Couple things.
1. There are far better Water-types available to the player by the time they reach Blane. You could go for a Kingdra, which would be doubly resistant to Blane's fire-types, or another type entirely, such as choosing a Rock-type, which would have the same same advantages over Blane as a Water-type.
2. Getting an Arcanine/Ninetails before Erica is possible, but not the best available option, due to the low encounter rate and small number of routes they're found on. It's a smarter idea to just go with a Flying-type, due to their ridiculous availability.
3. Oddish/Bellsprout isn't available before fighting Brock. The only option there for type advantage is Mankey. After that, you have options.

Lemme lay it down
1.) Kingdra is gen2, we're talking gen1. Even then you agree with my point that Water (or another type entirely) is easily found to cover one of Venusaur's two weak gyms
2.) Pidgeot is also an excellent option, as well as Flareon due to avaliability. Point stands that you can easily cover Erika.
3.) This is exactly what I said. Charizard is stuck with Mankey for Brock and Oddish/Pikachu for Misty. Venusaur and Blastoise do have problem gyms as well, but they can easily have a teammate compensate while Charizard is stuck to brute forcing it or being forced to catch something instead of having some options.

1. I didn't say I was limiting myself to Gen 1. Kingdra is available in best gen Gen 3 (FR/LG). My original point still stands: Venusaur has the best compared advantage vs. disadvantage rate and the best early-to-mid-game utility while still having some late-game power due to its type combination and wide moveset.
2. Flareon isn't very good, and I'm not disputing that you can get covers for your team's weak points. I'm just saying that when it comes to Gym battles, Blastoise is going to be less viable than the other two, due to its monotyping giving it a more restricted moveset.
3. Another point we aren't arguing on. The way your last sentence was phrased made it look like you thought you could get Bellsprout/Oddish before Brock. That's all my third point was.

I'm just calling it how it is in the games where you choose one of them as a starter. Venusaur has the biggest total type advantage.

That's just taking into account whose defenses are good against which gyms and which gym's attacks are good against your pokemon. If I were to take into account that Venusaur is resistant to more gyms than the others, Venusaur has even more advantages.
Venusaur is Grass/Poison, meaning it is weak to two gyms, resistant to three (one of which is a double-resistance), super-effective against four, and isn't very effective against one gym. Venusaur is also immune to Poison and Powder/Spore effects.
Charizard is Fire/Flying, which makes it weak to three gyms (one of which is a double-weakness), resistant to three (one is a double-resistance and one is an immunity), super-effective against one, and not very effective against one. Charizard is also immune to Burns and ground-effects.
Blastoise is Water, which makes it weak against two gyms, resistant to two, super-effective against three, and not very effective against two.
So, if we add up the values, with each resistance and super-effective as +1 point (double points for double-resistance, triple for immunity), each weakness and not very effective as -1(double for double-weakness), and each special effect as +.5 point, we get the following totals.
Venusaur: 6 points.
Charizard: 3 points.
Blastoise: 1 point.

Tl;dr: Venusaur wins, Blastoise loses, Charizard is OK in the grand scheme of things.

Couple things.
1. There are far better Water-types available to the player by the time they reach Blane. You could go for a Kingdra, which would be doubly resistant to Blane's fire-types, or another type entirely, such as choosing a Rock-type, which would have the same same advantages over Blane as a Water-type.
2. Getting an Arcanine/Ninetails before Erica is possible, but not the best available option, due to the low encounter rate and small number of routes they're found on. It's a smarter idea to just go with a Flying-type, due to their ridiculous availability.
3. Oddish/Bellsprout isn't available before fighting Brock. The only option there for type advantage is Mankey. After that, you have options.

Lemme lay it down
1.) Kingdra is gen2, we're talking gen1. Even then you agree with my point that Water (or another type entirely) is easily found to cover one of Venusaur's two weak gyms
2.) Pidgeot is also an excellent option, as well as Flareon due to avaliability. Point stands that you can easily cover Erika.
3.) This is exactly what I said. Charizard is stuck with Mankey for Brock and Oddish/Pikachu for Misty. Venusaur and Blastoise do have problem gyms as well, but they can easily have a teammate compensate while Charizard is stuck to brute forcing it or being forced to catch something instead of having some options.

1. I didn't say I was limiting myself to Gen 1. Kingdra is available in best gen Gen 3 (FR/LG). My original point still stands: Venusaur has the best compared advantage vs. disadvantage rate and the best early-to-mid-game utility while still having some late-game power due to its type combination and wide moveset.
2. Flareon isn't very good, and I'm not disputing that you can get covers for your team's weak points. I'm just saying that when it comes to Gym battles, Blastoise is going to be less viable than the other two, due to its monotyping giving it a more restricted moveset.
3. Another point we aren't arguing on. The way your last sentence was phrased made it look like you thought you could get Bellsprout/Oddish before Brock. That's all my third point was.

I'm just calling it how it is in the games where you choose one of them as a starter. Venusaur has the biggest total type advantage.

Never waste an opportunity to tell someone how you truly feel about them.
Trust me. If you don't, you'll waste a bunch of time worrying about what could have been.

She helped me work through the relationship that went fucky, and she was sincere in her regret for hurting me. If it weren't for her support, I'd have probably killed myself.
Friends are those who stand by you in times of crisis. She proved herself to be my friend.
The bitch I lived with earned my eternal enmity. I consider this to be an accomplishment, because I usually don't hold grudges.

I'm basically in the same boat. Parents separated before I was born. Mom got remarried and divorced. Now a junkie living on the streets. Dad got remarried but lived in a separate house because he hates my stepmom. Live on my own. Every serious relationship I've had has ended in the girl cheating on me. Even was engaged once. I've never cheated. I'm 23 in two weeks and I have no partner or direction in life. I would rather waste away at a shitty job and sit on the internet in my free time than risk dealing with that shit again.

It isn't possible to know if sentience is something intrinsic to any life form, or something caused by the complexity of the human mind, without first being able to prove its existence. The concept of sentience is well established, but its existence is not.
If sentience is possessed by all life, then it is safe to say it is an intrinsic part of life, meaning humans are nothing more than strangely-shaped machines. If humans alone possess sentience, then it would have to be a product of humanity, making us intrinsically different from all other life on Earth and giving us another level of complexity. If, however, sentience is an illusion, its appearance would be complex, yet programmed.
However, as I stated previously, the only sentience you can prove is your own, and even then, you can only prove it to yourself.

Cogni ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. I can only truly be aware of my own sentience, just as you can only be aware of your own. No matter what happens, no human can ever truly prove their sentience to another. The whole of this reality could be nothing more than a dream I'm having. Likewise, you have no proof that there is another person talking with you. For all you know, I could be a ridiculously well-programmed bot.
The only one I know for a fact is sentient is me, yet it is impossible for me to prove my sentience to anyone but myself. So, your question has no provable answer. I can prove to myself I am sentient, but I have no proof that humanity as a whole is, and I cannot prove to others that I am.

It isn't possible to know if sentience is something intrinsic to any life form, or something caused by the complexity of the human mind, without first being able to prove its existence. The concept of sentience is well established, but its existence is not.
If sentience is possessed by all life, then it is safe to say it is an intrinsic part of life, meaning humans are nothing more than strangely-shaped machines. If humans alone possess sentience, then it would have to be a product of humanity, making us intrinsically different from all other life on Earth and giving us another level of complexity. If, however, sentience is an illusion, its appearance would be complex, yet programmed.
However, as I stated previously, the only sentience you can prove is your own, and even then, you can only prove it to yourself.

Goblin Bombardment isn't strictly necessary. You can still kill everyone with a ridiculous number of hasted 1/1 Goblin tokens.

Question for you, then. Is addiction a self-prescribed state, or is it a mental state caused by the neurological differences?
On one hand, addiction can be overcome by determination, meaning it is obviously not a truly permanent state; what's more, addiction cannot be correctly diagnosed 100% of the time, and some substances exist which are not chemically addictive, yet people can become "psychologically addicted" to them.
On the other hand, addiction does cause a marked difference in a person's neurology, blocking dopamine receptors and causing differing levels of activity in different sections of the brain than a non-addict; furthermore, addiction can cause a physical dependence on the substance that you are addicted to, even going as far as to cause incredible pain in the form of withdrawal symptoms, but this can be circumvented through the use of substances close in chemical structure to the substance you're addicted to. Different people also have been shown to have different levels of resistance to addiction to different substances (e.g., someone does cocaine once and gets addicted, while his friend can do it for a month straight and quit on the drop of a hat).

Cogni ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. I can only truly be aware of my own sentience, just as you can only be aware of your own. No matter what happens, no human can ever truly prove their sentience to another. The whole of this reality could be nothing more than a dream I'm having. Likewise, you have no proof that there is another person talking with you. For all you know, I could be a ridiculously well-programmed bot.
The only one I know for a fact is sentient is me, yet it is impossible for me to prove my sentience to anyone but myself. So, your question has no provable answer. I can prove to myself I am sentient, but I have no proof that humanity as a whole is, and I cannot prove to others that I am.

It isn't possible to know if sentience is something intrinsic to any life form, or something caused by the complexity of the human mind, without first being able to prove its existence. The concept of sentience is well established, but its existence is not.
If sentience is possessed by all life, then it is safe to say it is an intrinsic part of life, meaning humans are nothing more than strangely-shaped machines. If humans alone possess sentience, then it would have to be a product of humanity, making us intrinsically different from all other life on Earth and giving us another level of complexity. If, however, sentience is an illusion, its appearance would be complex, yet programmed.
However, as I stated previously, the only sentience you can prove is your own, and even then, you can only prove it to yourself.

It is still a self-identification, even if it's caused by a neurological difference. Nobody but the person who feels what their gender is can tell them how they feel; you can only say for a fact what their sex is and what they may (due to the many differences in the brain that exist even in "normal" people, you can't state beyond a reasonable doubt that different levels of different chemicals would cause the same behavior in different people) be feeling.

tl;dr: Even if it's caused by neurological differences, the one ultimately responsible for assigning one's gender is the one whose gender is being assigned. It's a mental state, like happiness, anger, or fear. You are the only one who can decide what you feel.

Question for you, then. Is addiction a self-prescribed state, or is it a mental state caused by the neurological differences?
On one hand, addiction can be overcome by determination, meaning it is obviously not a truly permanent state; what's more, addiction cannot be correctly diagnosed 100% of the time, and some substances exist which are not chemically addictive, yet people can become "psychologically addicted" to them.
On the other hand, addiction does cause a marked difference in a person's neurology, blocking dopamine receptors and causing differing levels of activity in different sections of the brain than a non-addict; furthermore, addiction can cause a physical dependence on the substance that you are addicted to, even going as far as to cause incredible pain in the form of withdrawal symptoms, but this can be circumvented through the use of substances close in chemical structure to the substance you're addicted to. Different people also have been shown to have different levels of resistance to addiction to different substances (e.g., someone does cocaine once and gets addicted, while his friend can do it for a month straight and quit on the drop of a hat).

Cogni ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. I can only truly be aware of my own sentience, just as you can only be aware of your own. No matter what happens, no human can ever truly prove their sentience to another. The whole of this reality could be nothing more than a dream I'm having. Likewise, you have no proof that there is another person talking with you. For all you know, I could be a ridiculously well-programmed bot.
The only one I know for a fact is sentient is me, yet it is impossible for me to prove my sentience to anyone but myself. So, your question has no provable answer. I can prove to myself I am sentient, but I have no proof that humanity as a whole is, and I cannot prove to others that I am.

It isn't possible to know if sentience is something intrinsic to any life form, or something caused by the complexity of the human mind, without first being able to prove its existence. The concept of sentience is well established, but its existence is not.
If sentience is possessed by all life, then it is safe to say it is an intrinsic part of life, meaning humans are nothing more than strangely-shaped machines. If humans alone possess sentience, then it would have to be a product of humanity, making us intrinsically different from all other life on Earth and giving us another level of complexity. If, however, sentience is an illusion, its appearance would be complex, yet programmed.
However, as I stated previously, the only sentience you can prove is your own, and even then, you can only prove it to yourself.

One's perception of them self is shaped by others through interaction. If people treat you a certain way, you will, to a point at least, begin to internalize that viewpoint, or at the very least accept that their viewpoint is commonplace, and "Normal".

I wouldn't say entirely, but I agree that is probably a major contributing factor.

Like an amorphous outfit she can mentally control, which is comprised entirely of her own hair that's still connected to her head.
So, nothing at all like an actual outfit. More like magic hair, which is exactly what it is.

You mean she's naked under her outfit ??!

It's not really an outfit. It's a hairstyle.

Like an amorphous outfit she can mentally control, which is comprised entirely of her own hair that's still connected to her head.
So, nothing at all like an actual outfit. More like magic hair, which is exactly what it is.

Sorry, I got nothing for you. Most f my reaction pics are taken from this site.