# Is "The Lion King" furry? or Just a talking animals animation?



## BrothBone (Apr 13, 2009)

I noticed this small debate in "One of the most memorable furry love scenes. (Rated PG)" about TLK is and TLK isn't a furry movie.
I thought it was. I mean what real lion has an opposable thumb?
I've seen several furry artist post TLK art.
Any ways I could be wrong, what do you think?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 13, 2009)

Anything with talking animals in it, anthro or not, is furry.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 13, 2009)

Anthro =/= furry. For clarification. If it has anthros, that doesn't make it furry, because furry is a fandom and anthro is anything not human with human characteristics.


----------



## Defcat (Apr 13, 2009)

one of the attributes defined to be furry is simply acting human. In the movie the charicters talked like humans and were subjected in human themes. I would say that it is technically furry, but I don't usually veiw non-anthro animals as furs myself.


----------



## PriestRevan (Apr 13, 2009)

Fuck. 

No it is not.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 13, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Fuck.
> 
> No it is not.


^
I wish I could spam "No" over and over again but goddamn furries think everything relates to them just because it's a talking animal.


----------



## Sarakazi (Apr 13, 2009)

I would have never even found the furry fandom if it wasn't for The Lion King. I say yes.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 13, 2009)

Defcat said:


> one of the attributes defined to be furry is simply acting human. In the movie the charicters talked like humans and were subjected in human themes. I would say that it is technically furry, but I don't usually veiw non-anthro animals as furs myself.


Not to mention also that they could sing and they could dance?


----------



## JayKay (Apr 13, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Anthro =/= furry. For clarification. If it has anthros, that doesn't make it furry, because furry is a fandom and anthro is anything not human with human characteristics.



I thought I smelled intelligence, good thing I found it before it was too late.

Just because something has talking animals in it doesn't mean it's furry. 

<sarcasm>I'm sure that Disney totally planned on its characters becoming staples in your porn for years to come.</sarcasm>


----------



## Chronic (Apr 13, 2009)

Let's talk about this.

Furry: someone who likes the furry fandom/a character created in the furry fandom.

Anthropomorphism: Giving human characteristics to anything that is not human. 

So why is Lion King considered a furry movie when Egyptian gods, a talking rock, or even Black Beauty not considered furry?

Edit: Agreed, JayKay. That talking horse is not yiff material.


----------



## JayKay (Apr 13, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Let's talk about this.
> 
> Furry: someone who likes the furry fandom/a character created in the furry fandom.
> 
> ...



Because those things aren't fuckab-*sacked*


----------



## Chronic (Apr 13, 2009)

JayKay said:


> Because those things aren't fuckab-*sacked*


I dunno man, rocks are pretty murry. 

*gags herself*


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 13, 2009)

http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Lion_King


----------



## JayKay (Apr 13, 2009)

Chronic said:


> I dunno man, rocks are pretty murry.
> 
> *gags herself*



I want those hot geodes in my mouth right this instant.


----------



## Diego117 (Apr 13, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Let's talk about this.
> 
> Furry: someone who likes the furry fandom/a character created in the furry fandom.
> 
> ...



Quoted for emphasis.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 13, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Lion_King


Excuse me, but that's a _furry encyclopedia. _Edited by _furries._


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Excuse me, but that's a _furry encyclopedia. _Edited by _furries._


I'm uncertain of the reliability of the site but since you said it's "Edited by *furries*" then they're saying the Lion King is furry. 
----------------
_*The Lion King*_ (*TLK*) is an animated movie that was released by Disney in 1994. It is popular in the furry community and is reported by some as their first introduction to the fandom,[_citation needed_] especially since it was released right at the beginning of widespread public use of the Internet. Many participate in The Lion King MUCK or on one of the other large number of multiplayer worlds inspired by _The Lion King_. In 2001, Magnwa stated there were "about 10 or 12 TLK mucks out there, some doing better than others.  There are about 40 or so private TLK RPG's out there (non forum) that are invite only.  There are 40 or 50 or so forums".[1]
---------------------------------------


----------



## JayKay (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I'm uncertain of the reliability of the site but since you said it's "Edited by *furries*" then they're saying the Lion King is furry.
> ----------------
> _*The Lion King*_ (*TLK*) is an animated movie that was released by Disney in 1994. It is popular in the furry community and is reported by some as their first introduction to the fandom,[_citation needed_] especially since it was released right at the beginning of widespread public use of the Internet. Many participate in The Lion King MUCK or on one of the other large number of multiplayer worlds inspired by _The Lion King_. In 2001, Magnwa stated there were "about 10 or 12 TLK mucks out there, some doing better than others.  There are about 40 or so private TLK RPG's out there (non forum) that are invite only.  There are 40 or 50 or so forums".[1]
> ---------------------------------------



Furries think everything is furry so they can validate their disgusting fetish by grouping in popular things with it to make it seem like it's okay to fuck animals.

And boy howdy, is it quite the opposite.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 14, 2009)

...

All furry stuff (as in for the fandom, the furry fandom) is anthropomorphic animal. Not all anthropomorphic animal stuff is furry, as in part of the furry fandom.

It's like asking "Is Sephiroth Gay" in gaming circles. did the author intend for him to be gay? No...so he's not gay. You can make a fan-ficiton about him and say he's gay but that does not sudden change the original character and make him gay.

If something is not made for the furry fandom/furry than it's not furry(for the fandom)...it's just something that happens to be enjoyed by us. 

Lion King is not furry. Learn the difference between "Furry" and "Anthropomorphic Animal". Enough said.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I'm uncertain of the reliability of the site but since you said it's "Edited by *furries*" then they're saying the Lion King is furry.
> ----------------
> _*The Lion King*_ (*TLK*) is an animated movie that was released by Disney in 1994. It is popular in the furry community and is reported by some as their first introduction to the fandom,[_citation needed_] especially since it was released right at the beginning of widespread public use of the Internet. Many participate in The Lion King MUCK or on one of the other large number of multiplayer worlds inspired by _The Lion King_. In 2001, Magnwa stated there were "about 10 or 12 TLK mucks out there, some doing better than others.  There are about 40 or so private TLK RPG's out there (non forum) that are invite only.  There are 40 or 50 or so forums".[1]
> ---------------------------------------


All that tells me is that furries like it. That doesn't make it furry.


Trpdwarf said:


> ...
> 
> All furry stuff (as in for the fandom, the furry fandom) is anthropomorphic animal. Not all anthropomorphic animal stuff is furry, as in part of the furry fandom.
> 
> ...


This this THIS.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

Chronic said:


> All that tells me is that furries like it. That doesn't make it furry.
> 
> This this THIS.



I'm getting confused.
I've are furry groups out calling themselves "Lion King Furries".
Aren't furries Anthropomorphic Animals as well or is there a big difference?


----------



## Shadow (Apr 14, 2009)

Unless it's made by a furry, it's not. It's general public.


----------



## PriestRevan (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I'm getting confused.
> I've are furry groups out calling themselves "Lion King Furries".
> Aren't furries Anthropomorphic Animals as well or is there a big difference?


 
Furries are anthropomorphic animals.

Anthropomorphic animals are not furries. 

Understand this and your life will be a bit better.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

Okay, so far TLK is not furry.


----------



## PriestRevan (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> Okay, so far TLK is not furry.


 
No, EVERY Disney movie is not furry.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> No, EVERY Disney movie is not furry.



Even "Robin Hood"?


----------



## Sam (Apr 14, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> If you posted in this thread and said, "Yes, Lion King is furry", then you are retarded beyond belief.



^This.





Quit ruining all the good things in my childhood.


----------



## PriestRevan (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> Even "Robin Hood"?


 
Even Robin Hood you furry. >:c


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Even Robin Hood you furry. >:c


I'm listening.


----------



## Toaster (Apr 14, 2009)

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

x12(+Jesus)

You furries think just because a movie has  talking animals, it a furry movie.


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 14, 2009)

Isn't this a bit like debating 'what is art'? Or what constitutes yiff? What if some of the people who worked on the Lion King _were '_furries'? If 12% of them were, would the Lion King be 12% furry? Or maybe furry is in the eye of the beholder? 

Who the fuck cares?


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 14, 2009)

In fact, let's break down Ornias' fine signature.







Let's see. Ornias, I assume you are a furry. Let's say you made this image by taking a photograph of your cat and adding the caption. We could assume that the image is entirely furry. Now, let's say you took the photo from Google images and added the caption yourself. The original photographer may not have been furry, though you did add the anthropomorphic element, and you, as a furry, are using it. So I suppose we could call it furry, still.

Now, what if you took the image straight from somewhere else, in its entirety? Well, whoever made it probably wasn't a furry. But you are, and you're using it. So I guess we could call it furry, but that's a bit more ambigious. 

However, if someone else took that image, and used it on a video gaming forum, and they were most certainly not furry, that image would suddenly be stripped of all furriness. Neither the creator or user are furry. Yet it's the same image? Evidently furriness may well be dynamic. 

Yet another dimension can be placed on this question if you ask yourself; what would happen if a furry on the aforementioned video game forum observed this image? Would that make it furry? Evidently furriness may also be entirely in the eye of the beholder. If this is correct, the previous argument is rendered moot, because no matter the furriness of the photographer, captioner _or _user, the ultimate furriness of the image is determined by whoever is viewing it. If that were the case, the Lion King would be a furry movie if a furry watched it, and a regular movie if your grandma did. 

This is the dilemma. I hope I have helped us come one step closer to understanding.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 14, 2009)

the lion king is feral...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 14, 2009)

Chronic said:


> ^
> I wish I could spam "No" over and over again but goddamn furries think everything relates to them just because it's a talking animal.





PriestRevan said:


> If you posted in this thread and said, "Yes, Lion King is furry", then you are retarded beyond belief.





PriestRevan said:


> Furries are anthropomorphic animals.
> 
> Anthropomorphic animals are not furries.
> 
> Understand this and your life will be a bit better.



FURRY is also a term "furries" use to refere to an anthropomomorphic animal. I use the word "furrie or furry"  to refere to anthromorphs (as in animals), aswell as someone who is part of the fandom. 

I also think it is enopugh with the disney threads. but i will suggest brothbone in future, perhaps make one thread to cover everything. For example it would of been muich easier to make one thread and perhaps applied the question to all disney movies that contained anthro's. 

Lastly, i personaly don't consider animals walking on four legs as furry.


----------



## Doubler (Apr 14, 2009)

Whatever you call TLK, I'd say it's definitely 'of furry interest', as WikiFur likes to put it. Essentially: it's the sort of thing many furries like, and are a fan *of*. 
It can stand for the fandom and be subject of the fandom, even if it's not part of the fandom.


----------



## Sarakazi (Apr 14, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> If you posted in this thread and said, "Yes, Lion King is furry", then you are retarded beyond belief.



Since when does voicing your opinion on a matter make you retarded? I consider The Lion King furry, personally, and I respect the opinions of others that don't.

I don't think any one definition explains the word "furry." It means something different to everyone. What is considered furry and what is not considered to be furry is all in the eye of the beholder. To me, "furries" are those that have a love of art featuring animals with humanistic qualities, or anthropomorphism, whether the animal walks on two legs or four. Now, you, PriestRevan, may have an entirely different view on what a "furry" is, and I have no problem with that, nor do I think you're are "retarded" for thinking differently.


----------



## RailRide (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I'm listening.



What you're witnessing is one of the long-term arguments present within this fandom--two dissenting camps who will never see eye-to-eye because there is little involved that has a formal definition that everyone can agree upon:

*Camp 1:*
"Furry is concerned with anthropomorphic animals therefore any depiction of an  anthropomorphic animal is automatically furry".

*Camp 2*:
"For something to be considered furry, it _must_ be either (a)created within the fandom, or (b) created specifically with the fandom in mind".  

Thus the question cannot have an answer that works for everyone involved--it depends on your personal opinion, just like question of "_what is a furry?_". One camp wants to include as much as possible, the other seeks to protect mainstream entertainment product from being contaminated by association with the paraphilias known to exist within the fandom. Take from that what you will.  

---PCJ


----------



## Chronic (Apr 14, 2009)

Opinion or fact.

Opinion or fact.

Hm, let's go with opinion!

I still want to know why an anthropomorphic rock isn't considered furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 14, 2009)

RailRide said:


> What you're witnessing is one of the long-term arguments present within this fandom--two dissenting camps who will never see eye-to-eye because there is little involved that has a formal definition that everyone can agree upon:
> 
> *Camp 1:*
> "Furry is concerned with anthropomorphic animals therefore any depiction of an  anthropomorphic animal is automatically furry".
> ...



I agree with RailRoad here.



Chronic said:


> Opinion or fact.
> 
> Opinion or fact.
> 
> ...



Chronic....That is a good question. Am i the only furry here who see's cartoon characters as Anthro's?


----------



## Chronic (Apr 14, 2009)

It's because rocks aren't of interest to furs. However, just because a furry likes something (anthro or non) shouldn't make it furry. For example, say I like soccer. That doesn't make soccer furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 14, 2009)

Chronic said:


> It's because rocks aren't of interest to furs. However, just because a furry likes something (anthro or non) shouldn't make it furry. For example, say I like soccer. That doesn't make soccer furry.



I nearly didn't see your point here. But i read it a few times and now i do.


----------



## Ratte (Apr 14, 2009)

I don't think so.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 14, 2009)

All Furries are Anthropomorphic Animals, not all Anthropomorphic Animals are not Furry.

Is the God Emperor Leto from Dune a Furry?  If you go by the "All Anthropomorphic Animals are Furry!", yes because - even though he started a human - he is an Anthropomorphic Worm.  I don't think you're going to find any Furry who will defend that God Emperor Leto is a Furry.  I don't think you'll find a Furry who even came close to thinking that.

For a less debatable example (since people will point out technically Leto is 'human'):  Enslavers from Halo.  The raven squawking "nevermore!" is anthropomorphic (seeing as it's talking).  Would you say "Oh that's a Furry."?

Not all anthropomorphic animals are furries.  But then, I'm firmly in the camp of "created for fandom", because I do not like seeing people take good things and turn them into their own fetish fuel.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

Attaman said:


> All Furries are Anthropomorphic Animals, not all Anthropomorphic Animals are not Furry.
> 
> Is the God Emperor Leto from Dune a Furry?  If you go by the "All Anthropomorphic Animals are Furry!", yes because - even though he started a human - he is an Anthropomorphic Worm.  I don't think you're going to find any Furry who will defend that God Emperor Leto is a Furry.  I don't think you'll find a Furry who even came close to thinking that.
> 
> ...




This^

A furry would have to be fucked up in the head to make Leto Porn.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> Okay, so far TLK is not furry.


Good, now you understand 



Seriously, it took you this fucking long???


----------



## HotActionYiffFur (Apr 14, 2009)

Chronic said:


> ^
> I wish I could spam "No" over and over again but goddamn furries think everything relates to them just because it's a talking animal.



This post sums up this thread beautifully.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 14, 2009)

Rodo said:


> BITCH BITCH BITCH


Well, actually, you don't understand.
That image in itself was never considered furry in the first place, because it doesn't even show that the cat is talking. Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever that it is furry.
Unless, you consider it to be furry. That is where stupidity and intelligence split in two. You then go down the stupid path.


----------



## Arcadium (Apr 14, 2009)

JESUS

Lion King is Anthropomorphic.

Furry art is Furry.

Nice that this is clear. Not everything Anthro suddenly becomes "OMG FURRY FILM".

Edit - For example, a lake could be Anthro, a Mailbox could be Anthro, Tissues could be Anthro. Anthro has never ever been just for animals and humans. Ever.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 14, 2009)

Chronic said:


> Opinion or fact.
> 
> Opinion or fact.
> 
> ...



Anthropomorphic means "Giving something not human human attributes"

When you make an Anthropomorphic Animal, it is an animal given human attributes.

Furry(as in for the fandom) characters are anthro animal characters made for us. A rock with human attributes is furry because furry deals with anthro animals made for a specific fandom.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

Rodo said:


> Just-kept-talking-in-one-long-incredibly-unbroken-sentence-moving-from-topic-to-topic-so-that-no-one-had-a-chance-to-interrupt-it-was-really-quite-hypnotic...



The Tl;Dr was just unnecessary.

If the intent was for the fandom, it is furry. If it is not made for the fandom, then it is not furry. The Lion King was not made by furries, so it is not.

Simple.


----------



## Arcadium (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm laughing at how people think anything anthro = Furry.

It's called Anthropomorphic. Anthro = Making something not human appear human.

Mailbox. Animate it with mouth, eyes, humor, etc, it's anthro. That has nothing to do with Furries or the Furry fandom, now doesn't it?

I rest my case. Disney isn't a freaking Furry movie factory, there a kids film studio.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

StainMcGorver said:


> Good, now you understand
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, it took you this fucking long???



Yes I did. 
I just posted this to try to break the ice and conforming I made a mistake saying in another thread that the liong king was *"**One of the most memorable furry love scenes"*
My ice ended up melting and evaporating by all the blazing fire.


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 14, 2009)

You guys are awesome but a _little _pedantic sometimes.  Perhaps we should rest this case with the *real *definition of furry, compliments to Merriam Webster. 



> *furry*
> 
> Main Entry: furÂ·ry
> Pronunciation:              \ËˆfÉ™r-Ä“\
> ...


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

Rodo said:


> You guys are awesome but a _little _pedantic sometimes.  Perhaps we should rest this case with the *real *definition of furry, compliments to Merriam Webster.



That has nothing to do with the fandom, your argument is invalid.


Furry (Furrie): A fandom based around the interest in anthro-animals in art and literature. 

The fandom itself has artists who cater to the fandom already, so do not add on a stigma to things that aren't apart of the fandom by labeling something like scooby doo "Furry". It isnt.

Such artists who make furry art for the fandom would be Nylak, Blotch, hazard, Dragoneer, etc...etc...

Each of the art that gets created is kind of unique, not copies of the same character, such as Sonic, Spyro, or the Chesire cat.

Characters like Simba, Spyro, Crash bandicoot, Sonic, Balto, Tramp, Lady, Donald duck, and Bugs Bunny are not "Made" for the fandom and were not meant to be Furry-Fandom Characters.

My character is made for the fandom, hence it is a furry.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

StainMcGorver said:


> Good, now you understand
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, it took you this fucking long???



Yes I did undestand. I wanted to break the ice and wanted to confirm that I did a *mistake* saying in another thread that the love scene in TLK was "One of the most memorable furry love scenes"

Unfortunately the ice melted to fast and evaporated by the fire that kept on burning. Oh well.


----------



## VVhiteWolf (Apr 14, 2009)

I think this is more of a personal viewpoint issue.

While Lion King, Sonic, and Digi/Pokemorphs may be drawn alot by people in the furry fandom, I do not consider them furry.

It is my belief that the furry fandom should be anthropomorphic animals, none of this Sonic fan characters or Pokemorphs.


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm curious as to why exactly this is such a passionate argument. I can only imagine that it's kind of an identity thing - we furries only have so much to hang on to that we can proud of, it must be that calling such a big box, mainstream title like Lion King 'furry' would almost be blasphemous. I'm sure there's also the stigma that there are slews of ignorants who come in to the fandom screaming "BUHHH LION KING FURRRREEEZZZ!!2". Ignorance on the part of others toward something we take so personally must be like associating every gay person with rainbow flags and leather tights. It's just offensive. Sound correct?

I really didn't mean to offend, friends. :3


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2009)

More like Lion King was never intended to be for furries. So if I worked at Disney, I'd be all "Hell no, furfags. You ain't claiming that shit."


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

Rodo said:


> I'm curious as to why exactly this is such a passionate argument. I can only imagine that it's kind of an identity thing - we furries only have so much to hang on to that we can proud of, it must be that calling such a big box, mainstream title like Lion King 'furry' would almost be blasphemous. I'm sure there's also the stigma that there are slews of ignorants who come in to the fandom screaming "BUHHH LION KING FURRRREEEZZZ!!2". Ignorance on the part of others toward something we take so personally must be like associating every gay person with rainbow flags and leather tights. It's just offensive. Sound correct?
> 
> I really didn't mean to offend, friends. :3



If you truely honor "The Lion King" and other cartoons, then you wouldn't want it to be labled with a stigma...which the fandom has as a whole.


----------



## Vekke (Apr 14, 2009)

If zaush makes his movie, that will be a furry movie. directed to furries. made by a furry

Lion King is not that. Its a movie that furries love (and sometimes rape), but it wasn't made with that specific purpose in mind


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 14, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Furries are anthropomorphic animals.
> 
> *Anthropomorphic animals are not furries. *
> 
> Understand this and your life will be a bit better.



But they are FURRY (unless they've been shaved, or never had fur in the first place)...




Rodo said:


> Isn't this a bit like debating 'what is art'? Or what constitutes yiff? What if some of the people who worked on the Lion King _were '_furries'? If 12% of them were, would the Lion King be 12% furry? *Or maybe furry is in the eye of the beholder? *
> 
> Who the fuck cares?



Bingo...




Rodo said:


> Yet another dimension can be placed on this question if you ask yourself; what would happen if a furry on the aforementioned video game forum observed this image? Would that make it furry? Evidently furriness may also be entirely in the eye of the beholder. If this is correct, the previous argument is rendered moot, because no matter the furriness of the photographer, captioner _or _user, the ultimate furriness of the image is determined by whoever is viewing it. *If that were the case, the Lion King would be a furry movie if a furry watched it, and a regular movie if your grandma did. *
> 
> This is the dilemma. I hope I have helped us come one step closer to understanding.



Pretty much how it seems to work...




Doubler said:


> Whatever you call TLK, I'd say it's definitely 'of furry interest', as WikiFur likes to put it. Essentially: it's the sort of thing many furries like, and are a fan *of*.
> *It can stand for the fandom and be subject of the fandom, even if it's not part of the fandom.*



True...




Sarakazi said:


> Since when does voicing your opinion on a matter make you retarded? I consider The Lion King furry, personally, *and I respect the opinions of others that don't*.
> 
> I don't think any one definition explains the word "furry." It means something different to everyone. What is considered furry and what is not considered to be furry is all in the eye of the beholder. To me, "furries" are those that have a love of art featuring animals with humanistic qualities, or anthropomorphism, whether the animal walks on two legs or four. Now, you, PriestRevan, may have an entirely different view on what a "furry" is, and I have no problem with that, nor do I think you're are "retarded" for thinking differently.



Same here....

As your second paragraph states, *"furry is all in the eye of the beholder."*  I consider anything with fur to be "furry", anthromorphed or not.




RailRide said:


> What you're witnessing is one of the long-term arguments present within this fandom--two dissenting camps who will never see eye-to-eye because there is little involved that has a formal definition that everyone can agree upon:
> 
> *Camp 1:*
> "Furry is concerned with anthropomorphic animals therefore any depiction of an  anthropomorphic animal is automatically furry".
> ...



Nice separation, RailRide... I agree.




Chronic said:


> Opinion or fact.
> 
> Opinion or fact.
> 
> ...



Because it doesn't have fur...




Rodo said:


> You guys are awesome but *a little pedantic sometimes*.  Perhaps we should rest this case with the *real *definition of furry, compliments to Merriam Webster.





> *furry*
> 
> Main Entry: furÂ·ry
> Pronunciation: \'f?r-e\
> ...



I'd say over-pedantic...




VVhiteWolf said:


> *I think this is more of a personal viewpoint issue.*
> 
> While Lion King, Sonic, and Digi/Pokemorphs may be drawn alot by people in the furry fandom, I do not consider them furry.
> 
> It is my belief that the furry fandom should be anthropomorphic animals, none of this Sonic fan characters or Pokemorphs.



Yes, as is pretty much every other issue ever discussed on this forum...


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2009)

We're taling furry as in the fandom, not the adjective, Roose...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 18, 2009)

SHENZEBO said:


> We're taling furry as in the fandom, not the adjective, Roose...



And I'm talking both, plus adding/emphasizing "furrie" is all a point of view... while "furry" isn't.


----------



## Tryp (Apr 18, 2009)

The Lion King is all part of the Liberal-Hollywood-Terrorist-Vatican-Gay-Queen Elizabeth-Mafia plan to assert New World Order!






























XP Just kidding.


----------



## AethWolf (Apr 19, 2009)

Within the context of the furry fandom, the word "furry" has a metric butt-ton of definitions.  One of these definitions, "genre defined by the use of anthropomorphic animals", is particularly relevant to this discussion.  When speaking furry-to-furry, it is totally legitimate to say "The Lion King is a furry movie" as it has the exact same meaning as saying "The Lion King is a movie that has anthropomorphic animals".  The only difference between the two is the word count.

Is it really that hard to sort out?


----------



## Attaman (Apr 19, 2009)

Considering that means God Emperor Leto is now a Furry, I demand to see Rule /34/ of it.  If there is no Rule /34/ of Furry God Emperor Leto, it cannot exist.  If it cannot exist, theory = debunked.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 19, 2009)

AethWolf said:


> Within the context of the furry fandom, the word "furry" has a metric butt-ton of definitions.  One of these definitions, "genre defined by the use of anthropomorphic animals", is particularly relevant to this discussion.  When speaking furry-to-furry, it is totally legitimate to say "The Lion King is a furry movie" as it has the exact same meaning as saying "The Lion King is a movie that has anthropomorphic animals".  The only difference between the two is the word count.
> 
> *Is it really that hard to sort out?*



No, it isn't...


----------



## Ruko (Apr 20, 2009)

Chronic said:


> So why is Lion King considered a furry movie when Egyptian gods, a talking rock, or even Black Beauty not considered furry?





JayKay said:


> Because those things aren't fuckab-*sacked*





Chronic said:


> I dunno man, rocks are pretty murry.
> 
> *gags herself*





Chronic said:


> It's because rocks aren't of interest to furs. However, just because a furry likes something (anthro or non) shouldn't make it furry. For example, say I like soccer. That doesn't make soccer furry.





Trpdwarf said:


> Furry(as in for the fandom) characters are anthro animal characters made for us. A rock with human attributes is furry because furry deals with anthro animals made for a specific fandom.




hahaha. This whole is-a-rock-a-furry derailment has me rolling. :lol:


----------



## Not A Fox (Apr 21, 2009)

Why do you all have to categorize every damned thing every possible thing as furry or not furry?

Why do you have do that?

Why must every last single thing involve us when it comes to cartoon animals?

What the hell is wrong with you?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 21, 2009)

Not A Fox said:


> Why do you all have to categorize every damned thing every possible thing as furry or not furry?
> 
> Why do you have do that?
> 
> ...



You are assuming everyone catagorizes every anthropomorphic animal as furry. Me....If i say furry, doesn't mean i am catagorizing everything as "furry", It is my way to "reference" anthro's. As it has been mentioned allready, the word "furry" has many meanings, one of which is "SLANG" for anthro's.

To put it even simpler, i use the word 'furry" as SLANG to refere to anthropomorphic animals.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You are assuming everyone catagorizes every anthropomorphic animal as furry. Me....If i say furry, doesn't mean i am catagorizing everything as "furry", It is my way to "reference" anthro's. As it has been mentioned allready, the word "furry" has many meanings, one of which is "SLANG" for anthro's.
> 
> To put it even simpler, i use the word 'furry" as SLANG to refere to anthropomorphic animals.



Bingo...


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 21, 2009)

ITT: Newfag furries are a cancer.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You are assuming everyone catagorizes every anthropomorphic animal as furry. Me....If i say furry, doesn't mean i am catagorizing everything as "furry", It is my way to "reference" anthro's. As it has been mentioned allready, the word "furry" has many meanings, one of which is "SLANG" for anthro's.
> 
> To put it even simpler, i use the word 'furry" as SLANG to refere to anthropomorphic animals.



Stop that. >:{


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 21, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Stop that. >:{



 I will refere to what ever i want to, with what ever words i see fit. Id some people don't like me, or any other furrie refereing to an anthro in the slang form of "furry" Then it isn't us furs with a problem. But those who don't like it. 

This whole argument over "Is it furry or is it not" is pathetic. What ever happend to "freedom of speach"? because it appears to me, that it doesn't exist to some people. Come on people, it doesn't matter what the fuck they are called, we all know what e are talking about.


So really does it fuckin matter?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I will refere to what ever i want to, with what ever words i see fit. Id some people don't like me, or any other furrie refereing to an anthro in the slang form of "furry" Then it isn't us furs with a problem. But those who don't like it.
> 
> This whole argument over "Is it furry or is it not" is pathetic. What ever happend to "freedom of speach"? because it appears to me, that it doesn't exist to some people. Come on people, it doesn't matter what the fuck they are called, we all know what e are talking about.
> 
> ...



I agree with Zeke. Stop that.

And I and others will call people out like you on your laziness and obviousness to how retarded it is to call everything anthro furry regardless of intent.

The problem is not us, the problem is people like you who are told about why you don't call non furry anthro things furry, and you are explained to the consequences to the fandom and to non-fandom members and you just don't care.

Selfish cancer, stop that!

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence when stupid things are said.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 21, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I agree with Zeke. Stop that.
> 
> And I and others will call people out like you on your laziness and obviousness to how retarded it is to call everything anthro furry regardless of intent.
> 
> ...



Anthro it is then.


----------



## -Lucario- (Apr 21, 2009)

If the movie was furry, It'd have way more adult content. Silly OP, furries aren't for kids.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 21, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Stop that. >:{



Firstly, an appology goes to you.



Trpdwarf said:


> I agree with Zeke. Stop that.
> 
> And I and others will call people out like you on your laziness and obviousness to how retarded it is to call everything anthro furry regardless of intent.
> 
> ...



Second appology goes to you.

Now what brought on the appologies?, i have been having a little chat with a  friend of mine. Who has made me see anthro/furry in a whole new light. He bought up some very good points. The discussion i had with my friend has now changed me in such way, I am not even calling myself "furrie" anymore. Although, the interest in anthropomorphic animals is still there.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Firstly, an appology goes to you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Welcome to the light.
We...don't have cookies and would have had cake but they say cake is a lie.

On a more serious note, kudos to the friend who was able to help you see why people have a problem. Apology accepted.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 21, 2009)

I feel the love...


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Feb 16, 2013)

Excuse the bump but of course it's ****ing furry.
Disney is largely responsible for furries and employs a ton of them.

I once knew a furry called Shawn Keller, he also was a part of the smaller CAAT Studios, he worked not on TLK but on The Fox and the Hound, Oliver & Co, hell even Tarzan
But I reassure you TLK is 100% furry material.

Also, despite common definition, what is often classed as "feral" is often anthropomorphic.
Anthropomorphism is a sliding scale, you can give any species (or even object or concept) any degree of human features and it is anthropomorphic.

TV tropes lends a fair decent diagram.
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ssoa_05-5v_1879.png

Anthropomorphism (Î±Î½Î¸ÏÏ‰Ï€Î¿Î¼Î¿ÏÏ†Î¹ÏƒÎ¼ÏŒÏ‚) was first introduced as a literary device
And the Ancient Egyptian Gods such as Horus were not given Anthropomorphism but rather something known as Zoomorfismo (or Zoomorphism) whch is the attribution of certain animal attributes to objects and other species, which is the opposite of anthropomorphism.

But I remark feral is bs term created to separate those who appealed the more anthro like characters from less anthro like characters to avoid the zoophiliac association so they throw their pro-yiff attitudes around more freely.

Let me break down the term "anthropomorphic animal" down.
"Anthro(po)" is the Greek word for human (in Latin letters).
"Morph" is the Greek word for form (in Latin letters)
"ic" described it is an adjective"
"Animal" is the modern English word for beast, based upon the Latin word "animus" which regards to something describable by breath and spirit.

The syntax (which is the Greek word for word arrangement) of "anthropomorphic animal" is [human (anthro)][add prefix (human) to this substitute (form)] [substitute=animal]
Anthropomorphism = Anthropo (Greek for human) + Morphism (form), to apply human (anthropo) features to a form (morph).

The modern day word for anthropomorphism is actually "personification" as it's claimed to sound more modern, but anthropomorphism is still largely in use.

The characters in animations such as TLK are animal characters with anthropomorphic personalities and expressions, they are more akin to Native tribal African humans than the modern human in personality.

Where do you even think the term "furry" came from in reference to what's now known online? In the 80s there was academic network / online forums where people could discuss their interests, "furry" was just used as a description that was easy for "cartoon animals", the spacing of the letters "F, U, R and Y" on the keyboard were also contributing to its usage. It didn't even originally mean "anthropomorphic animal characters", it just happened that cartoon animal characters were usually anthropomorphic in some respect, and people started to describe it, obviously you searched for it is and found all sorts of false illusion.

Nowadays, furry is less of a fandom a more a self-serving community, but once it appreciated outside things representing the concept, it didn't just randomly "birth" itself, it's not a "genre" as such, either, it's a colloquial term. It's like trekkie, many star trek fans might not like to be called "trekkies" for whatever reason, but in conversation, they still are, same goes with some MLP:FiM show fans, they don't all like to call themselves "bronies". And "furry" may not just describe a person into the associated, but also to describe the associated. Also, since I mentioned MLP:FiM, I'd like to clarify that MLP has been appreciated in the the furry community before the reboot "FiM", and also the show features cartoon animal characters, it can be describable as furry but the fans may not be because the fans may just well argue they are just into the show and not the concept of the characters being, well, "furry".

Whenever I hear "feral" said in the furry community/fandom, I imagine the characters to be implied as a bit less human like than average but still human-like in some respects. And whenever hear I hear "anthro" said in the furry community/fandom, I imagine the characters to be implied as a bit more human like than average but still animal characters at the base (somewhat in mind at the very least).
It's a bit awkward, though, given those who have not read into this will fight over what the terms represent, yet the words and their meanings are there written clean in the etymology, obviously "feral" means a wild human/animal in English - one that is completely out of touch with what it is to be human, and anthro means human, anthropo means "alike" or "pertaining" to human, such as anthropology, anthropomorphism, etc, so lending to the fact "anthropomorphism" doesn't mean you give the whole base morph a human form, because if that were the case the result would be a human and they wouldn't even look like a (non-human) animal, anymore.

Furthermore, there is the furry community; and there is the furry fandom.
You can be a part of the fandom, but not the community, but it can be argued that you can't do the vice versa since being a part of the community usually implies you are a furry fan, although there is some I know who engage in furry communities who are just there for their friends or are just casually in touch with the fandom or a specific community that happens to accomodate to furries (I give Weasyl and Artspots as examples, hell, even the main FA site).

It's as simple as that, history doesn't lie. And common sense most certain does not.


----------



## Imperial Impact (Feb 16, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> words.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 16, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Excuse the bump








Seriously, how the frag do you people even find these threads, and what makes you think we want to you post in them several years after the most recent post?


----------



## Imperial Impact (Feb 16, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Seriously, how the frag do you people even find these threads, and what makes you think we want to you post in them several years after the most recent post?


Easy, They feel offended when someone insult their sex heroes.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 16, 2013)

Instead of you guys complaining about a bumped thread from 2009 why not do what the mods ask and hit the report button.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Feb 16, 2013)

I never understand why other forums get so pissed at resurrecting old threads. CE would rejoice at this.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 16, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> I never understand why other forums get so pissed at resurrecting old threads. CE would rejoice at this.



Cause it's a dead thread from three years ago. The OP might as well have made a new thread to discuss the topic. It's also written in the site rules that resurrecting old threads is against the rules. Mods also ask us to report such threads which I do, then I leave it up to them to decide whether to close it or not, some get left open though so they don't close all old threads. 

I don't know why FAF doesn't implement an automatic thread deletion. let threads go so many pages back like four or five pages and once at the bottom of the last page it's auto deleted. That would eliminate the issue altogether.


----------



## Heliophobic (Feb 16, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Excuse the bump but of course it's ****ing furry.
> Disney is largely responsible for furries and employs a ton of them.
> 
> I once knew a furry called Shawn Keller, he also was a part of the smaller CAAT Studios, he worked not on TLK but on The Fox and the Hound, Oliver & Co, hell even Tarzan
> ...



Did you seriously take your time typing all that for a *FOUR YEAR OLD THREAD?*

Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 16, 2013)

Bloody hell, four year necro? I've been here almost five then.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Feb 16, 2013)

Why do we get newbies who go and post in an age-old thread nobody neither remembers or cares for? I'm eternally happy I didn't make that mistake when I first joined.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2013)

*Shrugs*

I usually consider something "Furry" if it's something I'd think furs would enjoy. So something like TLK would be considered "Furry" because we're a fandom that likes anthro animals, and yes, even though TLK has feral animals, these animals still have human traits ie singing, dancing, talking, going through human like drama, and so fourth. Do I think it has to be created with the fandom specifically in mind? Not really, at least to me.


----------



## toddf-alt (Feb 16, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Let me break down the term "anthropomorphic animal" down.
> "Anthro(po)" is the Greek word for human (in Latin letters).
> "Morph" is the Greek word for form (in Latin letters)
> "ic" described it is an adjective"
> ...








"*There you go.*"


 In all seriousness, I think whether it is or isn't furry is all relative to your personal definition of "Furry". I always think that there are just too many aspects of this fandom to put it all under one big label.


----------



## Harbinger (Feb 16, 2013)

You should see the classified sections on pet forums its even more annoying. I get all excited when i see a thread reach the top on some shit rare species i've been after for years, only to find its a 6 year old thread that some newb bumped asking if it was still for sale -_-


----------



## None (May 19, 2018)

Roose Hurro said:


> Anything with talking animals in it, anthro or not, is furry.


All of y’all are dumb 
This is a cartoon for some damn kids 
-_- they can’t read and every god damn animal can’t but this is a kids movie of course there’s going to be tALKiNg


----------



## Stratelier (May 19, 2018)

Can we please stop playing the "for kids" card as if kids and adults are mutually exclusive audiences?

Back in the day I actually kinda hated _The Lion King_, but I've since realized that it was just a secondhand opinion from Mom.  Disney's little re-interpretation of _Hamlet_ is actually kinda good.

Though I also like to believe that maybe the animators behind _Kimba The White Lion_ should have let Disney go take them to court -- can't argue with a manga that's been published _two decades_ before either property!  Obviously, they still wouldn't have countersued Disney, but....


----------



## Ginza (May 19, 2018)

Stratelier said:


> Can we please stop playing the "for kids" card as if kids and adults are mutually exclusive audiences?
> 
> Back in the day I actually kinda hated _The Lion King_, but I've since realized that it was just a secondhand opinion from Mom.  Disney's little re-interpretation of _Hamlet_ is actually kinda good.
> 
> Though I also like to believe that maybe the animators behind _Kimba The White Lion_ should have let Disney go take them to court -- can't argue with a manga that's been published _two decades_ before either property!  Obviously, they still wouldn't have countersued Disney, but....





None said:


> All of y’all are dumb
> This is a cartoon for some damn kids
> -_- they can’t read and every god damn animal can’t but this is a kids movie of course there’s going to be tALKiNg



This thread is 5 years old y’all


----------



## Yakamaru (May 19, 2018)

Necro Lord is not amused.


----------



## Lexiand (May 19, 2018)

Nah totally not furry :V


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (May 20, 2018)

Closing this due to several years of necro.


----------

