PETA Plays Pokemon
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
What's this? A game about saving Pokemon from being put down from a campaign group that has a 96% rate of putting down animals in their care[footnote]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/5106600/Peta-under-fire-over-claim-that-it-kills-most-animals-left-at-its-US-headquarters.html[/footnote]? This isn't even funny.
I'm a big fan of Pokemon, I have loads of the games and I've beaten the Elite Four on every Pokemon game I've played. And I've thought seriously about what I'd be if I was in the Pokeverse. And do you know what I decided on? I would be a Ranger. Yes, I play a game that battles cute animals but if it were my reality I would be someone who looks after them and helps them. Just because the game is about defeating others to win doesn't mean those who play it have no moral code.
Also, the pictures of abused Pokemon that come with this game sicken me. That's not what the game's about at all. Why would you even do that.
I'm a big fan of Pokemon, I have loads of the games and I've beaten the Elite Four on every Pokemon game I've played. And I've thought seriously about what I'd be if I was in the Pokeverse. And do you know what I decided on? I would be a Ranger. Yes, I play a game that battles cute animals but if it were my reality I would be someone who looks after them and helps them. Just because the game is about defeating others to win doesn't mean those who play it have no moral code.
Also, the pictures of abused Pokemon that come with this game sicken me. That's not what the game's about at all. Why would you even do that.
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.bravetoaster said:
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?
PETA approves of no human to animal interactions at allElementary - Dear Watson said:
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/
Ive got an few objectionsAirsoftslayer93 said:
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 said:
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! :/
hey I still remember Tai from Digimon! oh crap......Charli said:*Scribble scribble scribble*
I'll give Peta this they always give me a cheap laugh cartoon for my blog.
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.
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.
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.Daaaah Whoosh said:
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.)Airsoftslayer93 said:
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).
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.I.Muir said:
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 pointbravetoaster said:
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.I.Muir said:
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).
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.
Very stupid idea but it is obvious the creator did play Pokemon Black and White and also the graphics are actually quite nice.
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.I.Muir said:
Probably not going to happen, but it'd be nice.