A response to my Pokemon article

I Recently received a comment to my article about the history and origins of Pokemon. The young man who made the comment clearly did not realize I was writing about the card game that predated the computer games. I've decided to respond to his comments here.

"Have you ever played a pokemon game? If not, then you have no right to bash pokemon"

Have you ever injected heroin into your veins? Have you ever molested a child? Have you ever tortured a pet who trusted you? Have you ever stolen a car? By your own logic, this means you're in no position to criticize any of these obviously immoral, illegal and criminal actions. Without the ability to judge the virtue of actions we ourselves have not committed, we would be unable to function as a society. We would dissolve into chaos, crime and violence, leaving behind not a civilization and acts of virtue, but the smoldering remains of an orgy of destruction.

I prefer the ability to make moral judgments to the kind of chaos and destruction you seem to be advocating.

"As there are only 493 different pokemon, I'd like to know where your 3000 come into play"

The text was meant to say "a 3,000 year old pagan religion." Thank you for noticing the typo.

"As far as I know, people really jsut buy coins to get Porygon. I don't know anyone who ENJOYS the slots."

The original article was written about the card game, not the computer game. At the time I wrote the article, there was a significant gambling component to the card game. I was, in fact, the whole POINT of the game. The only ways to gain more Pokemon was to buy cards or win them in the game. It sounds like the gambling component of Pokemon was reduced for the computer games that came later, but replaced with virtual slot machines.

I find this abhorrent. The card game teaches kids to find card gambling to be fun, while according to you the computer games teach kids to favor "one armed bandits."

Pokemon is short for pocket monsters and that is the official, and truthful, explanation."

You're half right, It is the "official" definition.

"This is Ryuutakeshi, the Dragon Warrior, signing off.

Ryuutakeshi: Vice President of his forensics team, actor in seven plays thus far, black belt in Taekwon-do, Harry Potter trivia master, and all around nerd.

Pokemon hasn't harmed me. How has it harmed you?"

I've bolded a few portions of your comment above. I don't think I need to do more than that to counter your claim that Pokemon has done you no damage.