“PS. To that guy who said people largely moved on, I say yes and no. Any animal abuse jokes come up his name [i.e. Michael Vick; see previous question and comments] is always revealed. Even pokemon ones his name pops out here and there. Which makes you wonder selective memory. People tend to forget a lot of terrible actions and deeds, yet they are good at remembering few of those too. Selective bias memory I tell ya. Then again the forums and youtube aint the whole world and bark much louder than its bite”
I do hope they are joking or satirical. If they’re serious… well, they don’t stand up very well. You don’t even need to take them point by point; just one comment to each will do it:
On the miserable Pokémon list: This list invariably takes the perspective “what would it be like for us to live this Pokémon’s life?” It doesn’t explicitly say it, but it does. Most animals are, in fact, quite capable of dealing with the basic facts of their own biology and having perfectly happy lives despite not being able to live like humans. I think the most egregious is probably Slugma – why would anyone ever assume that a creature which doesn’t sleep would be tortured by inability to sleep?
On the absurdly powerful Pokémon list: The Pokédex cannot be trusted when it speaks in numbers, superlatives, or absolutes. Alakazam proves this, because an IQ of 5000 isn’t merely impossible, it actually doesn’t make sense. High IQs are difficult to quantify because our sample size is so small and it’s so difficult to come up with ways to differentiate between two similarly intelligent geniuses, so any IQ score above maybe 180 is little better than a guess. ”IQ of 5000” is just a nonsense statement, and demonstrates that the in-universe authors of the Pokédex a) have limited technical knowledge and b) are prone to outlandish exaggeration.