Furry
noun/adjective
>One can be said to be A furry, and one can be said to DO things that are describable AS furry.
"Furry" encompasses Animals with anthropomorphic aspects, and people who are interested in animals with anthropomorphic aspects.
Things like animals using spoken language, reading/writing, holding cups with their fore-[~]hands[/~]hooves, and assorted other human-like behavior that is otherwise not associated with the native creature.
Like ponies. Specifically, My Little Pony ponies.
Yes, ponies ARE definitively furry.
And, one can like furry things without identifying AS a furry,... but....
Tl;dr ITT OP tries to divest horsefuckers from their denial of being furries
/sp/ - Football
Yea, for the Denver Broncos are Football Now and Forever
File (): AABAF51433BFEC1E2D4A9D0AAC58975E-69374.jpg (67.7 KB, 569x438, 4cr9qr.jpg)
File (): ED38594C8D05920BEA38780A4FB94305-52184.jpg (51.0 KB, 1080x560, Screenshot_20230506_112003_Google.jpg)
614 replies and 126 files omitted.
>>22486
Yes, that is how I responded to the assertion that a fursona is a personalized character. The emphasis of being an anthropomorphic animal has already been well established, if you have been paying attention.
Yes, that is how I responded to the assertion that a fursona is a personalized character. The emphasis of being an anthropomorphic animal has already been well established, if you have been paying attention.
Anonymous
No.22490
>>22488
Not at all, there is nothing implicit or explicit about the term Persona that implies personalization, even though the etymology is similar. When you play Dark Souls, you are playing a persona. If for some reason that persona was an anthropomorphic animal, THEN it would be furry.
Not at all, there is nothing implicit or explicit about the term Persona that implies personalization, even though the etymology is similar. When you play Dark Souls, you are playing a persona. If for some reason that persona was an anthropomorphic animal, THEN it would be furry.
>>22489
So you admit that you observed the specification, and that you're being disingenuous. You may not like my assertions, but outside logical fallacies, you cant refute them
So you admit that you observed the specification, and that you're being disingenuous. You may not like my assertions, but outside logical fallacies, you cant refute them
>>22467
>Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
No it isn't.
For instance, take this actual furry's video here. He ultimately defines furries as "an international queer art movement," or something to that effect. He doesn't even mention anthropomorphic animals in his definition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovu8VK3NeX4&pp=ygUjcGx1c2ggZG9lc24ndCBrbm93IHdoYXQgZnVycmllcyBhcmU%3D
>>22448
>MLP has ALWAYS been furry content, in that the internet has decided thats the criteria.
Literally no it doesn't. Most people on the internet don't think bronies are furries, and no one except you thinks that every single children's movie or work of literature that features a talking animal is furry.
>>22473
>Egyptians and Hindus have a religious component, designed to convey wisdom, understanding, and how to correctly orient themselves in the world, but yeah you could describe them as niche furries.
*Furries are niche Egyptians
ftfy
>>22485
>No, all animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities are furry. For example, theres the Fox and the Hound; foxes and a doggo who speak to eachother in english, or the Lion King where all manner of animals speak English to one another. Then there's Robin Hood (the fox one), where bipedal animals speak and interact like humans (with the exception of snek) or Zootopia, where likewise is true. My Little Pony is somewhere between those examples, but no less furry.
Is this a troll post? These things are blatantly not furry, and most of the things you named existed long before the furry fandom.
In any case, you've been equivocating the meaning of the term "anthropomorphic." As applied to furries, it means what the great term literally translates to: human form. It means animals given a human shape. But you've been using a different and broader definition of the term to try to force disney characters to be furry - the meaning of an animal given any kind of human quality. But that isn't what the term "anthropomophic" means as applied to furries.
>Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
No it isn't.
For instance, take this actual furry's video here. He ultimately defines furries as "an international queer art movement," or something to that effect. He doesn't even mention anthropomorphic animals in his definition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovu8VK3NeX4&pp=ygUjcGx1c2ggZG9lc24ndCBrbm93IHdoYXQgZnVycmllcyBhcmU%3D
>>22448
>MLP has ALWAYS been furry content, in that the internet has decided thats the criteria.
Literally no it doesn't. Most people on the internet don't think bronies are furries, and no one except you thinks that every single children's movie or work of literature that features a talking animal is furry.
>>22473
>Egyptians and Hindus have a religious component, designed to convey wisdom, understanding, and how to correctly orient themselves in the world, but yeah you could describe them as niche furries.
*Furries are niche Egyptians
ftfy
>>22485
>No, all animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities are furry. For example, theres the Fox and the Hound; foxes and a doggo who speak to eachother in english, or the Lion King where all manner of animals speak English to one another. Then there's Robin Hood (the fox one), where bipedal animals speak and interact like humans (with the exception of snek) or Zootopia, where likewise is true. My Little Pony is somewhere between those examples, but no less furry.
Is this a troll post? These things are blatantly not furry, and most of the things you named existed long before the furry fandom.
In any case, you've been equivocating the meaning of the term "anthropomorphic." As applied to furries, it means what the great term literally translates to: human form. It means animals given a human shape. But you've been using a different and broader definition of the term to try to force disney characters to be furry - the meaning of an animal given any kind of human quality. But that isn't what the term "anthropomophic" means as applied to furries.
Anonymous
No.22493
>>22492
Sure bud, Im gonna sit through an hour long video where a guy objects to a comic about cannibalization, HOPING to find what you claim is a point.
No, Im gonna revert to the wealth of demographics provided by furscience. Nice try tho.
>furry movies arent furry
There wasnt that classification before, thats true. There is now though. You're welcome to try and establish a different term. Good luck. (Fun fact, I used those specific examples because they are some of the most commonly cited examples of media that led furries to being furries)
>Furries are niche egyptians
No, Egyptians worshipped/exalted specific deified individuals who were reported to have animalistic traits some of the time (reported as appearing human at some instances, and animal-headed at others). For one, there is a degree of religious prescription in that. For two, depending on how literally one interprets the stories, these were figurative and considered iconographical, but still subject to worship. I mean, if you wanna get THAT general, then in that they were deified constructs, Jesus was a furry (except not, cuz not animal, but definitely furry adjacent, if youre gonna spin furries as Egyptian).
Anthropomorphic ANIMALS. Animals, being a specific and intrinsic aspect to the equation, yes; furries are animals that display one or more degrees of human form, be it social, physiological, etc.
Glad you joined the discussion L (kek, never made that connection before)
Sure bud, Im gonna sit through an hour long video where a guy objects to a comic about cannibalization, HOPING to find what you claim is a point.
No, Im gonna revert to the wealth of demographics provided by furscience. Nice try tho.
>furry movies arent furry
There wasnt that classification before, thats true. There is now though. You're welcome to try and establish a different term. Good luck. (Fun fact, I used those specific examples because they are some of the most commonly cited examples of media that led furries to being furries)
>Furries are niche egyptians
No, Egyptians worshipped/exalted specific deified individuals who were reported to have animalistic traits some of the time (reported as appearing human at some instances, and animal-headed at others). For one, there is a degree of religious prescription in that. For two, depending on how literally one interprets the stories, these were figurative and considered iconographical, but still subject to worship. I mean, if you wanna get THAT general, then in that they were deified constructs, Jesus was a furry (except not, cuz not animal, but definitely furry adjacent, if youre gonna spin furries as Egyptian).
Anthropomorphic ANIMALS. Animals, being a specific and intrinsic aspect to the equation, yes; furries are animals that display one or more degrees of human form, be it social, physiological, etc.
Glad you joined the discussion L (kek, never made that connection before)
Anonymous
No.22494
>>22492
>furries
>"an international queer art movement,"
>video of cannibal furries
More satanic cannot get, I guess.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
>furries
>"an international queer art movement,"
>video of cannibal furries
More satanic cannot get, I guess.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Anonymous
No.22495
Heres some SHORT references for y'all
https://youtube.com/shorts/nXHqLLSKsRQ?si=qo5ym41IVS20gLvj
>What is a furry
https://youtube.com/shorts/Fz_1COj4s2o?si=g3QwMGkb4SMe6lwn
>What is a fursona
You'll notice that the individuals represented have both been Guests of Honor at one or more furry conventions (not to mention their followings on YT, Insta, etc), rather than being a niche 'literally who?'
https://youtube.com/shorts/nXHqLLSKsRQ?si=qo5ym41IVS20gLvj
>What is a furry
https://youtube.com/shorts/Fz_1COj4s2o?si=g3QwMGkb4SMe6lwn
>What is a fursona
You'll notice that the individuals represented have both been Guests of Honor at one or more furry conventions (not to mention their followings on YT, Insta, etc), rather than being a niche 'literally who?'
Anonymous
No.22496
I should clarify, the niche 'literally who' refers to the comic artist,, not the videographer
Anonymous
No.22497
Fuck it, Ive got a moment.
The videographer talking about the cannibal comic, he described the furry fandom based on his experiences with it. I wont contest theres a strong LGBTQ+ presence among furries (likewise can be said of horsefuckers and/or 'bronies'), but thats an intrinsically biased analysis. Why?
Because people tend to gravitate toward aspects of a mass grouping that conform to their expectations and preference, and away from the antithesis.
This is why individuals ITT can make claims about what the Pony fandom 'is' in defiance of numerous examples that defy their attempted classification.
The problem is, outside due diligence one can make the mistake of assuming that their experience is endemic of the whole. This is why I assert furscience as a source, because they have done the legwork of taking a mass of samples and perspectives and aggregated them into a general consensus. When I say "Ponies are furry", Im not speaking from the perspective of opinion, Im speaking the results of analysis of the data. Yes, I can be observed to make generalizations, I dont shy away from that; In the same sense that "everyone from 4chan is a weeb", everyone who is a horsefucker/ponyfag (Im shocked at how often people refer to the group as 'bronies') is a furry.
Call yourself 'adjacent' if it makes you less bothered. Split your hairs; I said before, you do you. But, I'll gladly mete any denialism with rhetoric, facts, and references, for any who want to argue the point.
>tl;dr This exercise ends the moment y'all resign yourself to the fact that you can't win the argument, even if you can't likewise lose it
Later furries!
The videographer talking about the cannibal comic, he described the furry fandom based on his experiences with it. I wont contest theres a strong LGBTQ+ presence among furries (likewise can be said of horsefuckers and/or 'bronies'), but thats an intrinsically biased analysis. Why?
Because people tend to gravitate toward aspects of a mass grouping that conform to their expectations and preference, and away from the antithesis.
This is why individuals ITT can make claims about what the Pony fandom 'is' in defiance of numerous examples that defy their attempted classification.
The problem is, outside due diligence one can make the mistake of assuming that their experience is endemic of the whole. This is why I assert furscience as a source, because they have done the legwork of taking a mass of samples and perspectives and aggregated them into a general consensus. When I say "Ponies are furry", Im not speaking from the perspective of opinion, Im speaking the results of analysis of the data. Yes, I can be observed to make generalizations, I dont shy away from that; In the same sense that "everyone from 4chan is a weeb", everyone who is a horsefucker/ponyfag (Im shocked at how often people refer to the group as 'bronies') is a furry.
Call yourself 'adjacent' if it makes you less bothered. Split your hairs; I said before, you do you. But, I'll gladly mete any denialism with rhetoric, facts, and references, for any who want to argue the point.
>tl;dr This exercise ends the moment y'all resign yourself to the fact that you can't win the argument, even if you can't likewise lose it
Later furries!
Anonymous
No.22499
>>22472
Also, I went back and read your diatribe. Not impressed. I wont fixate on each and every logical fallacy (numerous nat they are), instead I'll say simply: they didnt USED to be call weebs, but they are now.
Also, I went back and read your diatribe. Not impressed. I wont fixate on each and every logical fallacy (numerous nat they are), instead I'll say simply: they didnt USED to be call weebs, but they are now.
>>22498
As I just said, Im not gonna address every/all fallacy, and if you dont know that its a fallacy, its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries; we have enough disingenuous troublemakers as is ^_~
As I just said, Im not gonna address every/all fallacy, and if you dont know that its a fallacy, its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries; we have enough disingenuous troublemakers as is ^_~
>>22500
You say we "can't refute them", and yet you skip past the refutations. To me, it sounds more like it's you who cannot refute the arguments.
You say we "can't refute them", and yet you skip past the refutations. To me, it sounds more like it's you who cannot refute the arguments.
>>22501
If (you) cant recognize your own logical fallacies, no; Im not going to expend the time and effort to educate you. You (should) know better by now
If (you) cant recognize your own logical fallacies, no; Im not going to expend the time and effort to educate you. You (should) know better by now
>>22502
You won't because you can't. It's so transparent.
You claim to win an argument when ignoring half of the other side's arguments, particularly those that you can't refute. And you expect people to take you seriously.
It's all so tiresome.
You won't because you can't. It's so transparent.
You claim to win an argument when ignoring half of the other side's arguments, particularly those that you can't refute. And you expect people to take you seriously.
It's all so tiresome.
Anonymous
No.22506
>>22500
>its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries
Good.
Keep away from us as well.
>its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries
Good.
Keep away from us as well.
>>22505
I wont because I already have. If y'all stepped outside your carefully guarded ideas of what a 'horsefucker' or 'brony' or wtfe "is" and took a careful look at the wealth of available evidence (including evidence not presented, cuz if I was wrong it would be simple to find furry/non-furry sources to refute) THEN attempted to make an argument, it would be evident.
But you haven't, and you won't.
I'll reiterate: nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.
I wont because I already have. If y'all stepped outside your carefully guarded ideas of what a 'horsefucker' or 'brony' or wtfe "is" and took a careful look at the wealth of available evidence (including evidence not presented, cuz if I was wrong it would be simple to find furry/non-furry sources to refute) THEN attempted to make an argument, it would be evident.
But you haven't, and you won't.
I'll reiterate: nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.
>>22508
>already have
No you didn't.
Scroll up in the thread. There's more then a dozen carefully crafted arguments that you either did not reply to or only replied to part of while ignoring the part that refuted your arguments.
And having already done something has never stopped you from redundantly repeating the same couple lines/points over and over in this threads.
>already have
No you didn't.
Scroll up in the thread. There's more then a dozen carefully crafted arguments that you either did not reply to or only replied to part of while ignoring the part that refuted your arguments.
And having already done something has never stopped you from redundantly repeating the same couple lines/points over and over in this threads.
>>22508
A couple Anons even refuted your arguments using the same information you presented in the "furry science" link.
A couple Anons even refuted your arguments using the same information you presented in the "furry science" link.
>>22511
Fine. Stop being a dumbass.
https://furscience.com/resources/
>Is my child a furry?
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not. Some furries will have fursuits, and others will not. Some will go to conventions or buy furry artwork. None of these is a necessary or sufficient condition to declare someone a furry. Like being a video gamer or a fan of a genre of music or a particular sport team, the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself—typically when your interest in anthropomorphic animal media is an important part of your identity. If your child really enjoys movies or books with talking animals, then they might consider themselves to be a furry. If you’ve always liked Daffy Duck or Disney’s Robin Hood, you might be a furry, too. As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
Fine. Stop being a dumbass.
https://furscience.com/resources/
>Is my child a furry?
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not. Some furries will have fursuits, and others will not. Some will go to conventions or buy furry artwork. None of these is a necessary or sufficient condition to declare someone a furry. Like being a video gamer or a fan of a genre of music or a particular sport team, the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself—typically when your interest in anthropomorphic animal media is an important part of your identity. If your child really enjoys movies or books with talking animals, then they might consider themselves to be a furry. If you’ve always liked Daffy Duck or Disney’s Robin Hood, you might be a furry, too. As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>>22512
Thats been my point from the beginning. But, I also assert that having been made aware of all this (read: nescience is disspelled) one is either a furry, or in denial of being a furry.
Thats been my point from the beginning. But, I also assert that having been made aware of all this (read: nescience is disspelled) one is either a furry, or in denial of being a furry.
>>22513
If the point is one that you apply to yourself, that makes it inherently subjective. You cannot be "in denial" of a subjective aspect.
If the point is one that you apply to yourself, that makes it inherently subjective. You cannot be "in denial" of a subjective aspect.
>>22513
No. Your point is that Horsefuckers, bronies, ect. are furries.
The definition with the source you said is up to your standard.
<As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
So no. Horsefuckers are not furries.
Furries can be bronies or whatever fucking else. But it does not work the other way around.
No. Your point is that Horsefuckers, bronies, ect. are furries.
The definition with the source you said is up to your standard.
<As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
So no. Horsefuckers are not furries.
Furries can be bronies or whatever fucking else. But it does not work the other way around.
Anonymous
No.22517
(at least, he horsefuckers ITT, so far)
>>22514
Is it not logical to observe that a person who is categorically a furry, and has been appraised of what a furry is, is in denial?
Is it not logical to observe that a person who is categorically a furry, and has been appraised of what a furry is, is in denial?
>>22516
How can you be in denial of something that is dependent on your personal acceptance of it? That's an oxymoron.
>>22518
The key factor is self-identification. The interest with some anthro animals, according to the source that YOU provided, is not enough on its own. People who do not identify as furries are categorically not furries.
How can you be in denial of something that is dependent on your personal acceptance of it? That's an oxymoron.
>>22518
The key factor is self-identification. The interest with some anthro animals, according to the source that YOU provided, is not enough on its own. People who do not identify as furries are categorically not furries.
>>22519
Ask yourself. Youve been well appraised by this point, how can (YOU) be in denial?
Self-identification, AFTER a sufficiently thorough explanation is the DIFFERENCE between whether one is a furry or in denial
Ask yourself. Youve been well appraised by this point, how can (YOU) be in denial?
Self-identification, AFTER a sufficiently thorough explanation is the DIFFERENCE between whether one is a furry or in denial
>>22518
You are so full of shit.
You come here and demand that we accept what you consider to be an authoritative source for the definition ("Trust the science!") and then you contradict the very same source when further scrutiny reveals it to be inconsistent with your point.
According to the "furry scientist", we are not furries unless we say so. The fact that we do not say so is proof enough by itself that we are not furries. This, on top of all the other points we've made about the distinguishing factors between ourselves and furries is more than enough proof that we are not.
>>22520
Your source says nothing about being "in denial" is says not to label a person as furry unless they decide it for themselves.
You are so full of shit.
You come here and demand that we accept what you consider to be an authoritative source for the definition ("Trust the science!") and then you contradict the very same source when further scrutiny reveals it to be inconsistent with your point.
According to the "furry scientist", we are not furries unless we say so. The fact that we do not say so is proof enough by itself that we are not furries. This, on top of all the other points we've made about the distinguishing factors between ourselves and furries is more than enough proof that we are not.
>>22520
Your source says nothing about being "in denial" is says not to label a person as furry unless they decide it for themselves.
>>22521
So, you're denying the logical conclusion that someone who presents a variety of furry characteristics can be observed to be a furry?
Because they dont self-identify?
(can you see the troon argument, about to rear it's ugly head?)
So, you're denying the logical conclusion that someone who presents a variety of furry characteristics can be observed to be a furry?
Because they dont self-identify?
(can you see the troon argument, about to rear it's ugly head?)
File (): 6059A468C9F6ACA84BA734B5B7E1CEF3-1259460.gif (1.2 MB, 329x406, caption-3.gif)
>>22523
You are making the troon argument that a girl who cuts her hair short and likes to play sports, or is otherwise nonconformance with the expectations of femininity must actually be a troon, and not just a tomboy, regardless of what she thinks.
The key factor is self identity. All the other characteristics are superficial, as furries do not share them all, and many other people express those characteristics without being furries. Without the key characteristic, none of the other characteristics matter.
You are making the troon argument that a girl who cuts her hair short and likes to play sports, or is otherwise nonconformance with the expectations of femininity must actually be a troon, and not just a tomboy, regardless of what she thinks.
The key factor is self identity. All the other characteristics are superficial, as furries do not share them all, and many other people express those characteristics without being furries. Without the key characteristic, none of the other characteristics matter.
>>22524
No, the troon argument is that "how I identify is more authentic/legitimate than the evidence that suggests Im not what I see myself as"
Like ponyfags pretending to not be furries
No, the troon argument is that "how I identify is more authentic/legitimate than the evidence that suggests Im not what I see myself as"
Like ponyfags pretending to not be furries
Anonymous
No.22529
>>22524
>"tomboys"
Degenerate all the same. Much like horstruckers. Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.
>"tomboys"
Degenerate all the same. Much like horstruckers. Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.
File (): CE0D98147A17B0FE0DD8D4FC58B1B38E-65447.png (63.9 KB, 1057x1280, Overwhelmingvictory.png)
File (): 891BAF24D619B425E2BAF6BC19D99B0B-3152107.jpg (3.0 MB, 4032x3024, NotFurry.jpg)
Here's the image summary of the thread. Sort of disappointed I was hoping it'd be more mentally stimulating. Good game.
File (): AF8CE5517A4C8E5939ECAE7E20ED24C0-618569.png (604.1 KB, 3768x2334, 2717544.png)
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-500] [501-550] [551-600] [601-650] [651-664] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
664 replies | 133 files | 34 UUIDs | Page 9