Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Just because someone, or a group of people, are complete and total hypocrites does not invalidate a point they happen to vocalize.
They're not defending fictional characters, but using it to illustrate a point of what the game might imply to young children. That is; The capture, collection, and fighting of animals with an apathetic attitude toward the total dominance and expectation of servitude placed on the captured animals.And given how PETA actively kills animals, they have no moral authority whatsoever.
It is a valid point, to some degree. I've always thought it was a shaky concept shrugged off by the cute and playful demeanor. Obviously Pokemon isn't reality, and children can determine for the most part reality from fiction if they have anywhere near a decent upbringing, however the sentiment holds true even in small regards.
I was 11 when the first Pokemon was released. I loved the game to death, and rightly so as a well designed communal game me and all of my friends would play. Pokemon certainly earns it's reputation as a classic and a cultural phenomenon. Now, while perhaps mild, it did influence my behavior a little. I did at one time capture and keep a bee as a pet like a 'pokemon'. The action was taken as a direct result of deciding that was the closest thing I'll get to having a pokemon in reality. It never went above an insect, certainly not like I was trapping mammals in the wild, or fighting dogs, but the sentiment was there never the less. I captured this insect against it's will, and held it captive in a container hoping to emulate what I saw in the game. The capture likely lead to it's death, and surely stripped it of it's freedom. It is exactly the point the PETA game is trying to make.
And that was a way more serious post than I thought it was going to be...
![[eyebrow]](http://forum.rockmanpm.com/Smileys/default/wiggle.gif "Wiggle")
It succeeded with Dogma. ;A;
The problem may be that many of us are simply jaded and despite what we hear, we're still wary about taking a peek into the comics again. Every time we think of the comics, we remember the corruption of the bad writers. We remember Ken Penders. We remember Sonic Live! and other things that make us cringe. In a sense, we're shellshocked war vets who will need to be eased back into the swing of things, else we'll be diving behind a chair and looking for something with which to fight Enerjak.
.
Think that was intentional on the architect's part, or a freaky coincidence?
Hm... does the outline remind you of anything... familiar?
Correct me if I am wrong here, but is it me or is Superman -extremely- selfish? I think I agree with Lex's opinion about the fortress of solitude. Superman could advance humanity by thousands of years, even cure diseases but he keeps it to himself. His actions save lives but when ever it comes down to something he really wants out of a situation he throws out the more responsible choice for a outcome that HE wants. Even if Batman tells him "Bad idea. Don't do this." I could be wrong, but is it part of his character to allow his powers to get to his head sometimes and make a decision because he has the power to do it?That makes Lex a bit of a hypocrite, doesn't it? He has the brains and technology to advance humanity and cure disease yet he uses it to advance his grudge again Superman because the Man of Steel bruised his precious ego. Maybe, we have a justification there.
