I don't take your intention to be pedantic at all. This is a useful conversation.

So, there is no contradiction in acknowledging that astrology as conceived two or three millennia ago was pre-scientific and considering the current version to be pseudoscientific. The same goes, for instance, for alchemy. When Newton was doing it, it was reasonable. If somewhere where to do it today, it wouldn't be.

As for horoscopes, I don't think most people use them as a social game. Lots of people, according to surveys, actually believe in the causal aspects of astrology. Hence my problem.

Even if it were just a game, I fail to see the point of it. Why not use actual psychology as a basis?