I keep repeating, it does not matter. If there were a rule stating that the Type is directly correlated to the status ailments then no I cannot make such an assumption BUT because of how the mechanic currently works one can assume that.
Exactly.Based on this, Game Freak could make the Poison type super effective against Grass, Water, Dragon, Normal, and Fighting, making the Poison type "outclass" the Fire type.
Yes it is because what are the Types purpose? To inflict or to resist damage based on the opposing Type. Nothing else factors in determining whether or not a Type is better. Status ailments don't because as I've said they are directly related to any Type. Each of the Types do the same thing some are better at it than other in certain aspects. Example: Steel resists more than Types than Ice. there fore Steel Outclasses Ice in that aspect. However in Overall aspects as in "if this type is better than this" Steel is better than poison because it resists more and is super effective against more.Whether or not a type is good or bad isn't dependent only on offensive and defensive capabilities. There's more to determining whether a type is good than just offensive and defensive potential. By considering only offensive and defensive potential, one practically automatically assumes that types that don't rely on either are "bad", which is flawed reasoning.
The opinion that they make based on that reasoning isn't bad, but rather just made due to looking at just offense and defense.
What I'm saying is that hypothetical mechanics cannot be a factor in an answer to whether or not any particular type is bad in the current game.