>>53384721None of that matters in fiction, silly one. You could pick any critter in fiction and state the same. The critters from the Lion King understand the concept of kingship, even know magic, can communicate with one another and are intelligent but you're out of your mind if you think they're anything other than lions and other critters.
Context clues are important. You can't call it misconception when the very same people who work on the series, who created the series and even wrote for the series all state the opposite of your points. This is easily seen how people interact with their Pokémon, which mirrors real life pets, how Pokémon behave, there's no reason for all of them to chew on shoes, bark and have zoomies other than to tell us they're akin to dogs, and generally their place in the world mirrors real critters. And this is all something that's admitted in official sources and from people who held high positions within the series. Trying to force this narrative that it's a misconception is inanity. A Pokémon, even with their magical powers, occupy certain sphere which is why the things I've mentioned happen even to the point that they write Pokémon as skittish housecats in spin offs.
You wouldn't treat a person the way people treat Pokémon because that would be illegal and immoral but since Pokémon are pets and cute critters there's no in-universe moral outrage. Verily so people reception to Pokémon in abused situations is to compare them to real pets and animals. Moral is stop using the series as a vehicle for your groomer fantasies. The series treats and even constructs Pokémon to be closer to dogs than people as stated by their own creator.
