Forum - View topic

INTEREST: PETA Releases Pokémon Parody Game

TsukasaElkKite wrote:

Getting sued by The Pokemon Company International in 3! 2! 1! and LOL I doubt anyone here who plays the games treats their Pokemon as "unfeeling objects". I for one take care to make sure mine are as happy as possible.

I don't see why they wouldn't sue, Nintendo pressures doujinshi artists if they stray too close to bestiality (Faithful Tepig), and PETA is of course far worse than that.

Quote:

the abolishment of all animal testing no matter the animal and no matter the purpose (Cancer, AIDS, it doesn't matter)

the animal matters? the purpose matters? I doubt in either situation any of them asked to be tested on or gave consent to the horrors that happen to them. just because it benefits humans that's justification to use other creatures as fodder to be stepped on?

You guys ever hear of something called a metaphor?

lostrune wrote:

http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Regulation-Safety/PETA-donates-1million-to-help-find-animal-testing-alternatives Yes, very insane that they donate millions to help animals every year, from animal testing alternatives to shelters and pounds. Let's all get mad that they poked fun at a video game instead, that's definitely much more rational Armchair activists for the future.

Yes. I'm clearly just mad that they made fun of pokemon. It has nothing to do with them having killed nearly 20,000 animals. Or the fact that roughly 90% of the animals they "rescue" end up euthanized (that's not just hopeless cases either. That includes perfectly fine, totally adoptable animals as well). Nothing to do with their numerous ties and contributions to violent domestic terrorist groups. Nothing to do with their despicable shock tactics, and deliberate attempts to target children without their parents consent. Nothing to do with their absurd, dogmatic goal of “total animal liberation" which includes not only the complete abolishment of all animal products, the abolishment of all animal testing no matter the animal and no matter the purpose (Cancer, AIDS, it doesn't matter), and even the abolishment of all pet ownership. (Yes. PETA is opposed to the basic idea that a person can own a pet, no matter how well taken care of that pet may be).

So don't you dare talk to me about "activism" you ignorant little shit. You know absolutely nothing. You want to be an animal activist? Great. Go support the SPCA or the WWF. But for the love of god, don't support PETA. They. Are. [expletive]. Insane.

Tenchi wrote:

It's like, PETA isn't even aware that the Pokémon shrink when they enter a Pokéball. Look at Pikachu's comfy bachelor pad inside the Pokéball! He's relaxing on the couch watching K-On!. How cool is that? (I love K-On! so I don't consider exposure to it to be "animal abuse".) Yes, I'm fully aware that that picture is just fanart and not official Nintendo art.

Or like in Robot Chicken, it's a sick dance/drug party.

Yeah. It it. Look, if we're talking about something superfluous then I agree. We shouldn't be hurting animals just so I can have fabulous, full bodied hair. Hell, I'm even open to the argument that we should never be using certain more intelligent animals. However, if you're suggesting that we shouldn't use any animals (like not even insects or anything) in vital research with the potential to save literally millions of lives...well I just don't know what to say to that. It's simply insane.

It has nothing to do with them having killed nearly 20,000 animals. Or the fact that roughly 90% of the animals they "rescue" end up euthanized (that's not just hopeless cases either. That includes perfectly fine, totally adoptable animals as well). Nothing to do with their numerous ties and contributions to violent domestic terrorist groups.

So don't you dare talk to me about "activism" you ignorant little shit. You know absolutely nothing. You want to be an animal activist? Great. Go support the SPCA or the WWF. But for the love of god, don't support PETA. They. Are. [expletive]. Insane.

Such an easy thing to say when you're not the one in the cage. Why do I feel if you were kidnapped and forced to be in the cage you would be crying out for your rights and freedoms?

I'll just leave this here, as it is tangentially related to the issue of violence against Pokemon.

Whoa, really? I hope this doesn't sound overly skeptical, but where did you hear that from? That's a surprising statistic, and of course makes me wonder why it's so high, considering the goal of their organization. And they have ties to terrorist groups? What kind of ties, and which groups?

Huh....... it... kind of sounds like you have a personal bone to pick with PETA.

ikillchicken wrote:

Yeah. It it. Look, if we're talking about something superfluous then I agree. We shouldn't be hurting animals just so I can have fabulous, full bodied hair. Hell, I'm even open to the argument that we should never be using certain more intelligent animals. However, if you're suggesting that we shouldn't use any animals (like not even insects or anything) in vital research with the potential to save literally millions of lives...well I just don't know what to say to that. It's simply insane.

Such an easy thing to say when you're not the one in the cage. Why do I feel if you were kidnapped and forced to be in the cage you would be crying out for your rights and freedoms?

dtm42 wrote:

I'll just leave this here, as it is tangentially related to the issue of violence against Pokemon.

I LOVE THIS TRAILER. Someone needs to make this. NINTENDO, MAKE THIS AND SHUT UP AND TAKE ALL MY MONEY!

Sunday Silence wrote:

TsukasaElkKite wrote: Getting sued by The Pokemon Company International in 3! 2! 1! Parody Laws. It's Super Effective!!

How far does fair use protection extend?

Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 U.S.C. § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works". That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work.