Problem is, if the whole essence of battling is to strengthen the bond with one's pokemon, then why are you so against the idea of Paul and his pokemon forming a bond based on them sharing similar mindsets - i.e. Being power-hungry in general? Why does power-hunger immediately equate to one not being able to bond with their pokemon - especially if it is a mutual desire shared between trainer and pokemon?The point of battling is to know themselves and each other, better oneself not just as a battler but mostly as a person, and strengthen the bond with one's own Pokemon, not unlike martial arts. Paul only cares about power.
"For his own selfish desires"...? If memory serves, being able to use Blaze and become powerful was something Chimchar desired as well. Paul asked it that before capturing it. He then merely used the method that worked best for the rest of his team (i.e. His harsh training regimen) to bring its' ability out. Whether the training regimen he used itself was too harsh or not is a pointless debate (since it's already clear that we will never agree with each other on that), but the essence here is that he was not using Chimchar as a tool to further his own desires - he made sure beforehand that Chimchar's desires syncs up with his beforehand before taking any action with it.If you mean Horde Battles, there is a huge difference: Horde Battles are a bunch of wild Pokemon ganging up to protect themselves against what they perceive to be a threat. Wild Pokemon don't care about fairness, and they shouldn't, either. They are defending themselves and their comrades justly.
Paul had his Pokemon beat up Chimchar, who was weaker than them and too afraid to fight back to boot, just because he wanted Chimchar to use Blaze. He considered Chimchar nothing but a weapon to crush his opponents and get all the glory for himself, and he damaged him both physically and psychologically for his own selfish desires.
Right. Forgot 'bout that. Now I understand why that's such a big deal to you guys.and he had taken enough damage that Nurse Joy told Paul that Chimchar wouldn't be in shape for fighting the next day. That's why it's a big deal.
There is a huge difference between abusing an animal and what Paul did to Chimchar. It's all about the context - hurting an animal on purpose means that you are abusing it because the animal in question is legitimately hurt in the process; i.e. It doesn't gain anything from being hurt like that, it's just unessecarily hurt, period. In Chimchar's case though, all of that "beating up"(as you'd put it) it received could have actually benefitted it as pokemon, unlike animals, were already meant to take such attacks in the first place, and must only further enhance their abilities to do so by toughening themselves up in the midst of challenging situations, like what Paul put Chimchar through. Yes, like you said, Chimchar did get hurt in the process, but that's more of a side-effect of a practice that could've benefited it but didn't in the end.So, let me put it this way: if I see a guy abusing a puppy or a kitten, am I "butting in on things that are none of my business" if I stop him before he really hurts the poor thing? No, and neither was Ash.
If I had to pin the blame on Paul when it comes to any of this, I'd sooner accuse him of not apologizing to Chimchar rather than what he did to it.
If you're implying that Damian's and Shamus's acts are merely "abuse", then you're quite frankly, well, wrong. What they did to their pokemon extends far beyond abuse (especially in Shamus's case) - they had purposefully placed their pokemon in a disadvantageous situation that could easily kill them had they not been saved. They weren't even mistreating them; they were outright murdering them. And in Shamus's case, it was not done with the intention of benefiting it at all. How anyone can deem Paul's case to be on the level of that is beyond me.Abusing Pokemon =/= abusing Pokemon. Lol, but no.
And in the case of Paul, he was not abusing Chimchar either. If hurting the pokemon in question is done with the intention of buffing it up at the trainer's and the pokemon's shared desire (and the way to do so is not entirely stupid and obviously fruitless like is the case with Damian's), then it does not constitutes as abuse - as the whole essence of abuse constitutes as unessecarily hurting the victim in a manner of which it is entirely unbeneficial to him/her. It's all about the intention here.
Except that you can say the same about his pokemon cheering for him as well, yet every Paul detractor on here seems to dismiss it. All throughout the series, his pokemon were all shown to be in sync with his training methods - they performed at their best under Paul's training methods, which is what made Paul such a tough opponent for Ash to defeat early on. Hence, it can be inferred (like how you inferred the flinching to be a sign of abuse) that his other pokemon were perfectly content under his care like any other pokemon out there with a compatible trainer. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that his pokemon would be cheering for him - as they are completely in sync with each other.Except that Chimchar's reaction was not an isolated case,
Paul having his starter groomed was an isolated case, but an important one - it was there to shed more light on the way he treats his other teammates when they are not engaging in battle. There was nothing beforehand that went against him having his starter groomed (i.e. Nothing that implied he actively deprived them of occasional relaxation), hence him doing so cannot be rendered as a "weak, last-minute insertion", as nothing that came before it contradicts it.
The reason why I "ignore or downplay Paul's negative qualities" is because I genuinely don't see what you Paul haters see as his "negative qualities" in the first place. The three main points that constantly gets pitted against him is that he is 1), abusive, 2), power-hungry, and 3), condescending. As is illustrated by my arguments above, I already don't see the first one in him, and I don't agree with the second one being a negative quality at all, hence leaving me with only number 3 (which I will admit to). It's all about personal interpretation here. As for me playing up his moments of decency, I was just bringing up instances like that to counter all the arguments made against him. In reality, I see such instances as very insignificant to the overall scheme of things.You say that us Paul haters only see what WE want to see, but I can say the same about you. You ignore or downplay Paul's negative qualities, and whenever he displays some basic decency (which, for all I could see, could very well be self-serving), you make it stand out all the more.
What I take issue with Paul haters, though, is that none of you ever bother to even take into account any instances of decency that was shown of him in the anime. And whenever they are brought up, the haters either slather them up with any kind of excuse they can find ("Stockholm syndrome" is my particular favorite, though note that I'm not just targeting it towards you), or dismiss them entirely by waving them off as faulty writing on the writer's part. It probably doesn't come off this way for the Paul haters, but for people who genuinely enjoyed the rivalry and Paul's character in general (or, at least, me), it honestly comes off as very biased-sounding.It's as if you're criticizing him based on the image you have of him in your heads; and not on the things that were actually presented to us. It's one thing to deem Paul's actions on the show to be entirely wrong (which is perfectly fine), but to deny entirely the possibility that Paul may have had some moments of genuine decency (as is portrayed in the anime) by making up baseless accusations or faulting the writers for inserting such instances into the anime? It's honestly pretty annoying. Not to mention it detracts from a good argument as well.
Last edited: