>>11353461
>gardevoir cannot be an elf, because that would be unprecedented human-on-human slavery, which pokemon has never done before
i was saying not saying that slavery is against /d/ rules; i was saying that gardevoir cannot be an "elf", because pokemon would not just give a human long ears then proclaim that systematically subjugating them as they would pokemon is okay

but i'm not gonna participate in this convo anymore because this is stupid. my original long post citing sources n shit were just to cite the deleted gardevoir posts to show that one (1) slipping through the cracks is the exception, not the rule. and i was trying to show otherwise how logically gardevoir isn't allowed. anyone arguing that gardevoir is allowed must conveniently ignore the rate at which she gets deleted, so it's a dishonest position. there's no reason to have all these text posts about it as if believing she's allowed is a reasonable position. i should've just responded "only 1/7 of the posted gardevoirs didn't get deleted" and nothing else