>>57938819Okay, so we can actually just completely ignore canon evidence and make up whatever rules we want, then. Fair enough, but what is the point of this thread then? You can postulate Pokecels based only on your own writing preferences all you want (and yes, saying that all societies must by necessity have untouchables because that's supposedly realistic is, in the end, merely a writing preference like any other), but I can postulate the opposite based on my writing preferences and that leaves us at an impasse.
As for how to get out of New Bark without a 'mon, people've already proposed a number of sensible solutions, but you reject them on the basis of ignoring canon evidence that, for example, Pokemon work with ne'er-do-wells all the time, in order to claim that a Pokemon will reject you if you're too ugly, which is NOT something supported by canon evidence, all while screaming about canon evidence. If I point out that your mum could easily acquire a Sandshrew from the Goldenrod Game Corner for you (even if we presume mothers to be useless at Voltorb Flip, 700 points costs 14,000 P in the Japanese version, so the rough equivalent of $140 of financial burden. Not that much considering you have a game console in your room) and further point out that at level 10 it would, by canon evidence, be obedient even without badges, you'll just claim we'd be too ugly despite there being no canon evidence of Pokemon rejecting humans for that reason, then turn around and demand more canon evidence on how we could get a Pokemon.
In other words, since you can make it up as you go, this isn't a rational debate based on logical reasoning regarding an agreed set of conditions, it's a playground fight. You're saying, "Nu-uh, you couldn't get Pokemon!" and we're saying "Uh-huh, we totally could get Pokemon!" and since canon evidence is inadmissible and your headcanons ARE admissible, there's nothing that can come out of this convo beyond that. So, I ask again, why are we here?