>>35481897>>admitting "kind of like" is good enoughOf course it is. Who is even claiming otherwise? My point from the very start was that the Fire starters are loosely based on the zodiac (or inspired by it) and that's what pretty much everyone is saying except you. You have this weird idea that the starters have to be precisely 100% what's in the zodiac or otherwise it doesn't count. You're the type of guy who would say that a Fire zebra doesn't count as a horse because horses and zebras are completely different animals, kind of like comparing owls to moles lmao.
>>admitting chimchar is a human pokemonAnother straw man. I said that, and I quote, "It really isn't a huge stretch to say that humans are kind of like monkeys". I'm not saying that Chimchar is literally a human Pokemon, just like I'm not saying that Fennekin is literally a dog Pokemon. However, all Fire starters fit in the zodiac pattern either through their design, Pokemon category or biological family so if the zodiac had a human in it instead of a monkey, I would definitely argue that for all intents and purposes the monkey Pokemon is supposed to represent the human in the zodiac since monkeys are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. I would also argue that Game Freak didn't want to make a literal human Pokemon since that would be kind of dumb so they settled for a more "natural" choice, that being a monkey.
>So it's a worthless pattern.Being inspired by something is worthless? Why?
>Would a hippopotamus be considered a horse?No. Hippos and horses are not similar in the way they look, a Fire hippo would most certainly not be called "Horse Pokemon", and they're definitely not in the same biological family. In case of a Fire hippo it would be obvious that the pattern doesn't hold so I don't really understand what the point of this question was.
>Hippo means horse after allWho are you quoting?
