>>4345882pakimon porn is immoral and zoophilic
zoophiles when told that pokemon porn is zoophilic they will point out traits but traits are wholly irrelevant in the X pokemon, appearance makes pokemon porn zoophilic. X pokemon looks like a Y animal and that's where it ends. and All of this doesn't even speak to the fact that X pokemons are clearly just a reedited Y animal.
X pokemon is such a distant and absurd abstraction of a Y animal that it's a difference of a kind and not a degree.
X pokemon clearly looks like a Y animal, an odd Y animal for sure but It's literally based on Y animal. X pokemon designer obviously just traced the Y animal, put a random trait on it and colored it with an element based color. they overlook the base fact that X pokemon looks like a Y animal, which makes pokefag zoophile a jartycuck for sexualizing it.
Imagine adding a huge ass to a blue rabbit with no ears.
>But it's le fine because muh blue rabbit is an art and i have MUH amerimuttstan rIgHtS!It's still a fucking rabbit.
and then gooners and troons will cope more and point out traits(which we already discussed) again and shitty laws but in reality, appearance is still what matters the most. Let's say that we use the delcatty pokemon for an example and give it traits we would get something like this:
>A cream-and-purple-colored cat-esque Pokemon that can talk full sentences, stand on its hind legs, regularly wears human clothes, and hold and use weapons like guns and swords and is not a household cat. that matters. if the Fictional cat-esque creature looks like a cat, then it holding swords and pistols is completely besides the point. Children behaving like adults are children. fictional cat-esque creatures that look cats-esque are cat-esque and should therefore not be sexualized