# Sigourney Weaver is a furry



## JoeStrike (Dec 15, 2009)

She was on Jon Stewart last night talking about why she accepted a role in 'Avatar':

"You offer me ears and a tail and I'll follow you anywhere."


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

I don't think that qualifies as furry.


----------



## Zseliq (Dec 15, 2009)

lol


----------



## Rytes (Dec 15, 2009)

really now?


----------



## Metal_Skunk (Dec 15, 2009)

Hmm sounds sexy.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Dec 15, 2009)

Well... she did have that awfully sexually-toned theme in Alien Resurrection, so...

But still. Funny.
Sounds like something I'd say.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Dec 15, 2009)

Could be possible.



Vaelarsa said:


> Well... she did have that awfully sexually-toned theme in Alien Resurrection, so...
> 
> But still. Funny.
> Sounds like something I'd say.



Yeah, she did, didn't she?  It was pretty nice.  :3


----------



## Iflyte (Dec 15, 2009)

Now you see, that would be slightly endearing...were it not Sigorney Weaver. Don't get me wrong, I loved the alien movies but she always seemed a little, er...masculine to me.


----------



## Aden (Dec 15, 2009)

Metal_Skunk said:


> Hmm sounds sexy.



Sure is FA submission comments in here


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 15, 2009)

Iflyte said:


> Now you see, that would be slightly endearing...were it not Sigorney Weaver. Don't get me wrong, I loved the alien movies but she always seemed a little, er...masculine to me.



That's a bit of an understatement, Sigorney Weaver's a fucking amazon. Did you see how much bigger than John Stewart she is :V ?


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 15, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> That's a bit of an understatement, Sigorney Weaver's a fucking amazon. Did you see how much bigger than John Stewart she is :V ?



She's _hench_, as my brother would say.


----------



## south syde dobe (Dec 15, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> Well... she did have that awfully sexually-toned theme in Alien Resurrection, so...
> 
> But still. Funny.
> Sounds like something I'd say.


 
I don't know why but your awesome XP
Your one of the few cool females in this fandom :3


----------



## Senora Kitty (Dec 15, 2009)

I don't care what you call her, Sigorney Weaver is awesome. Even if she is not a furry her statement it's still cool. I agree that a lot of us can sympathize with her words.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Dec 15, 2009)

She's an alien.

ALIENS DON'T HAVE FUR.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 15, 2009)

I think it's about time a celebrity actually out and told everyone "Hey guys I'm a furfag". She came so close to doing so.


----------



## Collie (Dec 15, 2009)

It could be that, or it could just be she likes having fun and thinks it's cute and enjoyable.  Liking ears and tails doesn't mean you're a furry.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

Yrr said:


> I think it's about time a celebrity actually out and told everyone "Hey guys I'm a furfag". She came so close to doing so.


I agree, but I don't think she is a furry though.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 15, 2009)

I don't think she's a furfag furry, but she is a cool actress.


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 15, 2009)

In all seriousness though I hope this thread is a joke because I'm getting really tired of furfags trying to co opt anything that can be, even in the most remote sense imaginable, related to the fandom. Attempting to convince people that the furry fandom is something more than a giant internet fetish porn dumpster is a hopeless effort. People will never stop thinking that because, like it or not, it's pretty much the truth. Trying to drag anything you can get your fat, sticky hands on into this shit only makes you look even worse than you already do. I mean in all seriousness I'm confident that if Sigorney Weaver found herself being associated with this smelly freak show she'd want to kick some serious ass, and I'm pretty sure she could, I mean look at her :V .


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> In all seriousness though I hope this thread is a joke... I mean in all seriousness I'm confident that if Sigorney Weaver found herself being associated with this smelly freak show she'd want to kick some serious ass


The thread probably isn't a joke, and I agree.


----------



## JoeStrike (Dec 15, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> That's a bit of an understatement, Sigorney Weaver's a fucking amazon. Did you see how much bigger than John Stewart she is :V ?



*EVERYONE's *bigger than Jon Stewart - the guy is tiny in RL & he jokes about it regularly on the show.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 15, 2009)

JoeStrike said:


> She was on Jon Stewart last night talking about why she accepted a role in 'Avatar':
> 
> "You offer me ears and a tail and I'll follow you anywhere."



That is made of win and awesome.


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 15, 2009)

Iflyte said:


> Now you see, that would be slightly endearing...were it not Sigorney Weaver. Don't get me wrong, I loved the alien movies but she always seemed a little, er...masculine to me.


Masculine a bit maybe, but still hot as hell in those little half panties at 
the end of alien mmm, mmm, mmm.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 16, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> Masculine a bit maybe, but still hot as hell in those little half panties at
> the end of alien mmm, mmm, mmm.



For once, we are in complete agreement.


----------



## icecold24 (Dec 16, 2009)

AVATAR AIN'T FURRY!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 16, 2009)

JoeStrike said:


> She was on Jon Stewart last night talking about why she accepted a role in 'Avatar':
> 
> "You offer me ears and a tail and I'll follow you anywhere."



You know Neko's have ears and a tail and they are not furry. she might just like ears and tails, don't jump to conclusions.


----------



## JoeStrike (Dec 16, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> ...she might just like ears and tails, don't jump to conclusions.



If she likes ears & tails, that's close enough for me! :razz:


----------



## PKBitchGirl (Dec 16, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You know Neko's have ears and a tail and they are not furry. she might just like ears and tails, don't jump to conclusions.



"Don't look at the girl with the ears! I just think they're cute"

Girl at the Stargate panel at either DragonCon or ComicCon, when Chris Judge wants to know what's wrong with kids finding out about people who dress up as animals


----------



## Yrr (Dec 16, 2009)

icecold24 said:


> AVATAR AIN'T FURRY!


Blatantly, I mean look, the main character doesn't even have hair:


----------



## Istare (Dec 16, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> In all seriousness though I hope this thread is a joke because I'm getting really tired of furfags trying to co opt anything that can be, even in the most remote sense imaginable, related to the fandom. Attempting to convince people that the furry fandom is something more than a giant internet fetish porn dumpster is a hopeless effort. People will never stop thinking that because, like it or not, it's pretty much the truth. Trying to drag anything you can get your fat, sticky hands on into this shit only makes you look even worse than you already do. I mean in all seriousness I'm confident that if Sigorney Weaver found herself being associated with this smelly freak show she'd want to kick some serious ass, and I'm pretty sure she could, I mean look at her :V .



Forum trolls wall of text fails to hit.
Better luck next time.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 16, 2009)

Istare said:


> Forum trolls wall of text fails to hit.
> Better luck next time.


nice first post bro


----------



## Aden (Dec 16, 2009)

Istare said:


> Forum trolls wall of text fails to hit.
> Better luck next time.



Your first post here is blind indignance masked in "casual" sarcasm in response to a legitimate post? Oh yeah, you're gonna last real long here.


----------



## VoidBat (Dec 16, 2009)

Such a valuable thread.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 16, 2009)

VoidBat said:


> Such a valuable thread.


 It deserves a medal.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2009)

PKBitchGirl said:


> Girl at the Stargate panel at either DragonCon or ComicCon, when Chris Judge wants to know what's wrong with kids finding out about people who dress up as animals


I remember that, his reaction was priceless!


----------



## Kyzen (Dec 16, 2009)

............................................________
....................................,.-â€˜â€...................``~.,
.............................,.-â€...................................â€œ-.,
.........................,/...............................................â€:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:â€........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....â€œ~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....â€~,_........â€œ~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......â€=,_.......â€œ-,_.......,.-~-,},.~â€;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......â€=-._......â€œ;,,./`..../â€............../
...,,,___.\`~,......â€œ~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-â€
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 16, 2009)

Sigourney weaver would fucking eat me raw.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 16, 2009)

Yrr said:


> Blatantly, I mean look, the main character doesn't even have hair:



and this is what I first thought of when I heard of the movie.

not this:


----------



## Dahguns (Dec 16, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> Sigourney weaver would fucking eat me raw.


I would fucking eat Sigourney Weaver raw


----------



## TDK (Dec 16, 2009)

If only she were still relevant to Hollywood...


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Istare said:


> Forum trolls wall of text fails to hit.
> Better luck next time.


Pretty much, yeah. From what I've seen of the trailers, it's visually quite stunning. What's really funny, though, is reading the overreactions to the movie from the more insecure geeks out there: Half of them are in full-on denial mode saying the movie doesn't have furries in it, and the other half are mad as hell because it has furries in it (because the last thing they want to do is admit they think furries are cool or something). 

It's kinda sad these folks can't just get over themselves, enjoy the movie, and get on with their lives. Oh well.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 17, 2009)

When does it come out though?


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> When does it come out though?



Starts Friday, December 18th.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Dec 17, 2009)

DO NOT WANT


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 17, 2009)

She is a bit old for my tastes.


----------



## JoeStrike (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> It deserves a medal.



That's very kind of you, but all the same I'll take the cash instead.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 17, 2009)

Avatar's already out.  Basically, if the reviewers are to be believed, it's a lite-version of what I brought up in the other thread (the one in "The Tube").  Avatars are standard template Native Americans but taller and blue, the Humans (with the exception of the protagonists) are mustache-twirling evil, Cameron goes to no length to justify any of humanities activity (in the movie, online one gets quite a different picture), etcetera.  However, this does not mean the movie is 100% preaching of "Nature good modern humans bad be like Native Americans".  Furthermore, 



Spoiler



the film at least treats us respectably enough to have the side with guns and mechs and an airforce win against a massed cavalry charge with nothing but spears & bows.  Turns out that Pandora is just like Pyrrus from _Deathworld_ in that the planet's alive, and _that_ is how humans get fucked over (again, as in Deathworld).  So, to sum it up, you could almost see it as _Deathworld_ with giant blue Native Americans thrown in.



Would I see the movie?  Maybe.  I've heard that, besides the fire, the visuals looks absolutely _amazing_.  Some of the sounds are recycled from Jurassic Park, but the critters most certainly aren't.  The only flaw of this film is its "cookie cutter" plot, but I have a hunch that if you're going to the movie solely because you dislike humanity / you want to root for the aliens for a change, that you're not going to consider the movie cookie-cutter.  Heads up that there's almost a 20% difference in rating average from critics (who are rating it higher) and film goers (who are rating it... still decent, but see what I said).

If you want a plot that's 3D that _isn't_ being emotionally dishonest (Because, let's face it, the author stacking everything in one race's favor and specifically stating he wants you to support the aliens he tried to make sexy for you is pretty emotionally dishonest), then read the stuff online.  It's _probably_ meant to make you dislike the Avatar Humans more, but instead it does the reverse for a lot of people.  Humans wrecked Earth, alright... but Unobtanium can fix it (at least partially).  Humans are overcrowding Earth... but again, Unobtanium can fix that (allowing us to move away from Earth to other inhabitable planets).  Policing and communication would be horrible... but Unobtanium can fix that (FTL communication meaning much more rapid response times).  Earth is polluted mostly due to nuclear power plant issues... unobtanium can fix that (Room-temperature super conductor drastically decreasing the amount of power needed to be generated.  When combined with all the people moving away from Earth..).


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Pretty much, yeah. From what I've seen of the trailers, it's visually quite stunning. What's really funny, though, is reading the overreactions to the movie from the more insecure geeks out there: Half of them are in full-on denial mode saying the movie doesn't have furries in it, and the other half are mad as hell because *it has furries in it* (because the last thing they want to do is admit they think furries are cool or something).
> 
> It's kinda sad these folks can't just get over themselves, enjoy the movie, and get on with their lives. Oh well.



There aren't any furries in avatar. I think you're confused about just what exactly a furry is, let me help you out. 

This here is a furry.






This is also a furry.






This on the other hand, is a faggy blue alien thing.






Can you spot the difference :V ?

Also Avatar is undoubtedly complete shit, James Cameron's a fucking hack :V .


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Pretty much, yeah. From what I've seen of the trailers, it's visually quite stunning. What's really funny, though, is reading the overreactions to the movie from the more insecure geeks out there: Half of them are in full-on denial mode saying the movie doesn't have furries in it, and the other half are mad as hell because it has furries in it (because the last thing they want to do is admit they think furries are cool or something).



There are no furries in it, and it's not for those reasons. 

The furry fandom doesn't envelope everything that stands on two legs and has a tail.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> There aren't any furries in avatar. I think you're confused about just what exactly a furry is, let me help you out.



Nah, that's okay. I've been around Furry fandom long enough to know what a Furry is, and Avatar is chock full of them. 



I also know what a troll is. I run them over with highway pavers.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Nah, that's okay. I've been around Furry fandom long enough to know what a Furry is, and Avatar is chock full of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I also know what a troll is. I run them over with highway pavers.


I have no idea what you're talking about

anthro=/=furry


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 17, 2009)

Aden said:


> There are no furries in it, and it's not for those reasons.
> 
> The furry fandom doesn't envelope everything that stands on two legs and has a tail.



I haven't seen a single greasy, jailhouse gay, dog mongling zitwhale in the trailers but xydexx seems pretty adamant in his assertion that there are in fact, furries in Avatar. Maybe he knows something we don't, like there's some kind of twist ending where a mob of furfags try to rape the blue things or something. If that's the case it might be better than I thought :V .


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 17, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about
> 
> anthro=/=furry



 Me neither :V .


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Nah, that's okay. I've been around Furry fandom long enough to know what a Furry is, and Avatar is chock full of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I also know what a troll is. I run them over with highway pavers.



If you think the characters in avatar are furry then you need to rethink your definition of furry.

Avatar is NOT furry. And judging by your lack of posts I doubt you have been in the fandom long enough to know what furry is.


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Avatar is NOT furry. And judging by your lack of posts I doubt you have been in the fandom long enough to know what furry is.



No do not trool him he will run you over using the internet D:


----------



## Ilayas (Dec 17, 2009)

God so now every movie that has some vaguely not human characters in it furry now?


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If you think the characters in avatar are furry then you need to rethink your definition of furry.



I think funky blue alien cat people are well within the realm of anthropomorphic animal, i.e., Furry. I'd be real interested in hearing what your definition of Furry is, though.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4058/furrieswhatsnottolike.th.jpg



RandyDarkshade said:


> And judging by your lack of posts I doubt you have been in the fandom long enough to know what furry is.



Heh.

If you think a lack of posts on this forum correlates to time spent in Furry fandom, you need to rethink how vast the online Furry community actually is. :grin:


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 17, 2009)

God do we have to go through this explanation again

Unless it was created by or for the furry fandom, it's not furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> I think funky blue alien cat people are well within the realm of anthropomorphic animal, i.e., Furry.



1: you said ALIEN cat people, aliens are not furry's.

2: Neko's are cat girls, and they are NOT furry's either.

3: The movie was not made for the fandom but for entertainment of everyone, therefor is not furry. If it was then by your OWN definition anyone who watches such a movie and enjoys must also be a furry too amirite?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> God so now every movie that has some vaguely not human characters in it furry now?




According to a certain someone in this thread, yes. I am betting he would class Dr who as furry because it has "alien people" in it. same as star wars, star trek blah blah blah.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> Unless it was created by or for the furry fandom, it's not furry.



This was a claim that was bandied about by Usenet trolls back in the days when folks actually read Usenet. (I'm actually surprised it gets repeated by people who should know better.)

The problem with that definition, and the reason it falls apart, is because it requires people have some sort of mind-reading capabilities or omnipotent knowledge of what the creator was thinking or whether they were part of the fandom. It's total nonsense. 

Furry fandom has always been about _anthropomorphic animals_. It doesn't matter who created them, or why, or if they were part of the fandom.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> 1: you said ALIEN cat people, aliens are not furry's.



Right. Next you'll be telling us Kzinti aren't furry or something. 

Here, this should clear up some confusion:_The basic definition for a "furry" is an anthropomorphized animal character.  In other words, an animal character given human-like attributes, such as sapience and often a humanoid form.  The term "furry" is a misnomer, as a creature does not need to have fur to be "furry" in this sense.  Other terms sometimes interchangeable with a "furry" in this sense are "zoomorph", "morph", "anthropomorph" or (debatably) "funny animal".

The core definition of a "furry" seems to include basically humanoid-formed creatures with animal faces, fur/scale/feathers/whatever, and often appropriate tails, wings, claws, etc., able to speak, and with a human-like personality, though quite often with "quirks" hinting at the real-life animal upon which the character is based._ 
​


RandyDarkshade said:


> 3: The movie was not made for the fandom but for entertainment of everyone, therefor is not furry.



So by your definition, then, the only things that are Furry are things people create for Furry fans _only_, and _nobody else_ is allowed to enjoy them?

Does anyone out there actually create things like that?

Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds?


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I am betting he would class Dr who as furry because it has "alien people" in it. same as star wars, star trek blah blah blah.



Nice attempted strawman, but I wouldn't count Dr. Who as a Furry because he's not an anthropomorphic animal, and doesn't fit the definition of Furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Nice attempted strawman, but I wouldn't count Dr. Who as a Furry because he's not an anthropomorphic animal, and doesn't fit the definition of Furry.



Try using the multiquote feature in future.

I was refering to Dr who as the show, not the person.

And no Kzinti are not furry, they are ALIEN. I suggest you give up and go home now because this is a debate you will not win on this forum.

Also I never said other people can not enjoy "furry" so do not put words into my mouth. Just because someone watches lion king, does not make them a furry, just because someone creates an alien cat woman does not make it furry, you are assuming that because it has cat ears and a tail it makes it furry. Seeing as the cat girls in avatar are ALIENS it is clear to me the creator WANTS them to be an alien race, not a furry race.


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Here, this should clear up some confusion:_The basic definition for a "furry" is an anthropomorphized animal character.  In other words, an animal character given human-like attributes, such as sapience and often a humanoid form.  The term "furry" is a misnomer, as a creature does not need to have fur to be "furry" in this sense.  Other terms sometimes interchangeable with a "furry" in this sense are "zoomorph", "morph", "anthropomorph" or (debatably) "funny animal".
> 
> The core definition of a "furry" seems to include basically humanoid-formed creatures with animal faces, fur/scale/feathers/whatever, and often appropriate tails, wings, claws, etc., able to speak, and with a human-like personality, though quite often with "quirks" hinting at the real-life animal upon which the character is based._
> ​



This is the definition of anthropomorphism. Something can be anthropomorphic without being part of the furry fandom and, in fact, most mainstream anthropomorphics fall under this categorization.



> So by your definition, then, the only things that are Furry are things people create for Furry fans _only_, and _nobody else_ is allowed to enjoy them?



Way to twist words, bro :V


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I suggest you give up and go home now because this is a debate you will not win on this forum.



Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if the facts aren't on your side you could always just admit you're wrong instead of trying to get me to quit. Just a thought.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Just because someone watches lion king, does not make them a furry,



Yes, that I can agree with, much the same way just because someone buys postage stamps doesn't make them a stamp collector. A Furry fan is someone who has _an interest and appreciation for anthropomorphic animals_, not someone who watches Lion King and doesn't really care.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

It's only furry if the creator intends it to be.

END OF DISCUSSION.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> *So by your definition, then, the only things that are Furry are things people create for Furry fans only, and nobody else is allowed to enjoy them*?
> 
> Does anyone out there actually create things like that?
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds?



That's right, you twist my words into something I never said. I know of artists on FA who do not consider themselves furry and do not consider the work to be furry. I have found anthropomorphic webcomics where the creator does not consider there work to be furry.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound for twisting my words? I repeat again I never said artists in the fandom create their work ONLY for fans in the fandom, I said, like many others it is CREATED for the fandom in mind, it is not created to be entertainment for all ages, it is created with fans in mind, many artists create work to make their "fans" happy, this does not mean no one else can enjoy it.

Yes furries can watch movies like avatar, lion king and cartoons such as the animaniacs, but it does not make them furry. WB did not create their characters with the fandom in mind, they created it to entertain children, children being the audience in mind. Which considering the way they are drawn, and the silly humour, should be quite obvious what the creator was intending their work for. 

You are assuming that:

1: Anything that looks like a modified human/animal is instantly furry no matter what the creator intended his/her work for.

2: That creator created their work with furry in mind, when infact you do not know this for sure.

I will always consider Sonic, starfox, tiny toons, loony toons, avatar, lion king etc etc as Anthropomorphic as it is the true term for such creatures, and it I feel it is more respectful to the creator, taking into account the fandoms reputation for porn of cartoon characters and game characters. 

I mean would you want the work you made for kids to be drawn in the nude and having hardcor sex?


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Aden said:


> Something can be anthropomorphic without being part of the furry fandom



Correct. Anthropomorphic _objects_ such as toasters are not animals, and therefore not part of what Furry fandom is about.

Furry fandom is specifically about anthropomorphized _animal_ characters.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Correct. Anthropomorphic _objects_ such as toasters are not animals, and therefore not part of what Furry fandom is about.
> 
> Furry fandom is specifically about anthropomorphized _animal_ characters.




Read above post.

Just because something is anthropomorphic, does not mean it should have the furry label slapped on it. Especially with the fandoms reputation. 

I mean seriously if I created some work to entertain kids, that is what it should be considered "As entertainment for kids" Which would be what my "intentions" for it would be, clearly. And I would be pissed if people started drawing said anthro characters I created in nude/sexual positions.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

I believe someone missed my post.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I never said artists in the fandom create their work ONLY for fans in the fandom, I said, like many others it is CREATED for the fandom in mind, it is not created to be entertainment for all ages, it is created with fans in mind, many artists create work to make their "fans" happy, this does not mean no one else can enjoy it.



Right, and by this contradictory definition, you say that artwork created specifically for Furry fans _is_ Furry, but since it's not limited to Furry fans and can be enjoyed by everyone else it _isn't_ Furry. Do you see how ridiculous that is?



RandyDarkshade said:


> You are assuming that:
> 
> 1: Anything that looks like a modified human/animal is instantly furry no matter what the creator intended his/her work for.



It's not an assumption. Furries are anthropomorphic animals. Assumption is the precision guesswork folks do when they try to create a definition based on what they think the creator's intentions were instead of what they actually created.



RandyDarkshade said:


> 2: That creator created their work with furry in mind, when infact you do not know this for sure.



Neither do you, but that's irrelevant.  It doesn't matter whether they created it with Furry in mind or not.



RandyDarkshade said:


> I will always consider Sonic, starfox, tiny toons, loony toons, avatar, lion king etc etc as Anthropomorphic as it is the true term for such creatures, and it I feel it is more respectful to the creator, taking into account the fandoms reputation for porn of cartoon characters and game characters.



Ah, so there's the real crux of the issue. You don't like to call them Furry because of fandom's reputation... yet you see no problem in adding to the very reputation you're complaining about. 

Way to shoot yourself in the foot there.


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2009)




----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Right, and by this contradictory definition, you say that artwork created specifically for Furry fans _is_ Furry, but since it's not limited to Furry fans and can be enjoyed by everyone else it _isn't_ Furry. Do you see how ridiculous that is?
> 
> You are assuming that:
> 
> ...



You like coming across as a moron and deliberately ignoring facts don't you? 

Way to put words in my mouth AGAIN and twist my words AGAIN, troll.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

Aden why are you so right?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> Aden why are you so right?



I wouldn't waste your breath guys, this moron we are arguing with is just ignoring every last fact we throw at him, aswell as twisting what I say to say something else and putting words in my mouth, he is either a child or a troll, or both.

I am done arguing with this idiot if he wants to add to the fandoms bad reputation of moronic furries such as himself and label every fucking thing as furry let him, one day he will realize what a retard he is being.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Aden said:


> (ginormous diagram)









I fixed your chart for you.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> I fixed your chart for you.



GTFO, Idiots don't deserve to be called furries.

troll is troll.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I wouldn't waste your breath guys, this moron we are arguing with is just ignoring every last fact we throw at him, aswell as twisting what I say to say something else and putting words in my mouth, he is either a child or a troll, or both.
> 
> I am done arguing with this idiot if he wants to add to the fandoms bad reputation of moronic furries such as himself and label every fucking thing as furry let him, one day he will realize what a retard he is being.



I'll assume by the fusillade of insults that you don't have any actual substance to support your opinions at this point. 

No problem. You have yourself a nice day now.


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> I fixed your chart for you.



So would you consider, say, the idea of Anubis to be furry?


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> GTFO, Idiots don't deserve to be called furries.



Only idiots hate Furries.


I thought you were done arguing with me?


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Only idiots hate Furries.



Why?

Also you missed my question.


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

Think I gotta agree with xydexx on this one. That's a nice chart aden but it doesn't explain why it's set like that, it just is. Lets try to use logic. What came first, the chicken or the egg. In this case, we can all agree that anthropomorphic characters were around way before the term "furry". This means that there was some guy a little while back that looked at these manimals before the fandom existed, pointed at them and uttered the forbidden word "furry". Thus, creating the fandom. 
Now, when this person uttered this new word. He was not referring to art in the fandom or created for the fandom because the fandom didn't exist yet.
Therefore, it is logical to come to the conclusion that the original meaning of the term
"furry" was meant to encompass all manimal type characters and not just characters
based in the furry fandom. 
Just my thought. Not trying to make anyone butthurt.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> I'll assume by the fusillade of insults that you don't have any actual substance to support your opinions at this point.
> 
> No problem. You have yourself a nice day now.



It is not that at all, I can continue to support my side of the debate like the rest of us on my side. it is the fact that YOU are acting childish and immature I am guessing you must be 12. "Oh looky I modified someones chart to suit my side of the argument herp derp".

Why should I waste my time with an idiot when said idiot continuously puts words into my mouth and not content with that said idiot also twists my words aswell, and not even content with that he ignores all facts from the opposing side anyway. 

When you are old enough to hold an intelligent debate I will debate this again.



Aden said:


> So would you consider, say, the idea of Anubis to be furry?



Yes he would. anything and everything is furry to him.


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It is not that at all, I can continue to support my side of the debate like the rest of us on my side. it is the fact that YOU are acting childish and immature I am guessing you must be 12. "Oh looky I modified someones chart to suit my side of the argument herp derp".
> 
> Why should I waste my time with an idiot when said idiot continuously puts words into my mouth and not content with that said idiot also twists my words aswell, and not even content with that he ignores all facts from the opposing side anyway.
> 
> ...


Randy, yes he's twisting your words a little but you guys arn't really explaining the why of your view, just that it is your view.


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> What came first, the chicken or the egg. In this case, we can all agree that anthropomorphic characters were around way before the term "furry". This means that there was some guy a little while back that looked at these manimals before the fandom existed, pointed at them and uttered the forbidden word "furry". Thus, creating the fandom.
> Now, when this person uttered this new word. He was not referring to art in the fandom or created for the fandom because the fandom didn't exist yet.
> Therefore, it is logical to come to the conclusion that the original meaning of the term
> "furry" was meant to encompass all manimal type characters and not just characters
> ...



A furry can be a fan of anthropomorphics that aren't created by the furry fandom, but what I'm trying to say is that they are merely anthropomorphics and not created by furries. For a character to be a furry creation, I believe that it had to have been created with the furry fandom in mind.

But this is what the fandom likes to do. It loves to yell "this is a furry!" at film creations, ancient gods, what have you that weren't created with any mind to the fandom. It's selfish. I'm not saying for furries to stop liking these things, just to realize that not all anthros are theirs.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> Think I gotta agree with xydexx on this one. That's a nice chart aden but it doesn't explain why it's set like that, it just is. Lets try to use logic. What came first, the chicken or the egg. In this case, we can all agree that anthropomorphic characters were around way before the term "furry". This means that there was some guy a little while back that looked at these manimals before the fandom existed, pointed at them and uttered the forbidden word "furry". Thus, creating the fandom.
> Now, when this person uttered this new word. He was not referring to art in the fandom or created for the fandom because the fandom didn't exist yet.
> Therefore, it is logical to come to the conclusion that the original meaning of the term
> "furry" was meant to encompass all manimal type characters and not just characters
> ...



I have never said anthropomorphic animals don't come into the category of furry. What I have been trying to say is, which has fallen on deaf ears with xydexx is, that not everything created that has anthropomorphic animals in it was intended directly for the fandom and therefor should not be considered furry unless the creator wants it to be *considered* furry.

Yes all anthropomorphic animals fall into the furry category, but I just find it disrespectfully to the creator go around shouting "IT"S FURRY DERP!" when the creator may hate furries, or may not want anything to do with the fandom.

If the creators of Sonic came and said "Hell yeah, call it furry if ya want to" I'd consider it furry, untill then, it is just a character in entertainment to me.

I also find it retarded going around yelling that everything is "FURRY WOO!" this is one reason the fandom is trolled, or rather the people that yell it are trolled. 

I, like many others feel that unless the creator wants it to be considered furry, called furry, or anything furry related, it should not be called furry.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> "Oh looky I modified someones chart to suit my side of the argument herp derp".



The "trying to look angry and stupid to make fun of people you think are angry and stupid" thing was dead back in 2002, dude. It certainly isn't scoring ya any credibility points.

I dunno, maybe you need to take a timeout and calm down a bit. If you're flying off in a rage over a discussion on a message board, you're taking this way too seriously.

Seriously, man, chill out.


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> The "trying to look angry and stupid to make fun of people you think are angry and stupid" thing was dead back in 2002, dude. It certainly isn't scoring ya any credibility points.
> 
> I dunno, maybe you need to take a timeout and calm down a bit. If you're flying off in a rage over a discussion on a message board, you're taking this way too seriously.
> 
> Seriously, man, chill out.



You're just actively ignoring any attempt at debate in favor of nitpicking, aren't you? If not, then answer my damn questions.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Dec 17, 2009)

But I like Sigourney Weaver


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> Randy, yes he's twisting your words a little but you guys arn't really explaining the why of your view, just that it is your view.




I got pissed off when he started to twist what I was saying so didn't want to try explaining anything else further. Also, like most people I don't like words being shoved into my mouth either. 

He hasn't even tried, or at east it doesn't seem like he is trying to see it from both sides.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> It's only furry if the creator intends it to be.
> 
> END OF DISCUSSION.


 It basically all comes down to this.

So in some ways you're right.

But you're mostly wrong so shut up.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> The "trying to look angry and stupid to make fun of people you think are angry and stupid" thing was dead back in 2002, dude. It certainly isn't scoring ya any credibility points.
> 
> I dunno, maybe you need to take a timeout and calm down a bit. If you're flying off in a rage over a discussion on a message board, you're taking this way too seriously.
> 
> Seriously, man, chill out.



I flew off in a rage cause all you did was twist what I said and put words in my mouth, that is not an intelligent debate.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 17, 2009)

Sigourney Weaver would rape us. she' a fucking amazon


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Aden said:


> I'm not saying for furries to stop liking these things, just to realize that not all anthros are theirs.



I think I'm starting to see how you misunderstand. Nobody's saying all "anthros" are ours. Furry just means anthropomorphic animal, not that some member of Furry fandom created it. Who created it is irrelevant anyway, because that's not part of the definition.

The reason they're called Furries because it's easier to say than "fictional anthropomorphic animal characters." At the risk of dating myself, it's been like that for the past three decades. 

I can understand artists wanting to call themselves by the less-used term "Anthro" for whatever reason, and it's certainly their prerogative to do so, but throwing tantrums and claiming anthropomorphic animals aren't Furries contradicts the definition that's been in place since the fandom was organized.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> I think I'm starting to see how you misunderstand. Nobody's saying all "anthros" are ours. Furry just means anthropomorphic animal, not that some member of Furry fandom created it. Who created it is irrelevant anyway, because that's not part of the definition.
> 
> The reason they're called Furries because it's easier to say than "fictional anthropomorphic animal characters." At the risk of dating myself, it's been like that for the past three decades.
> 
> I can understand artists wanting to call themselves by the less-used term "Anthro" for whatever reason, and it's certainly their prerogative to do so, but throwing tantrums and claiming anthropomorphic animals aren't Furries contradicts the definition that's been in place since the fandom was organized.


Yeah, you missed the point entirely.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 17, 2009)

GODDAMMIT QUIT YOUR BICKERING.

furries are people who join the furry fandom. they can like/dislike anthropomorphic animals. 
the basic premise of the furry fandom is anthropomorphic animals fucking each other or things. 

people who are not furry may like furry things but have not joined the fandom.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I flew off in a rage cause all you did was twist what I said and put words in my mouth, that is not an intelligent debate.



Well, if I put words in your mouth, I certainly do apologize and assure you it wasn't intentional. It's just difficult to follow the logic of the contradictory assertions you're making. 

Be that as it may, I think your best course of action would have been to explain your position better instead of getting yourself all worked up into a froth and hurling insults. 

But then again, I'm an old guy. People yelling on the internet doesn't impress me much. To each his own.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

For the third time this topic:
It's only furry if the author intended it to be. Anything else is just anthro.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> It's only furry if the author intended it to be. Anything else is just anthro.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  

Personally I prefer to go by the standard definition of Furry that's been part of the fandom longer than I have.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

Think of it this way.

You draw two men.

Some gay people say they must be gay because all gays are men.

Is this statement true?


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> For the third time this topic:
> It's only furry if the author intended it to be. Anything else is just anthro.


The only definitions I have seen of "furry" simply says anthropomorphic animals, not anthropomorphic animals created by/intended for the furry 
fandom.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> The only definitions I have seen of "furry" simply says anthropomorphic animals, not anthropomorphic animals created by/intended for the furry
> fandom.


 Read previous post.

Although all furries are anthro, not all anthros are furry.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> Think of it this way.
> 
> You draw two men.
> 
> ...



YES.
GAY SEX


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> Read previous post.
> 
> Although all furries are anthro, not all anthros are furry.


We are pretty close on agreement, I think.

I do not agree with your statement but I do agree with:
Although all furries are anthro, not all anthros are in the furry fandom.
In other words all anthros are furry, but not created by or for the fandom is where I'm coming from.

The first story that had to do with fictional adventures in outer space 
existed before any scifi fandom. However with the new definition of scifi
, it certainly falls under that category. Even though it was created before such a fandom existed it is still in that classification, correct?


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> Think of it this way.
> 
> You draw two men.
> 
> ...



I dunno, what are the two men doing? Riding ponies? Eating cabbage? Rolling a giant bronze turnip into a bingo parlor full of kleptomaniacs? Runny nose? Headache? Marsupial-filled popcorn machine? 

It is true that all gays are men (for argument's sake we'll assume women aren't included in this exercise). Your conclusion is incorrect because the reverse is not true; all men are not gay. The problem is you misdefine gay as being "a pair of men" instead of "homosexual." 

And nobody, not even gay folks like myself, would agree with that definition, sorry.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> We are pretty close on agreement, I think.
> 
> I do not agree with your statement but I do agree with:
> Although all furries are anthro, not all anthros are in the furry fandom.
> ...



would it blow your mind if my fursona was a feral?


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

You're only furry if you're in the furry fandom.

So if it's not in the furry fandom, it's just anthro.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> I dunno, what are the two men doing? Riding ponies? Eating cabbage? Rolling a giant bronze turnip into a bingo parlor full of kleptomaniacs? Runny nose? Headache? Marsupial-filled popcorn machine?
> 
> It is true that all gays are men (for argument's sake we'll assume women aren't included in this exercise). Your conclusion is incorrect because the reverse is not true; all men are not gay. The problem is you misdefine gay as being "a pair of men" instead of "homosexual."
> 
> And nobody, not even gay folks like myself, would agree with that definition, sorry.



what if you drew two men engaging in sexual activity with each other?
they could still be straight.
or...
they could be pretending.
or..
maybe it's rape.

or..
maybe one is a trap.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> I dunno, what are the two men doing? Riding ponies? Eating cabbage? Rolling a giant bronze turnip into a bingo parlor full of kleptomaniacs? Runny nose? Headache? Marsupial-filled popcorn machine?
> 
> It is true that all gays are men (for argument's sake we'll assume women aren't included in this exercise). Your conclusion is incorrect because the reverse is not true; all men are not gay. The problem is you misdefine gay as being "a pair of men" instead of "homosexual."
> 
> And nobody, not even gay folks like myself, would agree with that definition, sorry.


 Again, missing my point entirely.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> Although all furries are anthro, not all anthros are furry.


Yes. This is technically correct, only because anthropomorphic covers more than just animals. No argument there.

A talking tiger would be anthropomorphic and Furry.
A talking toaster would be anthropomorphic, but not Furry.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Yes. This is technically correct, only because anthropomorphic covers more than just animals. No argument there.
> 
> A talking tiger would be anthropomorphic and Furry.
> A talking toaster would be anthropomorphic, but not Furry.



Furry is only defined by the person who is in the fandom. period.
if a person who is not in the fandom makes an anthro tiger, it is not furry. 
it is only furry if the fandom labels it within the fandom or if someone within the fandom makes the art.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> Again, missing my point entirely.



No, I see the point you're trying to make, but it's an old chestnut that Usenet trolls have been trotting out as long as I've been in the fandom. I'm kinda surprised people actually seriously believe it... assuming you're actually being serious and not just goofing around. It's hard to tell these days.


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

To answer adens question. 
I do not think anubis was created by the fandom. That would be ridiculous. But this new
definition from the 70's or 80's that is "furry" definitely does count the physical form of 
anubis. Not to say that he was created by or for furries.

Side note: Sigourney, Sigourney, Sigourney, who the hell names there kid Sigourney?


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> No, I see the point you're trying to make, but it's an old chestnut that Usenet trolls have been trotting out as long as I've been in the fandom. I'm kinda surprised people actually seriously believe it... assuming you're actually being serious and not just goofing around. It's hard to tell these days.



the only way you can tell if someone's furry is to grope them.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> No, I see the point you're trying to make, but it's an old chestnut that Usenet trolls have been trotting out as long as I've been in the fandom. I'm kinda surprised people actually seriously believe it... assuming you're actually being serious and not just goofing around. It's hard to tell these days.


What.


So bugs bunny is a furry, mickey mouse is a furry, the animaniacs are furries, it's impossible to be a mascot or one of the disney characters at disneyland without being a RAGING FURFAG.

I think most furries have been trying to dispell this myth for years.

EDIT: That then also means that any Disney fans, Warner Bros. fans or fans of any anthropomorphic animals are technically furry fans and therefore in the fandom. So pretty much everyone is a furry by you logic


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> What.
> 
> 
> So bugs bunny is a furry, mickey mouse is a furry, the animaniacs are furries, it's impossible to be a mascot or one of the disney characters at disneyland without being a RAGING FURFAG.
> ...


Okay 2 definitions:1. furry= a person in the furry fandom
                         2. furry= anthropomorphic animal 

We are talking about the second definition not the first one. Lets not get even
more confused.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> Okay 2 definitions:1. furry= a person in the furry fandom
> 2. furry= anthropomorphic animal
> 
> We are talking about the second definition not the first one. Lets not get even
> more confused.


 I mean by dressing up as what xydexx calls a furry, they are furries themselves.


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> I mean by dressing up as what xydexx calls a furry, they are furries themselves.


I'd say they are dressed as a character that could be considered furry but the person is not a furry them self.

I guess ultimately it is a matter of opinion what definition you follow.
xydexx is correct in the original definition of furry, and you, aden and randy 
are correct in the new pc definition of furry. I for one do not care about pc. I
like sticking with the original definition because that is what it meant.

It's like these new people that claim to be satanic but do not believe in or
worship the devil. They can change the definition all they want, but to me
there is only one definition of satanic and that's the original. I could care less 
about the new version. And no I'm not trying to compare anyone here to devil worshipers. Please don't take it that way.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 17, 2009)

I've argued all my points now, so I can't really say any more.

If you still think all anthropomorphic animals are furries by this point, then it's through sheer ignorance or determination not to lose an argument on the internet


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 17, 2009)

Can't we all agree that we can't agree on what furry is?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> No, I see the point you're trying to make, but it's an old chestnut that Usenet trolls have been trotting out as long as I've been in the fandom. I'm kinda surprised people actually seriously believe it...


You're surprised that people seriously believe your arguments are rife with logical fallacies? Wow, you _are_ a furry!



> assuming you're actually being serious and not just goofing around. It's hard to tell these days.


Protip: Most people who point out logical fallacies _aren't_ just goofing around.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> I think most furries have been trying to dispell this myth for years.



Except it's not a myth. It's actually the closest thing to canon that this fandom's got, and it's been around the fandom longer than I have. Probably before you were born. How old are you, exactly?



Yrr said:


> That then also means that any Disney fans, Warner Bros. fans or fans of any anthropomorphic animals are technically furry fans and therefore in the fandom.



That's not what I said at all. Furry fans are _fans of anthropomorphic animals_. I'm a Disney/Warner Brothers fans myself, but Disney and Warner Brothers produce more than just anthropomorphic animals. Elmer Fudd isn't an anthropomorphic animal, neither is Snow White or Prince Charming.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Except it's not a myth. It's actually the closest thing to canon that this fandom's got, and it's been around the fandom longer than I have. Probably before you were born. How old are you, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said at all. Furry fans are _fans of anthropomorphic animals_. I'm a Disney/Warner Brothers fans myself, but Disney and Warner Brothers produce more than just anthropomorphic animals. Elmer Fudd isn't an anthropomorphic animal, neither is Snow White or Prince Charming.



You did say that. So if someone is a fan of bugs bunny cartoons they are furry right? because by your own logic and in your own words, anthropomorphic animals are furry

So bugs bunny = furry, furry = anthropomorphic animal, so if someone is a fan of disney they must be furry because many disney cartoons have furries in them.

Also WB and Disney have produced more cartoons with Anthro's in than anything else.

Also if bugs bunny is a furry, then chuck jones must be furry, mel blanc must be furry aswell as they loved making such cartoons.

Your logic has so much fail in it, it is un believable.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Yrr said:


> If you still think all anthropomorphic animals are furries by this point, then it's through sheer ignorance or determination not to lose an argument on the internet



Well, it's definitely not ignorance. I've been around Furry fandom long enough to know it's history and what it's about. And I don't think I'm in danger of losing any arguments about it, for the same reason. Knowledge is cool.

My advice to you is to learn a bit more about the fandom you're a part of. I'd highly recommend picking yourself up a copy of _Furry! The Best Anthropomorphic Fiction_, edited by fandom historian Fred Patten, which if nothing else gives a comprehensive introduction and history of the genre.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> I'd say they are dressed as a character that could be considered furry but the person is not a furry them self.
> 
> I guess ultimately it is a matter of opinion what definition you follow.
> xydexx is correct in the original definition of furry, and you, aden and randy
> ...



The only problem is with the original version is that it has many loopholes in it as we have pointed out.


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 17, 2009)

Lol, this train wreck's still going? Here, let me explain it to all of you again. This is furry, this is the only thing that the term furry can refer to, this guy right here.







A furry is a member of the furry fandom. The term furry does not refer to anthropomorphic animal people or anything containing them. You could say xydexx is trying to put the wagon in front of the horse. Anthropomorphic characters came first, the fandom came second. The fandom is a group of individuals formed a couple of decades ago centered around interest in animal head people. That doesn't mean those individuals get to lay claim to everything ever created that contains animal head people or the idea of animal head people it's self.

There's no sense arguing with a furfag over this because they desperately want to validate their shitty little fetish community by attempting to co opt things that were made neither by, nor for them. They want the credibility they think it will earn them in the eyes of the mainstream without actually having to work for it. You can argue all you want but they'll just keep making Wikipedia articles falsely backing their claims and then referring you to them. It's better just to laugh at how stupid they are :V .


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Well, it's definitely not ignorance. I've been around Furry fandom long enough to know it's history and what it's about. And I don't think I'm in danger of losing any arguments about it, for the same reason. Knowledge is cool.
> 
> My advice to you is to learn a bit more about the fandom you're a part of. I'd highly recommend picking yourself up a copy of _Furry! The Best Anthropomorphic Fiction_, edited by fandom historian Fred Patten, which if nothing else gives a comprehensive introduction and history of the genre.



I'm agreeing with Yrr, it is ignorance as you can not see it from our point of view but your own. There are too many flaws in the original definition.


----------



## Jashwa (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> The reason they're called Furries because it's easier to say than "fictional anthropomorphic animal characters." At the risk of dating myself, it's been like that for the past three decades.


Oh God. You're in your 30s at least and you're an inflatable unicorn arguing that everything with a talking animal is furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Oh God. You're in your 30s at least and you're an inflatable unicorn arguing that everything with a talking animal is furry.




Poke him with a needle and watch him whizz round the room as the air escapes his inflatable body.


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The only problem is with the original version is that it has many loopholes in it as we have pointed out.


What loopholes have you pointed out. I honestly haven't seen any posted.
You just keep saying your newer definition over again and not really backing 
it.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You did say that.



Didn't you saw you were done arguing with me umpty-frump posts ago. And yet you're still arguing. Why is that?



RandyDarkshade said:


> So if someone is a fan of bugs bunny cartoons they are furry right?



No, no, no, no, no.... if they like _anthropomorphic animals_, they're a Furry fan. That's what the definition of Furry fan is: Someone who likes anthropomorphic animals. It's trivial distinction, but an important one. 



RandyDarkshade said:


> So bugs bunny = furry, furry = anthropomorphic animal, so if someone is a fan of disney they must be furry because many disney cartoons have furries in them.



Except "many" is not "all". And while being a Disney fan doesn't necessarily mean you're a Furry fan, I'll note it's what got me interested in Furry fandom in the first place. Because I like anthropomorphic animals, not just Disney.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> No, no, no, no, no..*.. if they like anthropomorphic animals, they're a Furry fan*. That's what the definition of Furry fan is: Someone who likes anthropomorphic animals. It's trivial distinction, but an important one.



According to you, bugs bunny is a furry, so if average joe was a fan of bugs bunny, then he must be a fan aof furry aka anthropomorphic animals because bugs bunny IS one.

Do you see the flaw in it yet?


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 17, 2009)

:V .


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You're in your 30s at least and you're an inflatable unicorn arguing that everything with a talking animal is furry.



*I'm not really an inflatable unicorn, I just play one on the internet.* 

But yeah, look at me, participating in a discussion on an internet message board. Wow. Nobody's ever done that before. Alert the media.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> What loopholes have you pointed out. I honestly haven't seen any posted.
> You just keep saying your newer definition over again and not really backing
> it.



Furries link any anthropomorphic animal to the fandom correct? ie if it is anthro it is furry.

therefor anyone who likes watching bugs bunny, daffy duck, mickey mouse, tiny toon adventures, animaniacs etc must be a furry because they are fans of such cartoons and such cartoons are furries by the furry definition.

See the flaw in the definition yet?

EDIT: if people bother to read mine, Aden's and Yrr's posts, we have actually been backing our opinions up.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Poke him with a needle and watch him whizz round the room as the air escapes his inflatable body.


 
Tease.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Tease.



Glad it amused you as it was aimed at being humorous and not an insult.

I may disagree with your opinion, but that does not mean I don't like you.


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Poke him with a needle and watch him whizz round the room as the air escapes his inflatable body.



Stop turning him on Randy, that's not helping :[ .


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You did say that. So if someone is a fan of bugs bunny cartoons they are furry right? because by your own logic and in your own words, anthropomorphic animals are furry
> 
> So bugs bunny = furry, furry = anthropomorphic animal, so if someone is a fan of disney they must be furry because many disney cartoons have furries in them.
> 
> ...


Randy, just a little while ago you got all pissed at xydexx for
" putting words in your mouth" now you're doing the same thing. He's not referring to furries as the fans, just the manimals and you know that. Give the same respect that you yourself ask for right, right.

Jashawa, xydexx is older yes, which by the way I love him for. But I'm just a couple months from 30 myself and randy ain't far behind me. You're surrounded by old farts here:smile:


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> Randy, just a little while ago you got all pissed at xydexx for
> " putting words in your mouth" now you're doing the same thing. He's not referring to furries as the fans, just the manimals and you know that. Give the same respect that you yourself ask for right, right.
> 
> Jashawa, xydexx is older yes, which by the way I love him for. But I'm just a couple months from 30 myself and randy ain't far behind me. You're surrounded by old farts here:smile:



Oi, cheeky monkey, I have four years to go yet 

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in his mouth *Slaps his wrists for it*

I think I will just do what you do and "Not give a shit either way" lol. it seems like the easiest option.


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Furries link any anthropomorphic animal to the fandom correct? ie if it is anthro it is furry.
> 
> *therefor anyone who likes watching bugs bunny, daffy duck, mickey mouse, tiny toon adventures, animaniacs etc must be a furry because they are fans of such cartoons and such cartoons are furries by the furry definition.
> *
> ...



Okay, I saw that but the bold parts were never said by me or xydexx. You guys are assuming too much. We just said that the word "furry" encompasses all anthropomorphic animals. Liking such characters does not make someone part of the fandom though. There are no loopholes in this.

And yes I'll point out that I am not angered at all by this discussion. Since 
some of you seem concerned. Just a discussion, hope no ones butt hurt.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Glad it amused you as it was aimed at being humorous and not an insult.
> 
> I may disagree with your opinion, but that does not mean I don't like you.


No problem, dude. T'sall good.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 17, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> Okay, I saw that but the bold parts were never said by me or xydexx. You guys are assuming too much. We just said that the word "furry" encompasses all anthropomorphic animals. Liking such characters does not make someone part of the fandom though. There are no loopholes in this.
> 
> And yes I'll point out that I am not angered at all by this discussion. Since
> some of you seem concerned. Just a discussion, hope no ones butt hurt.



Indeed furry does. I think what bugs me about it the most is that some furries go around yelling it at everything.


----------



## twelvestring (Dec 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Indeed furry does. I think what bugs me about it the most is that some furries go around yelling it at everything.


Guess I'm kind of out of the loop, out here in hawaii. Not many furs over here,
but yes, I can see it would get a little annoying seeing them yelling such stuff
all the time.


----------



## Kirbizard (Dec 23, 2009)

Yrr said:


> For the third time this topic:
> It's only furry if the author intended it to be. Anything else is just anthro.


Not to pick out this post in particular, but serious question: How did the furry fandom come into place when there were no furries to begin with? :V

Just a thought. :c


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 23, 2009)

Kirbizard said:


> Not to pick out this post in particular, but serious question: How did the furry fandom come into place when there were no furries to begin with? :V
> 
> Just a thought. :c



As fans of ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIMALS not FURRIES. Furry and it's multiple definitions came later in the fandom.


----------



## Kirbizard (Dec 23, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> As fans of ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIMALS not FURRIES.


Ergo, you just suggested that all fans of Winnie the Pooh are furries. Congrats. :V



RandyDarkshade said:


> Furry and it's multiple definitions came later in the fandom.


So you're saying there never was a fandom in the first place? :]


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 23, 2009)

Kirbizard said:


> Ergo, you just suggested that all fans of Winnie the Pooh are furries. Congrats. :V
> 
> 
> So you're saying there never was a fandom in the first place? :]



How in the fuck did I suggest fans of winnie the poor are furries? no I did not suggest that. 

You are reading my post completely wrong.

The fandom was created in the mid 80's for fans of anthropomorphic animals IE cartoons etc. The term furry was created much later in the fandom to refer to more than one part of the fandom:

1: furry refers to a member of the fanbase.

2: furry refers to anthropomorphic animals.

In the very beginning of the fandom the word "furry" was not known, it was merely a fanbase  set up for those who had an interest in athropomorphic animals to share their interests. overtime the fandom developed into what it is these days and along with the fandoms evolution, certain words/slangs were created, and the definitions of those slang terms varies with peoples different opinions.

I could of typed this faster if I wasn't munching on an apple.

Anyway people like xxydexx need to look back and actually realize that the fandom was originally created for fans of anthropomorphic animals and that the term furry was introduced much later.


----------



## Kirbizard (Dec 23, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> 2: furry refers to anthropomorphic animals.


But everyone else saying it's only the furry created anthros that are furry, that's not what you're saying here. Are you sure you understand? :V


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 23, 2009)

Kirbizard said:


> But everyone else saying it's only the furry created anthros that are furry, that's not what you're saying here. Are you sure you understand? :V



I understand perfectly well, but I have trouble explaining what I am thinking.

So, in beginning, the fandom was created based on people with an interest in "anthro animals" which were mainly just cartoons etc, to share their interests yes? So, as time goes by things change, the fandom develops, as the fandom develops new phrases, words etc come a long, call it a "craze" if you like, someone creates the word furry and it kinda catches on. 

And a long comes the shed load of porn as the fandom develops, which non members of the fandom also see. So when non members see the porn and then hear furry used to describe cartoons etc, what is the first thing a non member is going to think? 

Yes the term furry is basically a short term for anthropomorphic, but then again it is just as easy to say anthro. 

What we are saying is, furry was a word created within the fandom with the fandom in mind, whereas Anthro's were not, as anthro's were created long before the fandom existed. Keeping that in mind, it is this that makes some of us believe that furry is something that was created with the fandom in mind, seeing as the word itself is a made up word for the fandom, and anything else is just anthro unless the creator states otherwise.

I see anything that was intended as entertainment, as just entertainment. Anything created by furries, is furry.


----------



## Kirbizard (Dec 23, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I understand perfectly well, but I have trouble explaining what I am thinking.


Oh don't worry, I was joking. I know you know what you're talking about. :V



RandyDarkshade said:


> And a long comes the shed load of porn as the fandom develops, which non members of the fandom also see. So when non members see the porn and then hear furry used to describe cartoons etc, what is the first thing a non member is going to think?
> 
> Yes the term furry is basically a short term for anthropomorphic, but then again it is just as easy to say anthro.


So in a way it's like how the word gay changed from happy to homosexual? Furry changed from regular anthros to foxes with giant penises?
It still means it's former definition, but in the eyes of the masses it's got a different connotation?
Interesting. :V



RandyDarkshade said:


> What we are saying is, furry was a word created within the fandom with the fandom in mind, whereas Anthro's were not, as anthro's were created long before the fandom existed. Keeping that in mind, it is this that makes some of us believe that furry is something that was created with the fandom in mind, seeing as the word itself is a made up word for the fandom, and anything else is just anthro unless the creator states otherwise.


I understand this already, but this is the most clearly put out it's been. :V



RandyDarkshade said:


> I see anything that was intended as entertainment, as just entertainment. Anything created by furries, is furry.


In the long run it's down the individual and what they think? c:


----------



## xydexx (Dec 23, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Anyway people like xxydexx need to look back and actually realize that the fandom was originally created for fans of anthropomorphic animals and that the term furry was introduced much later.



Actually, I already know the fandom was originally created for fans of anthropomorphic animals. I've been saying that from the beginning. Here's the part you don't seem to realize: It still is. 

The fandom began to coalesce around 1986 as an offshoot of Science Fiction fandom, with the first official Furry Party at Westercon 39. Thus, the term "Furry" came into use to describe anthropomorphized (usually mammalian) animals, and has been commonly used as such ever since.


----------



## xydexx (Dec 23, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Yes the term furry is basically a short term for anthropomorphic, but then again it is just as easy to say anthro.



Incorrect. Furry is a synonym for anthropomorphic _*animal*_, not anthropomorphic.

BTW, "anthro" actually means "human." It's also hard on the ears and doesn't lend itself to nearly to nearly as much clever wordplay as Furry does.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 23, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Actually, I already know the fandom was originally created for fans of anthropomorphic animals. I've been saying that from the beginning. Here's the part you don't seem to realize: It still is.
> 
> The fandom began to coalesce around 1986 as an offshoot of Science Fiction fandom, with the first official Furry Party at Westercon 39. Thus, the term "Furry" came into use to describe anthropomorphized (usually mammalian) animals, and has been commonly used as such ever since.



It says 1983-1984 time in the article, sure you have read it?




> *July 1986:* After about a year of holding informal open parties at SF and comics conventions, Mark Merlino and Rod O'Riley hold the first "official" Furry Party at Westercon 39 in San Diego. This starts the tradition of publicizing the presence of 'morph fans at conventions by posting "furry party" flyers featuring funny-animal pin-up art. The furry party name leads to the characterization of these fans as "furry fandom" by the late 1980s.


Quote straight from the article, I hate to say it, but he is right guys. the word furry has been used since the fandom began.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 23, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Incorrect. Furry is a synonym for anthropomorphic _*animal*_, not anthropomorphic.
> 
> BTW, "anthro" actually means "human." It's also hard on the ears and doesn't lend itself to nearly to nearly as much clever wordplay as Furry does.



I typo'd, sue me.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Dec 23, 2009)

xydexx said:


> Incorrect. Furry is a synonym for anthropomorphic _*animal*_, not anthropomorphic.
> 
> BTW, "anthro" actually means "human." It's also hard on the ears and doesn't lend itself to nearly to nearly as much clever wordplay as Furry does.


Considering that furry-related wordplay is not only stupid but often painfully bad, I must beg to differ. Zero is still greater than any negative number.


----------

