>>37204940>>37204936Zodiac believers are using loose definitions. No one actually believes Cyndaquil to be a rat, but they feel realistically that it could be BASED ON a rat.
The Zodiac is a loose framework that is 80% spot on with 20% creative licence (Cyndaquil, Fennekin)
Deniers on the other hand believe that in order for it to be true, it must be 100% true-to-species - a rodent isn't good enough, it MUST be a rat, a fox isn't good enough, it MUST be a dog (ignoring the dragon, pig, chicken, monkey and tiger that are otherwise good fits)
If you accept that GF might've taken the original concept and added a little creative licence, the zodiac theory makes some sense.
And before you claim that zodiacfags could apply this to anything, I defy you to apply the same zodiac to the water or grass starters.
