy people on our backs and carry them around, we can't produce the sort of milk that goes in tea and as for our attempt "lolhumanz"...it was frankly embarassing.

[Isolder74]

Also it might stem from the idea that in the natural world humans cheat by using technology to trump other animals where normally we'd be the dinner.

Ironically the very technology that makes any kind of Vegan lifestyle possible. On a natural level we can't survive without out some animal protein in our diet for nutrition reasons.

[Herpestidae]

Originally Posted by INoKnowNames

Why does Peta thing animals deserve -more- rights than humans? I'm of the opinion that they deserve -equal- rights, but why -more-? Why does Peta hate humans?

Because Humans are destructive to the environment and stuff. Seriously, I got into an argument with a vegan one time about a picture that compared Eating meat to slavery, rape, and the Holocaust. And in my angry rant, I yelled something to the effect of "go tell a lion to munch on some yams." The response was that lions actually contribute positively to the ecosystem, so it's alright for them to eat gazelles.

Also, consider the fact that humans don't even have equal rights yet. Until then, to be honest, I don't care about the "Animal Rights Movement." I mean, Michael Vick is still getting hate mail over the dogfighting thing, but the Steelers guy who raped three women is still out there getting cheered on.

[Karoht]

We destroy things. We hurt people. We hurt animals. We could chose a better way.
The problem is, PETA goes out of it's way to make sensational headlines rather than actually make some kind of meaningful impact. Take this attack on Pokemon. Isn't this a decade behind the times already? They dug up something to make a stink about to remain in the public eye.


There is also their stance on pets. No matter how good you are with your pet, no matter how happy your animal is living with you, PETA is against you even owning one. Period. It's rather difficult to empathize with an organization that claims to be pro-animal rights and yet euthanizes the majority of animals it rescues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Eu...helter_animals
They're also against things like seeing eye dogs.

[Mando Knight]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

I like to think that you wake up in a ramshackle doctor's office with a deep voice gloomily saying, "Pokemon battles. Pokemon battles never change."

That's Pokémon Colosseum.

[Asta Kask]

Originally Posted by Karoht

We destroy things. We hurt people. We hurt animals. We could chose a better way.

Better for whom?

PETA was founded on the "Naturalistic Fallacy" - if it's natural it's good. We've all heard. Hopefully we all know that it's a fallacy.

As for animal rights - I'm uncomfortable with the blanket term "animal rights". There are animals that I would consider granting rights to - the Great Apes, for instance. But a medusa? A jellyfish? Treating all animals the same is, I think, a big mistake. They are so diverse.

[bluewind95]

Yeah. I mean... it's admirable to try to get people to treat animals better. But... equal... or greater rights? That's just... wrong and misguided.

Humans do destroy the ecosystem, yes. It's out of greed and ignorance. The latter can be fixed and thte former can be redirected into things that aren't destructive. Humans can also do wonderful things to an ecosystem. There have been several animal species that have been saved from extinction. Ecosystems that have been damaged have been sent on the way to repair. Even on our own urban setting, we do destructive things... and also good, amazing things.

Animals... they serve the ecosystem's purpose. They can also do horrible things to the ecosystem, like cats in Australia. And before someone goes and points out humans brought the cats into Australia... there are ecosystems less isolated that have also had invasive species come up and cause absolute devastation. Animals also do not have the same capacity to do wonderful things on the same scale we do. They lack the kind of intelligence and the tools required for that.

So if a lion is "allowed" to kill a gazelle to eat, I should be allowed to eat a cow because I'm part of a species that does the same things animals do... just on a different scale. And no, I don't necessarily have to kill the food I eat. Lions, after all, don't necessarily do it either. They separate tasks. Males defend territories, females find the food. That's how societies work. That human society is infinitely more complex doesn't really change the fact that it works like any other society: divided roles. So I'm well within my rights to eat a cow someone else killed.

Equal rights... I think they should have the right to be humanely treated, as we do. But equal rights... no. Definitely not. I love my cats. But I wouldn't want them voting(I think one of them would eat the voting paper). I also wouldn't want them having the "right" to a paid job. I also don't think they should be able to get married to people. Animals just don't have the capacity or tools to make use of the rights we have in our society.

So, to me, PETA doesn't seem admirable, even in its goals. It's too far from something that's actually practical or even really sane. The hypocrisy that drips from their cheering for the suffering or death of people while decrying the suffering (many times far less severe, due to the lack of full-on sentience of animals. Sometimes... understanding WHY you're suffering makes it that much worse) of other animals is outright disgusting to me. The fact that they want to "return to nature" but still live cozy in their city homes, and use that "evil technology" to make their statements is also hypocisy of the greatest caliber, especially when they also advocate going against nature by trying to make people vegans. We're omnivores. That's all there is to it. That they exploit women for their messages also disgusts me. They complain when such a thing is done to animals, and they do it to other animals (humans). And then there's the complete *ignorance* of the things they say. Like that article on vegan food for cats and dogs. No! Cats don't eat "plenty of plant matter"! 90% or more of their food has to be meat! The moment you have to start adding supplement pills to a diet... the diet is wrong. And yes, this applies to human diets, too.

So yeah. No. As far as I can see, they're not admirable. At all. Not even in their goals. If they were working towards actually humane treatment of all animals (humans included), then they'd be admirable. Instead, they have formed some kind of fairy tale and then they hold on to the most stupid things to attack reality (seriously? Pokemon?), making themselves the laughingstock of the world. THEY advocate the poor treatment of animals by taking away all seriousness from their message with their stupid stunts. If the most vocal group for the "proper" treatment of animals act this stupid... then the message becomes stupid in the eyes of many. And THAT undermines their "goals" far more than a silly game like Pokemon or Mario will ever do.

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Better for whom?

We don't need to beat animals or force them into labor anymore, we have machines to do those tasks, so those animals are largely off the hook.
When certain new technologies come online (such as vat grown meat) we may not need to eat meat that actually came from a living breathing animal. So those animals are largely off the hook, along with quite a few environmental benefits to go along with it.
We could also eat more fruits and veggies, and choose to eat less meat or no meat, making such technologies less necessary. But that is a choice for everyone to make, not for PETA to demand.
It can be better for most animals without ruining the quality of life we enjoy.
We can chose better. Better for the animals and better for ourselves. But I am of the belief that the choice is personal, it should not be made or enforced for us.

PETA was founded on the "Naturalistic Fallacy" - if it's natural it's good. We've all heard. Hopefully we all know that it's a fallacy.

The best poisons are natural ones. I'm aware of and acknowledge the fallacy.
I find myself often disgusted by the number of people who have valid medical degrees and Ph. D's who claim utter nonsense about the human digestive tract and our ability/inability to eat meat.
Fact-Canines are for eating meat. Ask a dentist.
Fact-Our digestive tract processes meat and veggies. Otherwise societies such as the Inuit who eat meat almost exclusively (fish, elk/cariboo, whale, seal/sea lion) would have died out from malnutrition centuries/millenia ago.

As for animal rights - I'm uncomfortable with the blanket term "animal rights". There are animals that I would consider granting rights to - the Great Apes, for instance. But a medusa? A jellyfish? Treating all animals the same is, I think, a big mistake. They are so diverse.

It gets remarkably complicated. Part of why I do believe that choosing to leave nature alone as much as reasonably possible is a good idea. The less we meddle with nature, the less we have to worry about those rights.

Peta also sees everyone at extremes. A person who eats one serving of meat is villified as much as someone who eats meat with every meal. Teaching the benefits to even a reduction in meat consumption is a waste of time to them. It's all or nothing. Quit cold turkey or else.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Prove that we must stop the evilness of the Pokémon Trainer concept, looks how a trainer forces his pokemon to kill and eat another in one of this so called "non-lethal" pokémon battles.

[Mando Knight]

Originally Posted by Karoht

Fact-Canines are for eating meat. Ask a dentist.

Not quite. A large number of herbivorous mammals have canine teeth as well. (Notably, boar tusks are canines)

[Dusk Eclipse]

quick wikipedia check pegs boars as opportunistic omnivores.

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Dusk Eclipse

quick wikipedia check pegs boars as opportunistic omnivores.

Correct.
Also, many herbivores which have pronounced canines possess a digestive tract which typically can digest meat, suggesting that it was once part of their diet at some point.

Gorillas have pronounced canines. Yes, they can and do eat meat. Same with many other primates. Meat may not form the major portion of their diet, but they do have the digestive tract to support it.

My earlier remark of 'ask a dentist' should probably also be paired up with 'ask a palentologist' now that I think about it. And probably a few other experts.

[Asta Kask]

Sheep, cow and deer have all been observed eating meat.

[Traab]

We don't need to beat animals or force them into labor anymore, we have machines to do those tasks, so those animals are largely off the hook.
When certain new technologies come online (such as vat grown meat) we may not need to eat meat that actually came from a living breathing animal. So those animals are largely off the hook, along with quite a few environmental benefits to go along with it.

Might be worth mentioning, but I have to wonder how many of these beasts of burden and food animals would go extinct as soon as we stop caring for them. I mean, i dont see cows lasting long in the wild. Some would. I know feral pigs are pretty dang hardcore when they get loose. But what is PETA stance on animals that literally couldnt survive on their own? That have basically been selectively bred for certain traits, that have also crippled their ability to survive in the wild?

[super dark33]

Originally Posted by Traab

Might be worth mentioning, but I have to wonder how many of these beasts of burden and food animals would go extinct as soon as we stop caring for them. I mean, i dont see cows lasting long in the wild. Some would. I know feral pigs are pretty dang hardcore when they get loose. But what is PETA stance on animals that literally couldnt survive on their own? That have basically been selectively bred for certain traits, that have also crippled their ability to survive in the wild?

"They will gain their abilitys back".