Quote from: RedFoxThey're furry in that they're anthropomorphic animals, and furries are anthropomorphic animals.

If you don't understand that, you're quite possibly retarded.  

Hehe, yep.

Socrates is human.  Socrates is male.  Therefore all humans are males.

-O

Quote from: obrynHehe, yep.

Socrates is human.  Socrates is male.  Therefore all humans are males.

-O

No, anything that is an anthropomorphised animal is a furry.  That's one of the term's definitions (another being a shorthand for "furry fan").  It's a fandom term, so you don't have to accept it...  but misusing it just shows ignorance.

So I'd suggest simply not recognizing the term at all or using it correctly.

Quote from: RedFoxNo, anything that is an anthropomorphised animal is a furry.  That's one of the term's definitions (another being a shorthand for "furry fan").  It's a fandom term, so you don't have to accept it...  but misusing it just shows ignorance.

So I'd suggest simply not recognizing the term at all or using it correctly.

I reject the suggestion that a "fandom term" provides an imperative for everyone to use it as the fan community suggests.

It's like insisting that my use of the term "Trekkie" is inappropriate and that "Trekker" is the correct term for the fan community.  Fuck that.

-O

All furry = anthropomorphic.

All anthropomorphic =/= furry.

In fact, going by the proper literary definition, all anthropomorphic =/= talking bipedal animals either.

Quote from: obrynI reject the suggestion that a "fandom term" provides an imperative for everyone to use it as the fan community suggests.

It's like insisting that my use of the term "Trekkie" is inappropriate and that "Trekker" is the correct term for the fan community.  Fuck that.

-O

Oh you can use it some other way.  You'll just be wrong, and I'll call you on it.  Y'know, like I did.  

Quote from: JArcaneAll furry = anthropomorphic.

All anthropomorphic =/= furry.

In fact, going by the proper literary definition, all anthropomorphic =/= talking bipedal animals either.

Anthropomorphic animal, man.  The Brave Little Toaster isn't furry.  The Wind in the Willows, however, is.

QuoteThe Wind in the Willows, however, is.

I'm pretty sure Kenneth Grahame never went to a furry convention.

Quote from: J ArcaneI'm pretty sure Kenneth Grahame never went to a furry convention.

Which has fuck-all to do with anything.

Quote from: RedFoxWhich has fuck-all to do with anything.

I strongly disagree.

Quote from: J ArcaneI strongly disagree.

You're still wrong.  You pulled a definition out of your ass instead of using the established, very plain fandom definition of what constitutes "furry" material.

Let me explain:  The fandom sprung up around an interest in anthropomorphic animals.  To define that interest in a way that wasn't a mouthful of terminology, the term "furry" was born.  Later on, "furry" also adopted the meaning of "fan of anthropomorphic animals" as a logical extension of the first definition.

Ergo, it's a simple way for furry fans to point out things of interest to them.  The Wind in the Willows is furry.  All that means is that it has anthropomorphic animals in it, and therefore falls under the general interests of the furry fandom.  Which is, y'know, totally true.

Whatever your personal definition may be, it isn't the definition that furry fans use because it isn't at all useful to us.  And, y'know, we're furry fans and we invented the term in the first place.  So take our word for it.

It seems to me that people are overeager to change an established fan definition for the exclusive purpose of excluding material that they like from the material of interest to furry fans.  Simply distancing yourselves because furries are "those icky weirdos" and they couldn't possibly be interested in things that are good or cool or that you happen to like.

You can use it as a general all you want.

I'm not a "furry fan" though, so I don't care what terminology you use.  I still think it's wrong, and it's usage as a generality unfairly lumps some art into a category in which it does not belong.

I would even go so far as to suggest your insistence on it being a more general term than it has any right to be may constitute an agenda on your part in relation to said unfair generalization, in that you seem to have a desire to see your fandom treated as more "normal" than it presently is.

However, the end result of all that is instead to result in a lot of art being dismissed by being unfairly associated with something it never had anything to do with, and is in fact, the very core of the frustration I was venting in the post that started this whole thread.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou can use it as a general all you want.

I'm not a "furry fan" though, so I don't care what terminology you use.  I still think it's wrong, and it's usage as a generality unfairly lumps some art into a category in which it does not belong.

What art?  How is it unfair?

If I say, "The Wind in the Willows is furry," what I am saying is "The Wind in the Willows contains anthropomorphic animals."  That is the established fandom definition.

How is that in any way unfair or wrong?

Quote from: RedFoxWhat art?  How is it unfair?

If I say, "The Wind in the Willows is furry," what I am saying is "The Wind in the Willows contains anthropomorphic animals."  That is the established fandom definition.

How is that in any way unfair or wrong?

Because you know as well as I do that the term "furry" carries a hell of a lot more implications and baggage than just "anthropomorphic animal".

As this thread rather effectively illustrates.

Quote from: J ArcaneBecause you know as well as I do that the term "furry" carries a hell of a lot more implications and baggage than just "anthropomorphic animal".

As this thread rather effectively illustrates.

That's not unfair of me.  In fact, I'm explaining the literal definition of the term in an attempt to clear away some of this baggage from it.  If anyone's being unfair, it's those who are insisting on putting an unfair amount of weight behind the term where none exists.

Quote from: RedFoxThat's not unfair of me.  In fact, I'm explaining the literal definition of the term in an attempt to clear away some of this baggage from it.  If anyone's being unfair, it's those who are insisting on putting an unfair amount of weight behind the term where none exists.

The problem is that the battle you seem to want to wage has been lost for quite sometime now, and insisting on continuing it only causes more harm than good.

It seems more productive at this juncture to try and seperate the two, than to continue trying to forcethem together, which is exactly what caused the whole problem in the first place.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe problem is that the battle you seem to want to wage has been lost for quite sometime now, and insisting on continuing it only causes more harm than good.

It seems more productive at this juncture to try and seperate the two, than to continue trying to forcethem together, which is exactly what caused the whole problem in the first place.

I'm not engaged in a battle.  I'm explaining the definition to you because you have it wrong.  Any baggage you bring to it is your own problem.

I'm not going to change the definition of what I like for you or anyone else, and I doubt that the fandom at large will feel the urge to do so either.

I understand that the fandom has an image problem, but trying to redefine the name of the fandom itself and a perfectly harmless term that defines its area of interest isn't going to fix anything.  The problem lies elsewhere.

In fact, insisting that furry fans abandon the term "furry" because it has too much negative baggage in the public consciousness is only going to cause more harm than good.  If you knew anything about the fandom, you'd realize this.