# Putting TLK aside. What about Disney's "Robin Hood"? Furry or not Furry?



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm all ears. The 1973 Disney animation "Robin Hood" Furry or not Furry?


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 14, 2009)

They're going to amke the same argument as they did in your Lion King thread, that because it was not made for furries or even with knowing what a furry is, than it isn't furry.


----------



## PriestRevan (Apr 14, 2009)

Stop making threads.

Fact is, NO DISNEY/WARNER BROS/ETC. film starring anthro animals is furry.


----------



## Smelge (Apr 14, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Stop making threads.



Hurrah!


----------



## Smelge (Apr 14, 2009)

Actually, sod it, more in-depth reply.

Brothbone, you are new here. I'm also new here. But please stop making so many "Is this furry" style threads. You don't need to legitimise the fact you quite fancy animals, you are already here.

You don't need to keep linking people to your gallery, thats what the little Paw icon does under your name. Stop advertising, stop asking if such and such a film is furry, stop reaching for the "report to moderator button" and go do something else. Like draw. Or find porn. Or draw yourself finding porn.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I'm all ears. The 1973 Disney animation "Robin Hood" Furry or not Furry?


That's almost like asking whether _Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom_ is or is not rated PG13.  i.e., the item in question absolutely predates the official criteria proposed.


----------



## Zaaz (Apr 14, 2009)

Robin Hood is the gateway drug to furry fandom.

Z


----------



## Whitenoise (Apr 14, 2009)

You are a boring troll Brothbone, try harder :V .


----------



## Salrith (Apr 14, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> You are a boring troll Brothbone, try harder :V .



In his defense, he hasn't trolled, really, just posted topics that have been done so many times that it's like trying to spread the news about the discovery of fire hehehe.
I need better analogies }:=8(

Everyone's allowed leeway in the first few days, imo ^.=.^


----------



## Whitenoise (Apr 14, 2009)

Salrith said:


> In his defense, he hasn't trolled, really, just posted topics that have been done so many times that it's like trying to spread the news about the discovery of fire hehehe.
> I need better analogies }:=8(
> 
> Everyone's allowed leeway in the first few days, imo ^.=.^



Flooding forums with obnoxiously retarded newfag threads is a form of trolling, it can be entertaining if it's done properly, this is just lazy though :V .


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 14, 2009)

Zaaz said:


> Robin Hood is the gateway drug to furry fandom.
> 
> Z


...I fucking hated that movie, and any fur who say thats what made them a furry must be smack...with a Zanbato...not the gay bleach one those are not Zanbatos


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 14, 2009)

I thought I made an excellent explanation in the the Lion King thread.


----------



## Salrith (Apr 14, 2009)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> ...I fucking hated that movie, and any fur who say thats what made them a furry must be smack...with a Zanbato...not the gay bleach one those are not Zanbatos



I never understood why a movie could make someone a furry, but then, I find understanding furries in general, or people really can be a challenge. Understanding what makes them tick is easy enough (To a point), but understanding motivation is hard, because what motivates one person can deserve nothing more than a 'meh' from someone else, so...

For me it was a dream and a desire that snowballed. That probably would be a 'meh' to you though (well, maybe not you in particular), so...!
Rambling again, argh, I hate that }:=8(


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

RAEG

It is not furry, not made for the fandom. What makes something Furry is when it is made for the fandom.
Geez....

So if Robin Hood (disney animation) is furry, so I guess every person who loved the movie and not associated with the fandom is furry?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 14, 2009)

Were you not listening in the other thread?

Every single Disney movie that features anthropomorhpic animals features just that Anthropomorphic animals. Not a single one is furry.

I am writing a story and I make it into a movie, and I decide that my one of my main characters is going to be a talking upright walking animal, and later on the movie because famous, and people who are part of the "Furry Fandom" become huge fans of my character? Do they have the right to take my character, call it furry, and label it as being associated with fur fandom when I've never said either way?

no..that's not fair. That's not right. It's my character and it is what I say it is. The same goes for all other anthro animal critters. Unless the creator specifically states it is "furry" it is by default not furrie.

So no, Robin Hood (the disney variation) is not furry.


----------



## SnowFox (Apr 14, 2009)

This thread reminds me of Huey. I miss Huey  This thread should now be a bout Huey.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 14, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Were you not listening in the other thread?
> 
> Every single Disney movie that features anthropomorhpic animals features just that Anthropomorphic animals. Not a single one is furry.
> 
> ...



Furrie in agreement here.


----------



## Vintage (Apr 14, 2009)

callin' bullshit!



Trpdwarf said:


> I am writing a story and I make it into a movie, and I decide that my one of my main characters is going to be a talking upright walking animal, and later on the movie because famous, and people who are part of the "Furry Fandom" become huge fans of my character? Do they have the right to take my character, call it furry, and label it as being associated with fur fandom when I've never said either way?



yes.  yes they do.  regardless of the intentions you had when you made the character, the fact of the matter is that there are always going to be people who appropriate that character for that purpose, even if you come out and correct them. the argument gets even more absurd when you factor in the porn, because they've already used that character for a purpose for which it wasn't designed, so why fucking bother, you know?  in their eyes, it IS, because it fits their criteria.  

i'm reminded of a spat that mc chris had with wikipedia where he didn't want to be associated with the term 'nerdcore' or pretty much everyone who associated with that movement.  some people are always going to see him that way, though!

the best that can happen for you, as a hypothetical moviemaker, is for your fans to clamp the fuck down (like people are doing here) and vehemently deny that any anthropomorph is or ever can be furry.  there's a 'furries in games' thread in the vidrtgame forum.  none of those furries are furries because they weren't made either by a furry or specifically with the furry fandom in mind.  yeah, okay.  it's cool to think that if you want.  i think it's a dangerous attitude (one that's antithetical to growth since it is exclusionary by nature) and part of the reason this fandom is so fucking insular in the first place.  nothing could POSSIBLY be furry unless it's made by furries, for furries, as obviously evidenced by the numerous commercial comic book artists, voice actors and animators who are frequently invited to be guests at furry conventions, mostly out of respect for the characters they helped cement into society; tradesmen who, when they made the characters, (probably) didn't have the slightest knowledge or insight into the furry fandom or its existence

dr. EVERARD R. CLIFFSNOTES version:  people are gonna calls 'em like they sees 'em

iron man version:  "heh....you really think that...just because you have an idea...it belongs to you??? (obidiah stane played by jeff bridges in the movie iron man made in 2008 by marvel studios)"


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

Vintage said:


> WTF Tl;dr



-headdesk-

This is why furries need a purge now and again.
I shall start searching for a plot of land for the death-camps.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

I said I was all ears. 
Yes, I paid close attention to TLK post and the specific reasons provided and I did NOT disagree.
I got it, it is not furry. 
And I also got most of you hate Disney. 
Bambi (Dead Mother) or Dumbo (Baby Separated form Mother) must have traumatized some of you or something. 

Why on earth did I even brought up "Robin Hood"

Robin Hood was done in 1973, I mean did the concept of "furry" and furry fandom exist back then?

Not to mention the characters walked on two legs, dressed up, shoot arrows, sword frighted.

Okay, Okay, In conclusion I learned if its created for the public then it its not furry.

Makes it sad because sometime ago I posted a thread about when there was ever going to be a "real-life furry movie" done.

If such movie does in fact get created for the public, then it seems some of you might not consider it to be "furry".

If anyone else what to go on about how dum I am, go ahead.

Either way thanks for you more then passionate responses. 
You guys , in a postive way, are very zealous.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I said I was all ears.
> Yes, I paid close attention to TLK post and the specific reasons provided and I did NOT disagree.
> I got it, it is not furry.
> And I also got most of you hate Disney.
> ...




I don't hate disney, I just hate the people with a firey, yet Honorable passion who decides to make porn of the movie characters I loved.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I don't hate disney, I just hate the people with a firey, yet Honorable passion who decides to make porn of the movie characters I loved.



I see. To make sure I understand, you're referring to taking children movie characters and turning into adult material. I can understand why your upset with that. I don't like it much either. When I think of furry I think of the cute, warm, fuzzy nice things not the other things. Sorry if the post offended you.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I see. To make sure I understand, you're referring to taking children movie characters and turning into adult material. I can understand why your upset with that. I don't like it much either. When I think of furry I think of the cute, warm, fuzzy nice things not the other things. Sorry if the post offended you.



It didn't. If it did, you'll know.
And if they made a movie made by furries with PG-Pg-13 content, it would most likely be on a DvD.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It didn't. If it did, you'll know.
> And if they made a movie made by furries with PG-Pg-13 content, it would most likely be on a DvD.



Most probably. But hey I live in a country were things that were thought to be impossible to occur in the past are happening. Who knows.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 14, 2009)

Why are you watching Disney movies anyways? 


Western animation is so shitty even compared to Eastern Europe.

Where do you think Gabor Csupo (Rugrats, Duckman) and Genndy Tartakovsky (Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls) came from?


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Why are you watching Disney movies anyways?
> 
> 
> Western animation is so shitty even compared to Eastern Europe.
> ...



I assume they came form Eastern Europe.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I assume they came form Eastern Europe.



Yes you are correct, sir


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 14, 2009)

Vintage said:


> callin' bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another person of questionable intellect making an absurd "If it looks like bacon, smells like bacon, it's bacon" argument. People wonder why I consider dealing with other furries the biggest difficulty when being a furry. Le-Sigh.

Dude, if I make an anthro animal character I own the rights to say what it is is or isn't, not ten billion perverted furfags, okay? Wether or not furfags make porn of a character such as Crystal, Fox, Falco, Sypro, Gex, Simba, Scar, Balto, Bolt, Gex, the character itself is not furry. I'd bitch-slap any fool who thinks they can take a character I make and decide what it is. Also, no the worst thing for a movie producer is for furries to become fans of their stuff, by the way. Look at what they do to the characters. The gamer part of me rages what furries do to gaming characters...

Saying "It is was they see it" is only a viable argument for a person with the IQ of an unborn fetus. You see something, you ask questions, you do research. Ignorance is not an excuse for stupidity in this conversation because who owns the copyrights? Who created the characters? Not furries, or the furry fandom. Making porn of a copy-right character does not make that character yours.

We ruin anthro animals for others because of this idiocy where if it looks furry, and we make porn of it, than it's furry. It makes no sense for us to ruin things for others when...(see next paragraph)

We created our own content just for us. We have artists to create art just for us. We have animators (as scarce as they are) to create animations just for us. We have web-comics just for us. We have people making books just for us. We even have people making animal costumes for us and we call those things fur-suits. We even have a group making animal shaped dildo's just for us. Those things are furry.  The stuff that we grew liking? Drawing porn of it does not means we own it no matter how much porn is out there. What we are talking about here is the original character. You can make a pokemorph of Nine-tails and call that creation furry but that does not make Ninetails the creature creation furry. Get that through your head, all of you.

People can all things as they see them, but if it smells like bacon but happens to be dog treats...you're an idiot if you call it bacon. It's the same as the fandom and the same as the use of the word "Furry".
It might seem furry to you, or others, but if you call it furry when it's not stated as such, you're an idiot and you need to be purged from this fandom so that we have one less cancer to deal with.


I agree with Zeke, I'd love to purge this fandom of cancerous tumor that is beginning to form.

EDIT: I understand what you are saying, people call it as they see it, I'm only pointing out that it's not an excuse.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Another person of questionable intellect making an absurd "If it looks like bacon, smells like bacon, it's bacon" argument. People wonder why I consider dealing with other furries the biggest difficulty when being a furry. Le-Sigh.
> 
> Dude, if I make an anthro animal character I own the rights to say what it is is or isn't, not ten billion perverted furfags, okay? Wether or not furfags make porn of a character such as Crystal, Fox, Falco, Sypro, Gex, Simba, Scar, Balto, Bolt, Gex, the character itself is not furry. I'd bitch-slap any fool who thinks they can take a character I make and decide what it is. Also, no the worst thing for a movie producer is for furries to become fans of their stuff, by the way. Look at what they do to the characters. The gamer part of me rages what furries do to gaming characters...
> 
> ...



I read your response and I respect it very very much. And I can't in any way disagree. I don't like very much the fact that children characters are been used in other ways (like the ones you've mentioned).
When Zeke Shadowfyre bought up this point I got the true picture.
I finally realized then when others hear the word "furry" they don't think about the cute, fuzzy, nice things, but of the other 'must-be-of-legal-age' things.

Sorry if posting this thread offended anybody?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 14, 2009)

If any of you wonder why some of us are zealous in the differentiation between furry and anthro animal....put yourself in the shoes of a non-furry. You love animals, and you love movies with talking animals. You grew up loving things like Water-ship down, ect.

Or maybe you are a gamer (like me) and you find fun in games that have non-human  characters that happen to be anthropomorphic animals (Gex anyone?).

Or maybe you like to draw anthropomorphic animals but it's just a thing you do here and there.

Furries are rather zealous in ensuring that they plaster the internet with porn of characters in old movies/books that many of us grew up with. We cannot do much now, in the means of shoving those pictures that should never have been hosted online because of how it will rape the childhood memories of those who do not know enough to put on a mature filter...but we can at least differentiate ourselves from that with inspired us to be what we are for the sake of other people. 

A bit of history but when a certain anonymous people started the "Furry Wars" on Youtube, the overzealous trolls did not stop at what they did there on Youtube. They went out and targeted left and right targeting anything that looked remotely furry. Not only were furry websites trolled/hacked/crashed...but many non fur websites were caught up as well and trashed/hacked/crashed. Many therians began to hold a hard hatred for us because they were being caught up in the cross fires too. This could have been avoided had we been more adament on drawing that line between what is merely anthro animal, and that which is actually furry.

Many people who simply draw anthro animals but are not part of our fandom have to deal with our bad stigma because people in various parts of the world want to auto assume that if you draw the stuff you are a furry. That's not fair. That's not right. People should be free to draw that stuff without worrying that they might be auto-flagged as a furfag.

I cannot even begin to tell you how many people admitted to me that the only reason they really hate furries is because of how we take things we don't own, and we slap our stigma on it, so these people cannot enjoy these things without running the risk of having our stigma slapped on them. That is the root to the reason why many people actually legitmately hate us.

You furries are sometimes so caught up in pleasing yourself that you don't even stop to think about others. You might do that more often, think about more than just your own fandom when it comes to the consequences of your actions and your words and your sentiments and your attitudes. Some of us, like me are fine with having that bad stigma slapped onto us because we/I know how to deal with it. Others...should not have to be bothered with it at all.

I may be very overzealous when it comes to this topic but, I've spent at least 4 good solid years looking into why people either A: pretend to hate us or :B actually hate us. It has given me insight into many of the real problems facing our fandom, and this none-sense of calling things furry when we don't own it, and it was not made for us, and the consequences of this behavior, leads to my overzealous attitude.

I don't care if people call it what they see. There are consequences to that, and we should know better. So many of us are capable adults...who can think logically and rationally. So there is no reason to do this, call things furry when they are not.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

I find it fascinating that we have three threads dedicated to this topic.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I read your response and I respect it very very much. And I can't in any way disagree. I don't like very much the fact that children characters are been used in other ways (like the ones you've mentioned).
> When Zeke Shadowfyre bought up this point I got the true picture.
> I finally realized then when others hear the word "furry" they don't think about the cute, fuzzy, nice things, but of the other 'must-be-of-legal-age' things.
> 
> Sorry if posting this thread offended anybody?




You didn't. You made people talk.
Talking is good (To a point) when it has relevance.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 14, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> I read your response and I respect it very very much. And I can't in any way disagree. I don't like very much the fact that children characters are been used in other ways (like the ones you've mentioned).
> When Zeke Shadowfyre bought up this point I got the true picture.
> I finally realized then when others hear the word "furry" they don't think about the cute, fuzzy, nice things, but of the other 'must-be-of-legal-age' things.
> 
> Sorry if posting this thread offended anybody?



I'd be the first to say that I personally apologize if anyone takes offense to my overzealous nature in discussing this topic. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, and I don't think you have offending anyone really. I think people want you though to take the responses and learn from it. It's what I did when I was dealing with many haters who don't like us, trolls and non-trolls. I asked questions and paid close attention to the answers.

This gets under a lot of people's skin, this topic. It's a hot topic. That does not mean you offended anyone, you're curious. There is no harm in that. I'm actually glad that you made a thread and asked questions. It's better than sitting there and being puzzled as to why people react the way they do (or did in your other thread).


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 14, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You didn't. You made people talk.
> Talking is good (To a point) when it has relevance.



Talking helps stir up debate and discussion. It creates a breeding ground for positive criticism that we all can look at and learn from. To a point yeah it is good, so long as it is relevant.


----------



## BrothBone (Apr 14, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Talking helps stir up debate and discussion. It creates a breeding ground for positive criticism that we all can look at and learn from. To a point yeah it is good, so long as it is relevant.



Agree.


----------



## Vekke (Apr 14, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Why are you watching Disney movies anyways?
> 
> 
> Western animation is so shitty even compared to Eastern Europe.
> ...



first guy has an ugly style, second guy has a boring style and lazy animation

disney's nothing exciting, but it's not shitty in comparison to _powerpuff girls_.


----------



## Jelly (Apr 14, 2009)

John K is pretty shitty, too.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 14, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Flooding forums with obnoxiously retarded newfag threads is a form of trolling, it can be entertaining if it's done properly, this is just lazy though :V .


What ever happened to assuming good faith?

...if nothing else at least assume stupidity, not malice.


----------



## AlexInsane (Apr 14, 2009)

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it's probably semen.


----------



## Arcadium (Apr 14, 2009)

Jesus Fuck.

Listen, it's anthro. NOT FUCKING FURRY!

There's a difference. What next? Starfox? Sonic? Mickey Mouse? Anything that has to do with a talking animal?

Stop making threads!!!

Anthro, i'll say again, = Objects with human Characteristics. 


A Talking laptop = Anthro for example.


Anthro does not mean Talking animals and such.

Why people think this, i still have no idea!


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 15, 2009)

Vekke said:


> first guy has an ugly style, second guy has a boring style and lazy animation
> 
> disney's nothing exciting, but it's not shitty in comparison to _powerpuff girls_.





jellyhurwit said:


> John K is pretty shitty, too.



SHUT THE HELL UP BOTH OF YOU!!!! :weepy:

I'M TRYING TO TAKE AMERICA DOWN A PEG!


----------



## Shindo (Apr 15, 2009)

A disney movie is a disney movie, i think that these threads are pointless, and inconclusive.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 15, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> ..."If it looks like bacon, smells like bacon...."


Beggin' Strips(tm)!

*ahem*  Er, sorry.


----------



## NaraWerewulf (Apr 29, 2009)

RH is definetely a furry movie! The anatomy, behaviour, clothes... all furry. Its a shame that the movie is so underrated compared to other Disney movies, I have always liked Robin Hood.  Its such a feel good movie.


----------



## Ruko (May 1, 2009)

Still wondering who elected you guys president of the furry universe for what constitutes the correct definitions. It has always seemed pretty open ended to me.


http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+furry

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


----------



## Attaman (May 1, 2009)

Because if we don't, then technically those people who say Disney's Robin Hood is Furry are also arguing God Emperor Leto of Dune is a Furry, as well as the Raven from Edgar Allen Poe's short poem "The Raven", the Leeches from Resident Evil 0 count as Furries (when as a collective), the Gorilla from Dr. McNinja, the Pech-turned-Hookhorror from the 2nd Drizzt book, etc.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 1, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Still wondering who elected you guys president of the furry universe for what constitutes the correct definitions. It has always seemed pretty open ended to me.
> 
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+furry
> ...



The furry wiki article has already been established as moot.

Also, maybe instead of whining about "Well who made you all in charge" you could, I know know, refute what is said in here? If you don't care enough to argue why you think maybe we are wrong as a collective, and why the logic behind why we say "this, this, and this" not furry, and "this is"....don't bother posting. Basically contribute to discussion or get out.


----------



## Ruko (May 1, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Because if we don't, then technically those people who say Disney's Robin Hood is Furry are also arguing God Emperor Leto of Dune is a Furry, as well as the Raven from Edgar Allen Poe's short poem "The Raven", the Leeches from Resident Evil 0 count as Furries (when as a collective), the Gorilla from Dr. McNinja, the Pech-turned-Hookhorror from the 2nd Drizzt book, etc.



...and this is a problem, why? What does it matter what people think? Are we a cult now?




Trpdwarf said:


> The furry wiki article has already been established as moot.
> 
> Also, maybe instead of whining about "Well who made you all in charge" you could, I know know, refute what is said in here? If you don't care enough to argue why you think maybe we are wrong as a collective, and why the logic behind why we say "this, this, and this" not furry, and "this is"....don't bother posting. Basically contribute to discussion or get out.



If the wiki is moot, then why don't you correct it. Hence the _wiki_.  

What logic? There isn't any to argue against. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the few on this site, if it ain't drawn by an artist who is a member of the 'furry club' then then the art itself is not furry. Seriously? 

So, if a statue is molded, but not by a sculptor, then it really isn't a sculpture. If a guy wrote together a few lines of code for a website but doesn't consider himself a programmer, then his code isn't really code? If a guy plants an apple tree, but isn't a farmer, then the tree should no longer be consider a tree, because it wasn't planted by a farmer. 

Do you see what I'm getting at here. By this logic the only thing that matter is the origin; product does not matter. If a dude in a fur suit drew a picture of forest, it is now furry because, gasp, it was drawn by a 'member' of the fandom.


----------



## Attaman (May 1, 2009)

Ruko said:


> ...and this is a problem, why? What does it matter what people think? Are we a cult now?


  Because it's like looking at a duck, that sounds like a duck, and going "It must be a Walrus!"



> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the few on this site, if it ain't drawn by an artist who is a member of the 'furry club' then then the art itself is not furry. Seriously?


  You are wrong.  The most often definition I hear is _made for the fandom_, which is what I'm sticking with.  Not all Anthropomorphic Animals =/= Furry, but all Furries = Anthropomorphic Animal.  It's like all squares being rectangles, but not all rectangles being squares.  

The reason for this is because, as I showed with the examples before, some things make absolutely no sense to apply to the fandom.  I mean, if you want to try and argue this being a Furry, then be my guest.  I'll love to hear your argument.



> Do you see what I'm getting at here.


  Unfortunately, that is not what's being argued.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (May 1, 2009)

I don't like old Disney movies. :<

I can't find it anymore, but there's a youtube vid showing on how old Disney likes to copy paste.


----------



## pheonix (May 1, 2009)

They're animals that share characteristics of humans so yes it could be considered a furry movie.


----------



## Ruko (May 1, 2009)

> The reason for this is because, as I showed with the examples before, some things make absolutely no sense to apply to the fandom. I mean, if you want to try and argue this being a Furry, then be my guest.  I'll love to hear your argument.



Does it have fur? 

:facepalm:


----------



## Ozriel (May 1, 2009)

When someone implies that it is Furry (Made for the fandom, not covered in fur), then you attatch on every filthy stigma the fandom has to offer, ignoring the fact that the the shows with anthro animals are made for children.

So, if it is furry, I guess that we are held responsible for the rape of many childhood memories that most people my age and older hold dear. Bravo!! -sarcastic clap-

Now what else should we furries rape? I know, let's start with Chip 'n Dale's rescue rangers since it was made for the fandom!
 Shall we introduce shitting dick nipples and display them to the outsiders who loved the show growing up?


----------



## Ozriel (May 1, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Does it have fur?
> 
> :facepalm:



-facepalm headdesk-


Not all anthros are furry.
If it was made and it caters to the Furry fandom, then it is a furry character.
Example: My avatar.


----------



## Attaman (May 1, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Does it have fur?
> 
> :facepalm:



Oh look, now this is better suited for the Furry Fandom then this.

Also, this means Newf's character is not furry.  Have fun telling him that his 'sona is not a proper part of the fandom.


----------



## Ruko (May 2, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Oh look, now this is better suited for the Furry Fandom then this.
> 
> Also, this means Newf's character is not furry.  Have fun telling him that his 'sona is not a proper part of the fandom.



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scalie


----------



## pheonix (May 2, 2009)

Ruko said:


> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scalie



lol @ urbandictionary.

Does that mean scalies are gonna break off and make there own fandom?


----------



## Attaman (May 2, 2009)

Ruko said:


> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scalie



As Phoenix said, do you believe that the second image I posted and people like Newf should be kicked out of the Furry Fandom and forced to into their own Scalie Fandom?


----------



## Ruko (May 2, 2009)

You can be a member of the fandom, but not be furry. I think the problem is trying to make the two words synonymous with each other. There is the "Furry Fandom" (capitol F) and "furry", the fandom is all-in-composing as far as furries, scalies, avians or whatever. A furry actually has fur. If I may quote you,   "It's like all squares being rectangles, but not all rectangles being squares." 



> So, if it is furry, I guess that we are held responsible for the rape of many childhood memories that most people my age and older hold dear. Bravo!! -sarcastic clap-
> 
> Now what else should we furries rape? I know, let's start with Chip 'n Dale's rescue rangers since it was made for the fandom!
> Shall we introduce shitting dick nipples and display them to the outsiders who loved the show growing up?



I don't get this argument. Rule 34 is not exclusive to only using "furries" Anything and everything can have "shitting dick nipples" (including barbies and G.I. Joe). You act like rule 34 is tainting furries, when in fact its entire point is to taint everything including both antro and non-anthro stuff.


----------



## Ozriel (May 2, 2009)

Ruko said:


> You can be a member of the fandom, but not be furry. I think the problem is trying to make the two words synonymous with each other. There is the "Furry Fandom" (capitol F) and "furry", the fandom is all-in-composing as far as furries, scalies, avians or whatever. A furry actually has fur. If I may quote you,   "It's like all squares being rectangles, but not all rectangles being squares."
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get this argument. Rule 34 is not exclusive to only using "furries" Anything and everything can have "shitting dick nipples" (including barbies and G.I. Joe). You act like rule 34 is tainting furries, when in fact its entire point is to taint everything including both antro and non-anthro stuff.



Furries are like a venereal disease when it comes to fanboyism. Once it has been raped, it becomes infected with the stigma most associate with furries.
And a repeated bonus to all of the new fags: If it is made for the fandom, it is furry. Not all anthros are furry. I am and several people here are not using "Furry" as an adjective to state that if it has fur, it is a furry. 

We already have artists that cater to the fandom as it is.


----------



## Ruko (May 3, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Furries are like a venereal disease when it comes to fanboyism. Once it has been raped, it becomes infected with the stigma most associate with furries.
> And a repeated bonus to all of the new fags: If it is made for the fandom, it is furry. Not all anthros are furry. I am and several people here are not using "Furry" as an adjective to state that if it has fur, it is a furry.
> 
> We already have artists that cater to the fandom as it is.



Thanks for repeating yourself, I see we've reached a circular argument. 

Let me pose a series of question to help you understand my thought process.

1) Let's say I draw a picture but never upload it to FA, or show it to anybody. Furry?
2) If I draw a dog and upload it to FA, then is it now Furry? 
3) Then I decide to 'take it back' and delete that picture from the servers, no longer furry? (it is no longer _for the fandom_)
4) What if I upload that same dog picture to photobucket and don't share it with the fandom? Not Furry?
5) My Avatar is that furry, why or why not?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Thanks for repeating yourself, I see we've reached a circular argument.
> 
> Let me pose a series of question to help you understand my thought process.
> 
> ...



It depends on what you as the artist/creator wants it to be. I know this was aimed at Zeke but i wanna give my opinionsso here it goes;

1: No, unless you want it to be furry.
2: If it is uploaded to FA most will probably make the assumption it is aimed  at the fandom, then assume it is furry.
3: Well if it is no longer for the fandom, and the file no longer exists, then i would say no, not furry.
4: I personlay wouldn't see it as furry if it was uploaded to photobucket, i would see it as a piece of art.
5: that depends, do YOU want it to be called furry?.


----------



## Ozriel (May 3, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Thanks for repeating yourself, I see we've reached a circular argument.


Because no one seems to understand. Several furries here have already stated the same goddamn thing I have stated.



> Let me pose a series of question to help you understand my thought process.



-eyeroll-



> 1) Let's say I draw a picture but never upload it to FA, or show it to anybody. Furry?


 If the intent behind it is FOR the furry fandom, then it is furry. I can draw a still life and upload it here just for people to see. Just because FA is a Furry art site doesn't mean that everything here is furry. There are tons of images (Such as WoW fan art) that has been uploaded here. It does not make it furry.


> 2) If I draw a dog and upload it to FA, then is it now Furry?


-See question 1


> 3) Then I decide to 'take it back' and delete that picture from the servers, no longer furry? (it is no longer _for the fandom_)


Retarded question and a repeat answer: 
"If the intent behind it was for the fandom, it is furry", even if you delete the image from the site


> 4) What if I upload that same dog picture to photobucket and don't share it with the fandom? Not Furry?


-See answer for question 3


> 5) My Avatar is that furry, why or why not?



-facepalm- Repeat question, see answers from question 1, and 3.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 3, 2009)

Put me down for another "It's only furry if it was made for the furry fandom".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2009)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Put me down for another "It's only furry if it was made for the furry fandom".



Is it just me or are more and more furs jumping on the bandwagon for "It is only furry if it was amde for the furry fandom"?


----------



## HoneyPup (May 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Is it just me or are more and more furs jumping on the bandwagon for "It is only furry if it was amde for the furry fandom"?


Yes it seems like it. 

I'm with Ruko on this one. If it looks furry, its furry. And I agree with this comment from pheonix:



pheonix said:


> They're animals that share characteristics of humans so yes it could be considered a furry movie.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> Yes it seems like it.
> 
> I'm with Ruko on this one. If it looks furry, its furry. And I agree with this comment from pheonix:



I see the link you are makeing, even if the technical term is anthropomorphic, furry is the likeing of human-like animals, aka anthro's. Although i prefere to use the technical terms for it.


----------



## Ruko (May 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It depends on what you as the artist/creator wants it to be. I know this was aimed at Zeke but i wanna give my opinions so here it goes;



Thanks, I actually wanted more than one opinion, because I'm sure Zeke's doesn't speak for everyone. I'll wait and see if a few more people reply with their thoughts to those 5 questions



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Because no one seems to understand. Several furries here have already stated the same goddamn thing I have stated.
> 
> -eyeroll-



And several have not 'stated the same goddamn thing.' There is confusion, otherwise this thread would not have been made by the OP (twice for that matter).

... and , back to you too.


----------



## HoneyPup (May 3, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> If the intent behind it is FOR the furry fandom, then it is furry. I can draw a still life and upload it here just for people to see. Just because FA is a Furry art site doesn't mean that everything here is furry. There are tons of images (Such as WoW fan art) that has been uploaded here. It does not make it furry.


What?
This site is for the furry fandom. If anything is posted here, no matter what the content, it is for the fandom.
"If the intent behind it is FOR the furry fandom, then it is furry"
contradicts
"Just because FA is a Furry art site doesn't mean that everything here is furry"

Your argument makes little sense.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> What?
> This site is for the furry fandom. If anything is posted here, no matter what the content, it is for the fandom.
> "If the intent behind it is FOR the furry fandom, then it is furry"
> contradicts
> ...



Zeke's statement makes sense to me. I mean if we go by your theory pup, basicaly you're saying that, lets say for example, if i went outside right now, took a photo of my house, posted it on FA that it would be furry, just because it is on the site?, i think that is the sort of point Zeke is trying to make.


----------



## Attaman (May 3, 2009)

Hey guess what?  




John Booth is now part of the Furry Fandom!  

And Ruko, Randy said the exact same thing Zeke did.  "If the intent behind it is FOR the furry fandom, then it is furry." is the same as "It depends on what you as the artist/creator wants it to be."


----------



## Ozriel (May 3, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> What?
> This site is for the furry fandom. If anything is posted here, no matter what the content, it is for the fandom.
> "If the intent behind it is FOR the furry fandom, then it is furry"
> contradicts
> ...



Your reasoning makes little sense.
here's why:

I had commissioned a person on the site...you know about Kyoht, right? She does WoW character art and I had commissioned her and she uploaded it to FA
so...
THIS IS FURRY!!?
What kind of logic is that?

So my Blood Elf Death Knight is now a furry?
Does this means that if Draw/commission my friend who also has a WoW character and upload it here, does that make it furry too?


----------



## Ozriel (May 3, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Thanks, I actually wanted more than one opinion, because I'm sure Zeke's doesn't speak for everyone. I'll wait and see if a few more people reply with their thoughts to those 5 questions
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ITT: newfag furries spreading the Furnereal disease and labeling everything furry.

Yes, others in this thread have said the same thing, not my fault you sped through the thread.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Your reasoning makes little sense.
> here's why:
> 
> I had commissioned a person on the site...you know about Kyoht, right? She does WoW character art and I had commissioned her and she uploaded it to FA
> ...



Maybe we should post photo's of our cars on FA cause then they'll be furry *hint of sarcasm*

I am still with Zeke on this, when i can come up with another comparison i will post it. But yeah, just cause it is in someones gallery on FA doesn't make it furrie.


----------



## Ozriel (May 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Maybe we should post photo's of our cars on FA cause then they'll be furry *hint of sarcasm*
> 
> I am still with Zeke on this, when i can come up with another comparison i will post it. But yeah, just cause it is in someones gallery on FA doesn't make it furrie.



Or maybe I should post  picture of my house too since it qualifies as being furry too. /added sacrasm

There are other artists here that do non-anthro art, I've seen a person do fan art of a Claymore character and I've seen lots of WoW fan art on the site.


----------



## HoneyPup (May 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Zeke's statement makes sense to me. I mean if we go by your theory pup, basicaly you're saying that, lets say for example, if i went outside right now, took a photo of my house, posted it on FA that it would be furry, just because it is on the site?, i think that is the sort of point Zeke is trying to make.


Not my theory; I was just trying to make sense out of what Zeke said. Your picture of your house would NOT be furry, but if its posted on this site it would be for the fandom, because you are sharing it with other furries. That does not make your house furry. Which is the point Ruko was trying to make earlier.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> Not my theory; I was just trying to make sense out of what Zeke said. Your picture of your house would NOT be furry, but if its posted on this site it would be for the fandom, because you are sharing it with other furries. That does not make your house furry. Which is the point Ruko was trying to make earlier.



Ah right, sorry, i am starting to make sense out of it all now. Although, if i put a pic of my house on FA, to me i'd just be shareing cause i wouldn't be putting it there with intent just to share it with fandom alone (cause if i did do such a thing id post the pics on other sites to such as photobucket ^^).


----------



## Ruko (May 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> if i went outside right now, took a photo of my house, posted it on FA that it would be furry, just because it is on the site?, i think that is the sort of point Zeke is trying to make.





Attaman said:


> John Booth is now part of the Furry Fandom!





Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Your reasoning makes little sense.
> here's why:
> 
> I had commissioned a person on the site...you know about Kyoht, right? She does WoW character art and I had commissioned her and she uploaded it to FA
> ...




  Holy cow, its about time. THIS is exactly my point. Houses, cars and John Booth all fit into the current definition of "For the Fandom, if the author _wants it to be_." Furry should be defined as exactly what it is, not by who the artist is and not what the intent is.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 3, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Holy cow, its about time. THIS is exactly my point. Houses, cars and John Booth all fit into the current definition of "For the Fandom, if the author _wants it to be_." Furry should be defined as exactly what it is, not by who the artist is and not what the intent is.



Sheesh, i am either uber tired or my brain is completely dead today, i just had to read that like five times over before i got what you meant >.<.

EDIT: I feel like a complete retard for not getting what was being said in this thread today >.<


----------



## Ruko (May 3, 2009)

its okay, I'm just glad somebody gets what I'm saying.


----------



## Ozriel (May 3, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Holy cow, its about time. THIS is exactly my point. Houses, cars and John Booth all fit into the current definition of "For the Fandom, if the author _wants it to be_." Furry should be defined as exactly what it is, not by who the artist is and not what the intent is.



-facepalm-

Intention and Perspective, dammit!


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 3, 2009)

By prettylilpup





> Not my theory; I was just trying to make sense out of what Zeke said. Your picture of your house would NOT be furry, but if its posted on this site it would be for the fandom, because you are sharing it with other furries. That does not make your house furry. Which is the point Ruko was trying to make earlier.


I'm going to stop right here with this bit.

Just because someone posts something on a furry side, does not mean it is furry even if you are sharing.

By your flawed inane logic, if someone uploads a picture of Gex from a video game, and shares the picture they made as a fan-art, Gex would suddenly be furry. I'm sorry, the only person who as the ability to decide if Gex is for the fandom or not, is the person who made it. But, the intended audience was gamers....so even if you make fan-art of something and host it here, that does not make it any more furry than a picture of some one's house or a video-game persona/character.

What we create for ourselves that is not fan-art of what we do not own, can never be labeled (by us) Furry as in for the "Furry Fandom". Anyone who thinks otherwise....GTFO and stop being a cancer, and stop making us look bad, and stop making people hate us by running around and saying "OMG! SPYRO IS SO HOT! ITS FURRY!" You ruin it for everyone else.

If I make fan-art of Gex, I do not own the character. I cannot say it is Furry or associate it with the fandom because I do not own that character's copyright. If I create my own persona, such as Y'Knossos my dragon persona, I can call that furry because I intended it to be for the fur fandom. I am making a fur-suit of it, and art that is commissioned? I own the character, I can say what it is or is not.

You cannot just yank what is not yours, draw fan art of it, and then expect to be able to call it furry because it's not your place.

I deal with another quote in this post as well:
By Ruko





> Holy cow, its about time. THIS is exactly my point. Houses, cars and John Booth all fit into the current definition of "For the Fandom, if the author _wants it to be_." Furry should be defined as exactly what it is, not by who the artist is and not what the intent is.



If it is not anthropmorphic animal related, it cannot be furry. Houses and cars posted on FA are not furry not just because they were not made for the fandom, but also because they are not related to the actual art. I really wish more of you newbies would do your research before jumping in the fandom. If you tell me you are not a newbie, I'm going to call BS because this is really elementary stuff.

Furry Fandom is about ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIMAL
ANTHROPOMORPHIC: means it has human attributes added to it.
If you combine the two together you get a animals that have human characteristics, often sentience, ability to think complexly, and so forth and so on.
The Furry Fandom is about being a fan of Anthro Art. It is what the entire fandom is based around. So if something is made that is not associated with Anthro ART it automatically no matter what the creator says, is not furry.

Like-wise, every furry thing is an anthro animal. That does not work in reverse. Not every anthro animal is furry though. That is because the decision of what it is or is not, lies with the artist, hence intent. I can decide wether or not my character is furry because I won it. However I cannot decide that Gex is furry, because I don't own gex. I don't care how much porn furries make of Gex, or how much fan-art they do and post here on FA, it is not furry because the creator never made the statement of intention. All we know about Gex is that he was intended for gamers.....

When you start going around calling everything furry you run into a problem where you are basically stealing characters made not for us, and forcing it to be associated with us and that opens a nasty can of worms.


----------



## HoneyPup (May 3, 2009)

trpdwarf, I don't think you understood my post. I was saying that the house would not be furry, not that it would be.


----------



## Ruko (May 3, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> If it is not anthropmorphic animal related, it cannot be furry. Houses and cars posted on FA are not furry not just because they were not made for the fandom, but also because they are not related to the actual art.



Agreed. Thank you. 



Trpdwarf said:


> Furry Fandom is about ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIMAL
> ANTHROPOMORPHIC: means it has human attributes added to it.
> If you combine the two together you get a animals that have human characteristics, often sentience, ability to think complexly, and so forth and so on.
> The Furry Fandom is about being a fan of Anthro Art. It is what the entire fandom is based around. So if something is made that is not associated with Anthro ART it automatically no matter what the creator says, is not furry.



Exactly, once again, I agree. 



Trpdwarf said:


> Like-wise, every furry thing is an anthro animal. That does not work in reverse. Not every anthro animal is furry though. That is because the decision of what it is or is not, lies with the artist, hence intent. I can decide wether or not my character is furry because I won it. However I cannot decide that Gex is furry, because I don't own gex. I don't care how much porn furries make of Gex, or how much fan-art they do and post here on FA, it is not furry because *the creator never made the statement of intention. *All we know about Gex is that he was intended for gamers.....
> 
> When you start going around *calling everything furry* you run into a problem where you are basically* stealing *characters made not for us, and forcing it to be associated with us and that opens a nasty can of worms.


 
Here is where we diverge.

Ok, I'll be sure to make a declarative statement, that "I hearby proclaim my art to be Furry." Each and every time I make a submission. Just so everybody knows my intentions. 

Maybe our definitions of stealing are different, but I don't consider name-calling stealing. Libel, maybe, just maybe, but definitely not stealing. 

Here is my definition for furry that I use: a fan of anthro art. Thats it. Simple, to the point, I don't have to go hunt down the artist and ask her "did you declare this furry??" and its not so cot-damned open-ended. 

You're not persuading me, and I'm not making an impact on you. So, unless there are any more comments, you can consider this dead.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 3, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Agreed. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Furry is a person who is a member of the furry fandom, but only by consent.
Furry is a name for a fandom, encompassing it's members, and it's own self created art.
Furry is a name for a type of anthropomorphic animal art created with the intent to cater to members of the Furry Fandom, who are also called furries themselves. Does it not occur to you the different meanings?

Having been a fur for 9 years those are the most basic, generalizations I could come up with and that is after sifting through over a 100 personal opinions/tl;drs of how they view the word and the fandom. You do not simply call furry "A fan of anthro art" because there thousands of fans of anthro-art that are not furry. You have to consciously choose to be a part of this fandom.

So when you start saying "Well if they are a fan of anthro art they are furry" You are forcing our stigma on people without bothering to ask. That's selfish. Understand, to be a furry is a conscious thing, never an auto-association.

I had a friend who was a fan of anthro art. She drew my original concept art. That was intended for me, and my furry character so the art was furry but the artist was not. However later on she became interested in joining the fandom, and so she made the conscious choice to become a furry. Think about that.

Goldenwolf, is a well known artist who creates furry art for furries for the right price...but she's not a furry herself. She's a Therian. She also sort of hates furries because of the stigma I think, that gets thrown on her for her art. She's a fan of anthro art....

So, still going to use your little flawed defination?


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> trpdwarf, I don't think you understood my post. I was saying that the house would not be furry, not that it would be.



I read your post as is. So sorry if you did not word it correctly to come out how you intend it.

Regardless, that something is uploaded to FA means nothing. I think that was the original sentiment.

I'm a fan of Gex. I love the games. If I were a good artist and I made a picture tribute of Gex, and uploaded it on FA, that would not be a furry picture.

I do not own that character. So even if I am sharing the picture with other furries it falls under the terminology of fan art. I think the reason many people get catty about this is because so many furries run around calling characters from movies, games, books, ect furry just because they drew a picture and shared it here, or made porn of it. They completely ignore that they don't own the character so no matter how much they draw and share it, it still is only fan-art, not furry.

It is and will only be Fan-art until the original creator of the character in question says "Yeah, it's furry" because then they admit they are targeting the furry fandom as it's target audience.

If you want to know why some people take this so seriously, tell me. I'll tell you about the consequences the furry fandom faced and still faces from auto-labeling characters they don't own as furry, and artists as well. I'll tell you why Goldenwolf hates furries, and why gamers do too. I'll tell you why Anime cons are either "Nuetral" or "GTFO" towards any sort of animal-esque costumes (even if it is modeled after something in a game, movie, anime, ect) and why that is the fault of furries and their auto-labeling. I'll tell you about how Anonymous hacked several many accounts of non-furry people just because they happened to like or have loaded up a few pictures of anthro-animal art.


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Furry is a person who is a member of the furry fandom, but only by consent.
> Furry is a name for a fandom, encompassing it's members, and it's own self created art.
> Furry is a name for a type of anthropomorphic animal art created with the intent to cater to members of the Furry Fandom, who are also called furries themselves. Does it not occur to you the different meanings?
> 
> ...



I was assuming this was a given and I was talking about self-labeling. But yes, you are right, you can't call _other people_ furs unless they have to chosen to be called this.


You really like that word, stigma. Everything has a stigma, gamers, anime fanatics, gays, trekkies, you act like it is something that only hurts furries. Dude, its everywhere. Yet furries are the only ones complaining, bunch of whiners. Just do your best to educate and move along.


----------



## HoneyPup (May 4, 2009)

Trpdwarf, I actually agree with what you are saying. You keep going on and on as if I don't get it, but I do, which shows you still didn't understand my post to start with. 

Let me explain my point with the house, compared to your example of Gex.

If I post a fanart picture of Gex on here that does not make him a furry, even though he is anthropomorphic. It's fan art as you said. I'm sharing it with the fandom.
If I post a picture of my house on FA, its still just a house, not furry. I'm still sharing it with the fandom. 

What happened here was you jumped in to the conversation taking my words that I were saying to try to make sense of what another member said.

I said earlier:


> What?
> This site is for the furry fandom. If anything is posted here, no matter what the content, it is for the fandom.
> "If the intent behind it is FOR the furry fandom, then it is furry"
> contradicts
> ...



in response to this:


> If the intent behind it is FOR the furry fandom, then it is furry. I can draw a still life and upload it here just for people to see. Just because FA is a Furry art site doesn't mean that everything here is furry. There are tons of images (Such as WoW fan art) that has been uploaded here. It does not make it furry.



to state that just because something is intended to be viewed by the furry fandom does not make it furry. Furries look at a bunch of fanart, but the original characters are still not furry. If I draw a picture of Robin Hood for other furries to view, the character does not become furry just because I drew him for furries. It's still just fanart.

What I'm saying in case you still don't get it: for the most part, I agree with you! My argument was *something can be drawn for the fandom and still not be furry. Anything posted on FurAffinity is for the fandom, but not everything posted here is furry!*


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> I was assuming this was a given and I was talking about self-labeling. But yes, you are right, you can't call _other people_ furs unless they have to chosen to be called this.
> 
> 
> You really like that word, stigma. Everything has a stigma, gamers, anime fanatics, gays, trekkies, you act like it is something that only hurts furries. Dude, its everywhere. Yet furries are the only ones complaining, bunch of whiners. Just do your best to educate and move along.



Stop assuming. It's that simple. Assuming is part of what gets furries into a huge mess. Don't assume, ask, seek, research...it's not that hard.

Yeah, well I care enough to point out to people, especially newbies what causes us to have a stigma that we do. Also, furries are not the only ones who complain. Look at the Twilight Fandom...not only do they verbally harass any person stupid enough to be honest about what they think about the book series, but there have been multiple cases around the world, where these fan people actually get violent and attack people for not liking the book series. I have a close friend who was nearly shoved down a flight of stairs by a 500 pount twilight fan who did not like that my friend answered her quesiton "Of what do you think of twilight".

They are on par and equal to the whining and bawwing you get in the furry fandom but they are more violent than we are.

WoW players whine and bitch constantly in some circles because they are tired of being auto labeled with the "Fat, socially inept, lifeless idiot" amongst other things. You cannot say you play WoW without dozens of people jumping on you and saying things that are not exactly fair. I know this. People do it to me but....I do have a real social, a real circle of friends, I'm actually in shape, and I don't treat WoW as a life but I've seen quite a bit of negativity here from furries the moment the subject is brought up but it's the same everywhere online no matter where I go.

You cannot play a female character without being assumed to be a guy. I get into raids or instance groups and everyone calls me a "He" because they actually assume I am he, and are all surprised when I point out "I'm a she, and if you don't believe I can hook up my mike and use the chat option". Lots of people bitch about that though. The classes, the assumtions non WoW players make along with the WoW players themselves who assume about each other based on stereotype.

The funny thing is thought the whole "Whining" thing is irrelevant. The only person really whining is you. You've done it in other threads to. Try to practice what you preach because if you side with education as an answer try actually engaging in conversation and discussion more often instead of taking pot-shots and hoping no one will notice.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> Trpdwarf, I actually agree with what you are saying. You keep going on and on as if I don't get it, but I do, which shows you still didn't understand my post to start with.
> 
> Let me explain my point with the house, compared to your example of Gex.
> 
> ...



I could not tell if you were agreeing or not, but what I was bringing up dealt with something the others had not exactly touched topic on. The others dealt with one aspect of things, I just wanted to ensure the other half was covered too. So sorry if it seemed like I was treating you as though you were not listening, I was not. I just wanted all bases covered.


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Stop assuming. It's that simple. Assuming is part of what gets furries into a huge mess. Don't assume, ask, seek, research...it's not that hard.


... You assumed I was talking about others, when I was taking about self-labeling. Works both ways.



> Yeah, well I care enough to point out to people, especially newbies what causes us to have a stigma that we do. Also, furries are not the only ones who complain. Look at the Twilight Fandom...not only do they verbally harass any person stupid enough to be honest about what they think about the book series, but there have been multiple cases around the world, where these fan people actually get violent and attack people for not liking the book series. I have a close friend who was nearly shoved down a flight of stairs by a 500 pount twilight fan who did not like that my friend answered her quesiton "Of what do you think of twilight".
> 
> They are on par and equal to the whining and bawwing you get in the furry fandom but they are more violent than we are.
> 
> ...


I don't know what Twilight is (besides it being some Vampire book/movie), but if you say those people whine more, I'll just take your word for it.



> The funny thing is thought the whole "Whining" thing is irrelevant. The only person really whining is you. You've done it in other threads to. Try to practice what you preach because if you side with education as an answer try actually *engaging in conversation* and discussion more often instead of taking pot-shots and hoping no one will notice.


bwhaha, wow.  Please madam, show me this whining you speak of. 
Conversation is two sided, its pretty apparent with your wall posts above mine with Prettylilpup, that you don't read. Instead you argue, when she was agreeing with you. If you want to be a troll or a tough guy that fine, but if anybody needs to be practicing what they preach it's YOU. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> ... You assumed I was talking about others, when I was taking about self-labeling. Works both ways.
> 
> I don't know what Twilight is, but if you say those people whine more, I'll just take your word for it.
> 
> ...



Twilighter's reaction to what Stephen King said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQ2h4hrors
Also reaction to people in "Fandom" who dislike new book breaking dawn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-turfrcQY-w

Deals with reactions on other boards, a collab sort of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x76wjCa__R8



> _*Still wondering who elected you guys president of the furry universe for what constitutes the correct definitions*. It has always seemed pretty open ended to me.
> 
> ...             _





> _Some of y'all really have a stick up your ass._


There are the two most recent ones I have seen of your posts, and I don't see your posts often (I"m not here often honestly) but both times you seemed to have something on your mind and rather than actually get into it you just took pot-shots that came across to me as slightly whiny.

The whole "Well who made you president" thing is a common thing furries whine when they get upset that someone wants to point out what is and is not furry and using stuff to back them up that is logically sound. You could you know, refute what we have to say and actually talk more about it instead of pulling the "Well who made you high and mighty" cliche.

The other one, rather than say something to contribute, you just tell people in a way to relax. Seen that before by furries, who don't want to deal with any sort of discussion when it comes to furry things. If people have "Stick in their ass" you could ask why and understand why the act that way. Instead it comes of as "Whine you guys are too serious" which can be a direct translation.

Even now, in this thread, you skip around and start going on about "Well everyone has a stigma/educate" when it's not even relevant to what is being discussed. It sounds whiny. Tell people to try to educate when that is what they are doing. What you want people to educate others, non furries? What better than to educate the furries first as to their own fandom.



> Yet furries are the only ones complaining, bunch of whiners. Just do your best to educate and move along.


Whine that furries are whining, but you're the one who's making it an issue when people try to educate. As seen with above quotes "You have a stick in your ass" "WHo elected..."

I think I'm done here, also you might have read futher. I replied to Prettylilpup to show her I was not responding to her in thinking she was not listening, just closing some loose ends so all bases were covered.

You have a good day.

EDIt: Will link links spoken of earlier in this post...stand by for copypasta...done.
You can find much much more, I just posted a small taste of the bigger picture when it comes to the problems within the Twilight Fandom.


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

> There are the two most recent ones I have seen of your posts, and I don't see your posts often (I"m not here often honestly) but both times you seemed to have something on your mind and rather than actually get into it you just took pot-shots that came across to me as slightly whiny.
> 
> The whole "Well who made you president" thing is a common thing furries whine when they get upset that someone wants to point out what is and is not furry and using stuff to back them up that is logically sound. You could you know, *refute what we have to say and actually talk more about it* instead of pulling the "Well who made you high and mighty" cliche.
> 
> The other one, rather than say something to contribute, you just tell people in a way to relax. Seen that before by furries, who don't want to deal with any sort of discussion when it comes to furry things. If people have "Stick in their ass" you could ask why and understand why the act that way. Instead it comes of as "Whine you guys are too serious" which can be a direct translation.



Done and Done. Hence the reason this thread is on 4 pages. 


> Even now, in this thread, you skip around and start going on about "Well everyone has a stigma/educate" when it's not even relevant to what is being discussed. It sounds whiny. Tell people to try to educate when that is what they are doing. What you want people to educate others, non furries? What better than to educate the furries first as to their own fandom.



You brought it up, so I commented. If its not relevent, then don't bring up stigmatization?



> WoW players whine and bitch constantly in some circles because they are tired of being auto labeled with the "Fat, socially inept, lifeless idiot" amongst other things. You cannot say you play WoW without dozens of people jumping on you and saying things that are not exactly fair. I know this. People do it to me but....I do have a real social, a real circle of friends, I'm actually in shape, and I don't treat WoW as a life but I've seen quite a bit of negativity here from furries the moment the subject is brought up but it's the same everywhere online no matter where I go.
> 
> You cannot play a female character without being assumed to be a guy. I get into raids or instance groups and everyone calls me a "He" because they actually assume I am he, and are all surprised when I point out "I'm a she, and if you don't believe I can hook up my mike and use the chat option". Lots of people bitch about that though. The classes, the assumtions non WoW players make along with the WoW players themselves who assume about each other based on stereotype.





> By your flawed inane logic, if someone uploads a picture of Gex from a video game, and shares the picture they made as a fan-art, Gex would suddenly be furry. I'm sorry, the only person who as the ability to decide if Gex is for the fandom or not, is the person who made it. But, the intended audience was gamers....so even if you make fan-art of something and host it here, that does not make it any more furry than a picture of some one's house or a video-game persona/character.
> 
> What we create for ourselves that is not fan-art of what we do not own, can never be labeled (by us) Furry as in for the "Furry Fandom". Anyone who thinks otherwise....GTFO and stop being a cancer, and stop making us look bad, and stop making people hate us by running around and saying "OMG! SPYRO IS SO HOT! ITS FURRY!" You ruin it for everyone else.



Only going from this page and not needing to look further you have whined about what other people are doing to Gex the lizard, and whining what people think of you in warcraft. If I may quote you again, "Try to practice what you preach"

This has gotten so far far off topic, a mod just needs to lock it at this point.

I appreciate the youtube links, btw


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Done and Done. Hence the reason this thread is on 4 pages.
> 
> 
> You brought it up, so I commented. If its not relevent, then don't bring up stigmatization?
> ...



There is a difference between "Discussion" and "Whining".

Learn it.

Oh, and you are welcome. Go back to the den and find the thing bout how to react to trolls. I found some really good remixes and linked them. The first one is epic..


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

When you start putting a personal stake into, it shift away from discussion and into whiny territory. 

But, yeah.  Are you talking about the PaxilRose trolling thread? There was indeed some good stuff in there.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> When you start putting a personal stake into, it shift away from discussion and into whiny territory.
> 
> But, yeah.  Are you talking about the PaxilRose trolling thread? There was indeed some good stuff in there.



It does become personal when furfags cross into territory they don't own. I'm a gamer. I've been one since I was five and first held a Nintendo Controller.

I bring up instances in which furfags cross into territory and label things they don't own as examples. I use examples I know best. Furries, I have seen them argue this, that if they make porn of let us say Bolt or Sypro, it is automatically furry...they do this a lot to games and many gamer hate the fandom for it.

You have furfags cross into something you grew up loving and see them trash it, you might find it crossing into personal territory and react. Yes I put my own stake in it but in a civil/discussion kind of way. These are examples to help push the intended message. To explain the consequences of certain actions. That's not whining. That's educating.

Sort of, it's the one talking about "How to react to trolling"...I found a remix of one of the famous lines of the whale, and it set to a nice beat. But yeah, the more you look into the twilight fandom, the more see a distorted image bounced back resembling the fur fandom. People rage over stupid shit and then don't care when something important crops up.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

I don't think this thread is going anywhere fast, It almost seems like the arguement is turning circles xD. I think most of us get the point now includeing the OP.


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

> It does become personal when furfags cross into territory they don't own. I'm a gamer. I've been one since I was five and first held a Nintendo Controller.


OMG, me too. 



> You have furfags cross into something you grew up loving and see them trash it, you might find it crossing into personal territory and react. Yes I put my own stake in it but in a civil/discussion kind of way. These are examples to help push the intended message


If you can't laugh at yourself, then who can you laugh at? 

These so called gamer friends of yours, really rage at game porn? really? Sound like these sad saps have as much issues as these Twilight people you are talking about. If somebody can't find humor in something they hold dear, then god help them. I mean its video games for crying out loud. Does some random Sonic the Hedgehog porn really scar somebody that bad, that they can't play Sonic anymore? 

As I said way earlier in this thread, porn isn't unique to using only furry-like characters. They got G.I. Joe porn, they got Batman porn, hell, they even got swine flu porn (NSFW). By definition rule 34 is everything. 



> People rage over stupid shit and then don't care when something important crops up.


example?


----------



## HoneyPup (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> These so called gamer friends of yours, really rage at game porn? really? Sound like these sad saps have as much issues as these Twilight people you are talking about. If somebody can't find humor in something they hold dear, then god help them. I mean its video games for crying out loud. Does some random Sonic the Hedgehog porn really scar somebody that bad, that they can't play Sonic anymore?



And most likely the ones making these images are gamers themselves, not people with the intention of pissing off gamers.


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> OMG, me too.
> 
> If you can't laugh at yourself, then who can you laugh at?
> 
> ...



I guess you do not understand when people associate good things with things they grew up with. I grew up with Sonic the hedgehog as a kid. I watched the Sonic SatAM cartoons, read the comics and owned a few of the games. When you see someone trash it, they do not even appreciate the games and the Characters and trash it for everyone. I can't look at Sonic the same way others would, same with the Spyro Series, and the Bloody Roar Series I loved growing up.

And another parallel is when I found a Lifelike husky plushie at a Hobby store, and I remember wanting it because it looked so cool. It was ruined for me because some plushophille/bestialphille had put it on auction on furbid with modified parts for sex. I Can't look at it without remembering what they had done to it.

When it comes to certain things, it is better to keep it private. We have to be careful how we label things and not push it on others, something that not a lot of furries understand.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

I dn't know why gamers get so worked up over it. They complain furries are so whiney yet they whine themselves. No one actually tells them to click on that thumbnail that has sonic porn in it. They do it through choice. And before anyone says "the internet is full of it" Thats bull, For one if you don't wan't to find the porn, set your browser filter to filter it. 

Most art sites (if not all) have a warning on the front page about ADULT content. People make a concious choice wether to click on a thumbnail, or enter a site. If you suspect a site to contain stuff you do not want to see, don't go there. Stay away from Fchan, and lulz.net, don't go on the FA site and many other sites. 

The only places i have found furry porn on my travels is on well known sites. so i don't believe it when gamers (and those who whine about ruining their childhood cartoons) say that "furry porn is everywhere!". Nuff said for now.

If anyone can prove me wrong, i'll be waiting.


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> And most likely the ones making these images are gamers themselves, not people with the intention of pissing off gamers.



Ummm, I can find a lot of images that are Video game characters done by furries.


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I dn't know why gamers get so worked up over it. They complain furries are so whiney yet they whine themselves. No one actually tells them to click on that thumbnail that has sonic porn in it. They do it through choice. And before anyone says "the internet is full of it" Thats bull, For one if you don't wan't to find the porn, set your browser filter to filter it.
> 
> Most art sites (if not all) have a warning on the front page about ADULT content. People make a concious choice wether to click on a thumbnail, or enter a site. If you suspect a site to contain stuff you do not want to see, don't go there. Stay away from Fchan, and lulz.net, don't go on the FA site and many other sites.
> 
> ...



You can go seeking it, or unintentionally seeking it.
One of them is Google for unintentional seeking.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Ummm, I can find a lot of images that are Video game characters done by furries.



Even i can find them without trying, just go to Fchan.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You can go seeking it, or unintentionally seeking it.
> One of them is Google for unintentional seeking.



That is very true. But i have google set on moderate filtering, and i have found no sonic porn on the first page. Basicaly what i am saying, fi you don't want to see that sort of stuff unintentialy (mainly throiugh google) switch the filter to either strict filtering or moderate. It is so easy just to chage filter settings.

EDIT: I just ran an experiment with my filter on moderate filtering btw.
EDIT: I went through six pages, only found one pron pic, and that was quite soft.


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:
			
		

> I guess you do not understand when people associate good things with things they grew up with. I grew up with Sonic the hedgehog as a kid. I watched the Sonic SatAM cartoons, read the comics and owned a few of the games.



Sorry. This describes me too, I grew up with it too, just like you did. 



RandyDarkshade said:


> I dn't know why gamers get so worked up over it. They complain furries are so whiney yet they whine themselves. No one actually tells them to click on that thumbnail that has sonic porn in it. They do it through choice. And before anyone says "the internet is full of it" Thats bull, For one if you don't wan't to find the porn, set your browser filter to filter it.
> 
> Most art sites (if not all) have a warning on the front page about ADULT content. People make a concious choice wether to click on a thumbnail, or enter a site. If you suspect a site to contain stuff you do not want to see, don't go there. Stay away from Fchan, and lulz.net, don't go on the FA site and many other sites.
> 
> ...



Speaks the truth here. 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Ummm, I can find a lot of images that are Video game characters done by furries.



You do know that this statement can be taken as furries cannot be video gamers too, right? Because I'm sure half this site would LOVE to prove you wrong.


----------



## HoneyPup (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Ummm, I can find a lot of images that are Video game characters done by furries.


Furries can be gamers too.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

True pup, although i am not a gamer myself (nor an artist) But i do have furry friends who are big gamers.


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> You do know that this statement can be taken as furries cannot be video gamers too, right? Because I'm sure half this site would LOVE to prove you wrong.



That's not what I am trying to say, stop trying to weasel words.

What I am trying to say is that, you can find images here of Crystal porn that is done by a great deal of furries, same with Sonic the hedgehog.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That's not what I am trying to say, stop trying to weasel words.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that, you can find images here of Crystal porn that is done by a great deal of furries, same with Sonic the hedgehog.



I see what Zeke is saying. I do often wonder why so many artists draw pron material. What is wrong with perfectly good "clean" stuff?


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I see what Zeke is saying. I do often wonder why so many artists draw pron material. What is wrong with perfectly good "clean" stuff?



I like clean stuffs. You know, Just Sonic in an action pose with Shadow beside him, or Spyro flying in the air beside Sparx.

I used to draw fan Art of Crash bandicoot and the Ninja turtles when I was younger.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I like clean stuffs. You know, Just Sonic in an action pose with Shadow beside him, or Spyro flying in the air beside Sparx.
> 
> I used to draw fan Art of Crash bandicoot and the Ninja turtles when I was younger.



I admit to likeing pron stuff, but i prefere the sorta stuff where the female is solo in somesort of pose. And NOT the hardcor cum covered crap, or over exaggerated body parts. 

It would be nice if artists produced much more clean art for a change. I've been concentrating on webcomics lately, been getting bored of the pron stuffs myself. 

I understand perfectly why gamers and alike get upset when they stumble across pron of their favourite animation/game characters. But what bugs me is when they whine about it. It bugs me as much as whiney furries.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> OMG, me too.
> 
> If you can't laugh at yourself, then who can you laugh at?
> 
> ...



First of all, there is a time and a place for humor. This is not the time or place this specific discussion. So drop the "Just laugh at it" stick.

I don't consider ruining innocence for other people something to laugh at. I never brought up "gamer friends". Trying going to some gamer forums and saying you are a fan of Star-Fox...and you might find much hostility because gamers don't like what furries do to game characters. It's not so much that they make porn, but that people cannot like something anymore like Star Fox, or Gex, or Sypro, or Rachet and Clank, or Crash Bandicoot, or Sonic, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with out being auto-tagged as a furfag and dealing with our stigma and having to say over and over again "No I'm not into that. No I don't like porn of that."

I know an anthro artist, who was contantly harrassed becuse she made anthro art, but she is not a furry and did not like being called a furry. She later on became a furry but...see how that is online? You cannot draw the stuff without dealing with being auto-labeled. Many people in the real world deal with the same issue in areas where people have seen Vanity Fair, CSI, and MTV's portrayal of the furry fandom. So they have to resort to keeping a general interest secret, or deal with being labeled a furry.

Apparently you don't know the feeling of keeping certain things sacred. Memories from your childhood, characters that inspired you, made you smile, or cry, laugh, or made you later on want to be come a part of the fandom because you want to be part of a bigger thing that celebrates what you love.

But the moment you come in here to the fandom you are faced with a huge slap on your face, and you get your eyes gouged out, and your childhood memories raped. You don't really find people who truly appreciate what you love easily. It's like going through an awesome game with a deep mythos and story line, such as Xenosaga I, II, III, IV, and you look around for a fan group that loves the games like you do. Almost every time you try to find a group to join you have to leave because they don't care about the deep and complex questions and ideas that are brought up in the game, they don't care about the beautiful score, or the rich story line. All they care about is making porn of Momo and Junior, (which is pedophilia) or Junior and Albedo (Which is incest), or Kos-mos and Shion (which is just WTF?), and making page after page of filthy fan-fiction written by bad writers.

After a while it gets old. The people are not really gamers, they are addicted to smut.

That is what you get when you come to the fandom. You get people who say they are fans of "Kyrstal" "Gex" "Bolt" "Martin the Warrior" "Sonic", but all you really get is a bunch of porn addicts who take what you love and run around saying "It's furry". You realize there are few real fans....and you end up feeling burned. You might still be able to play Sonic, but you'll never be able to see our fandom for what it is, because you were misled here. They in time grow to hate us and despise us because we defile what we say we are fans of. This also dips slightly into Uncanny Vally...because for people who are only used to seeing humans as "hot" and no other species/races....seeing porn of animalesque characters can be disturbing because it triggers Uncanny Valley for them. This adds to why people don't like us when they get misled here under false pretenses.

I don't know where human kind went wrong when they decided to change tune and start pushing the idea that it's okay to obliterate innocent child hood memories with adult perversion. Perhaps it reflects a truth about man-kind in that they are destined to corrupt everything they touch, including the things they create.

This is not a problem, might I add with just furries. I hate furries for doing this but I also hate many people who call themselves gamers but do this. They don't appreciate the things they claim to love, they are just high on their teenager/young adult hormones, or letting their private parts do the thinking for them. A myriad of sub-groups have begun to have sexual aspects to it that are going out of control and there is no way to stop it.

But excuse me if I am willing to sit down and talk about it and discuss it objectively with other people. I can tell furries why many gamers hate them. It is because I am a gamer too and if I separate the gamer part of me and the furry part of me I understand the rage, I understand what it is like perhaps to be an outsider in a way looking in and seeing what people do, and then I can look at it as an insider looking out, understand the thoughts and feelings going on there.

At the end of the day something as simple as running around mis-labeling things as furry, has diverse and complicated consequences. I brought a few up but during the Furry VS Youtube war many innocent non furries were being targeted and attacked via spam, trolling, and hacking because we were so loose on calling everything furry, and therefore the trolls targeted anyone who seemed remotely interested in the stuff, even if they don't associate with the fandom.

Many Therians hate us because the deal with the same auto-tag and don't like it. Otherkin also hate us because of the same auto-tag. I hope this big Tl;dr clears up for you why many of us say the things we do on FA and why we feel certain ways.

Also that stupid 34 is old hat and it's not a real law, and if you are a person who frequents those chan sites, I'm so sorry that you might so desensitized that you cannot even rage when it is appropriate. The chan sites do that to people. It demoralizes them.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I see what Zeke is saying. I do often wonder why so many artists draw pron material. What is wrong with perfectly good "clean" stuff?



Clean stuff gets you less page views that porn. Sucks but that is how it is.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I dn't know why gamers get so worked up over it. They complain furries are so whiney yet they whine themselves. No one actually tells them to click on that thumbnail that has sonic porn in it. They do it through choice. And before anyone says "the internet is full of it" Thats bull, For one if you don't wan't to find the porn, set your browser filter to filter it.
> 
> Most art sites (if not all) have a warning on the front page about ADULT content. People make a concious choice wether to click on a thumbnail, or enter a site. If you suspect a site to contain stuff you do not want to see, don't go there. Stay away from Fchan, and lulz.net, don't go on the FA site and many other sites.
> 
> ...



Sometimes they don't realize there is going to be porn. You have to remember that for many people it does not even begin to register that people would make porn of half animal half human things because they've never been exposed to what is general for us.

So when they hear about a fan group called furries, that happens to  like something they like, the go and check it out and they get burned because no one warned them. If it triggers the issue behind or with Uncanny Valley you set the person up to have strong hate towards us.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Sometimes they don't realize there is going to be porn. You have to remember that for many people it does not even begin to register that people would make porn of half animal half human things because they've never been exposed to what is general for us.
> 
> So when they hear about a fan group called furries, that happens to  like something they like, the go and check it out and they get burned because no one warned them. If it triggers the issue behind or with Uncanny Valley you set the person up to have strong hate towards us.



I should of guessed you would of been the first to respond XD. True, i had over looked that fact. When you put it that way, again, it doesn't give the fandom a good reputation. You could also say here that the fandom does not completely cater for everyones needs/likeings, considering i have met quite a few furrs who prefere clean art, yet there is very little.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I should of guessed you would of been the first to respond XD. True, i had over looked that fact. When you put it that way, again, it doesn't give the fandom a good reputation. You could also say here that the fandom does not completely cater for everyones needs/likeings, considering i have met quite a few furrs who prefere clean art, yet there is very little.



That's not a bad thing.

There are quite a few people who like the clean art...it's just that in order for artists to make money on FAF the really have to draw porn because that's where the money is, and the that is also where the page views are. So that is sort of the problem.

Me? I like clean art. Then again I'm an asexual and have no use or need to look at porn.

EDIT: for those who are not familure with what Uncanny Valley is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
That's just general info.


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That's not what I am trying to say, stop trying to weasel words.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that, you can find images here of Crystal porn that is done by a great deal of furries, same with Sonic the hedgehog.



....You are still making the same connection. Unless, you are saying that this Crystal porn is done by a furry who hasn't played the games. Is that what you are saying? because saying it was "done by a greal deal of furries", is what you said before. Gamer can be furries, I don't know how to say it any more succinctly. 



			
				RandyDarkshade said:
			
		

> I see what Zeke is saying. I do often wonder why so many artists draw pron material. What is wrong with perfectly good "clean" stuff?



Because most furries are either sex-crazed, or they just enjoy drawing it intrinsically. 



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> First of all, there is a time and a place for humor. This is not the time or place this specific discussion. So drop the "Just laugh at it" stick.
> 
> I don't consider ruining innocence for other people something to laugh at. I never brought up "gamer friends". Trying going to some gamer forums and saying you are a fan of Star-Fox...and you might find much hostility because gamers don't like what furries do to game characters. It's not so much that they make porn, but that people cannot like something anymore like Star Fox, or Gex, or Sypro, or Rachet and Clank, or Crash Bandicoot, or Sonic, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with out being auto-tagged as a furfag and dealing with our stigma and having to say over and over again "No I'm not into that. No I don't like porn of that."



Obligatory, Internet is serious business.  

I'm active on at least four gamer forums, with a couple of them having Tom Nook as my avatar. I have yet, if ever seen furries or porn or anything brought up when a thread is made regarding Star Fox or Sonic etc. For all your anecdotes, I've have yet to witness this 'horror' you keep speaking of. 



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> Apparently you don't know the feeling of keeping certain things sacred. Memories from your childhood, characters that inspired you, made you smile, or cry, laugh, or made you later on want to be come a part of the fandom because you want to be part of a bigger thing that celebrates what you love.



Maybe so. Maybe, I'm just over sensitized by the internet. I've seen some crazy shit both online and off, that makes a cartoon image look like nothing. 



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> That is what you get when you come to the fandom. You get people who say they are fans of "Kyrstal" "Gex" "Bolt" "Martin the Warrior" "Sonic", but all you really get is a bunch of porn addicts who take what you love and run around saying "It's furry". You realize there are few real fans....and you end up feeling burned. You might still be able to play Sonic, but you'll never be able to see our fandom for what it is, because you were misled here. They in time grow to hate us and despise us because we defile what we say we are fans of. This also dips slightly into Uncanny Vally...because for people who are only used to seeing humans as "hot" and no other species/races....seeing porn of animalesque characters can be disturbing because it triggers Uncanny Valley for them. This adds to why people don't like us when they get misled here under false pretenses.
> 
> I don't know where human kind went wrong when they decided to change tune and start pushing the idea that it's okay to obliterate innocent child hood memories with adult perversion. Perhaps it reflects a truth about man-kind in that they are destined to corrupt everything they touch, including the things they create.
> 
> ...



I don't go around saying who is a fan and who isn't, but if somebody makes 'smut' of something it could also mean they are a bigger fan their me or you will realize. Or maybe the fandom has a signicant stake in porn than people aren't willing to accept. You even said yourself, 
"                                 Clean stuff gets you less page views that porn. Sucks but that is how it is."

:\



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> There are quite a few people who like the clean art...it's just that in order for artists to make money on FAF the really have to draw porn because that's where the money is, and the that is also where the page views are. So *that is sort of the problem*.
> 
> Me? I like clean art. Then again I'm an asexual and have no use or need to look at porn.



I'll be the first to admit, I know very little when it comes to asexuals. But your strong stance against porn is very obvious, just from this thread alone.  You are extremely passionate about this issue (which I applaud you for). Could there be jealousy on your part because that is 'where the money is' and 'also where the page views are' and just isn't your thing?

This is a honest question, I'm not being derogtory or mean, just trying to understand. 



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> I hope this big Tl;dr clears up for you why many of us say the things we do on FA and why we feel certain ways.



Its may not be clearing things up, but it is certain explains why you feel certain ways. Nothing is ever Tl;dr, if it is posted, I'll read it. 



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> if you are a person who frequents those chan sites, I'm so sorry that you might so desensitized that you cannot even *rage when it is appropriate*. The chan sites do that to people. It demoralizes them.



 chan sites? 

I don't see the point in "raging" doesn't really seem to get much accomplished and makes the person seem crazy. IMO.


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

> ....You are still making the same connection. Unless, you are saying that this Crystal porn is done by a furry who hasn't played the games. Is that what you are saying? because saying it was "done by a greal deal of furries", is what you said before. Gamer can be furries, I don't know how to say it any more succinctly.




-sigh- This is like arguing with Cutterfl...

Not all fans of a certain genre are "Gamers".
Like what had Trpdwarf had said, when Final Fantasy XII and Advent Children had appeared it attracted the Otaku crowd in droves. Those who never played the game began to draw art and write fanfictions of it. It is the same with some furries and characters. I know a few who have never touched the game and enjoy drawing Crystal porn. If you search Crystal on FA, you will get your answer on the "Crystalphillia".

A good deal of furries, both Gamers and Non-gamers, do draw porn of that character.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> -sigh- This is like arguing with Cutterfl...
> 
> Not all fans of a certain genre are "Gamers".
> Like what had Trpdwarf had said, when Final Fantasy XII and Advent Children had appeared it attracted the Otaku crowd in droves. Those who never played the game began to draw art and write fanfictions of it. It is the same with some furries and characters. I know a few who have never touched the game and enjoy drawing Crystal porn. If you search Crystal on FA, you will get your answer on the "Crystalphillia".
> ...



Is it just me and Trpdwarf that are getting what you mean Zeke? o.o


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Is it just me and Trpdwarf that are getting what you mean Zeke? o.o



It seems that way.
But, I am just going to wash my hands clean of this place and finish my book report. I am almost done with it.


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> A good deal of furries, both Gamers and Non-gamers, do draw porn of that character.



Ok, thanks, thats what I was looking for. 


			
				Zeke Shadowfyr said:
			
		

> It seems that way.
> But, I am just going to wash my hands clean of this place and finish my book report. I am almost done with it.


I hear ya, I got my last final exam that I need to prep for. See you guys tomorrow.


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Ok, thanks, thats what I was looking for.
> 
> I hear ya, I got my last final exam that I need to prep for. See you guys tomorrow.



Good day.


----------



## BrothBone (May 4, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It seems that way.
> But, I am just going to wash my hands clean of this place and finish my book report. I am almost done with it.



What did you mean with "I am almost done with it."?


----------



## Ozriel (May 4, 2009)

BrothBone said:


> What did you mean with "I am almost done with it."?



With the Book report.
I rechanged my subject to WWII.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 4, 2009)

Directed to Ruko's post:

I don't have a strong stance against porn. I'm not Anti-Porn. I am however strongly pro-decency, pro-responsibility, and pro-keep what should be private private. I am pro- don't shove your fetish's into the faces of others, and pro- keep what turns you on to yourself.

If more people let their brain think for them instead of their privates, I think furries would make a lot more head way in fixing certain troubling aspects of their fandom that they like to ignore.

As per your question about my "Passion" I'll PM you so that the thread stays on topic.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (May 4, 2009)

I love porn of dearly beloved cartoons. It makes me SMILE 


They're all just a bunch of cels to me, anyways.


----------



## furatail (Jan 25, 2010)

I don't mind porn at all. However, I don't find it funny to shove those kinds of images into the faces of others.
Now we all know if your looking for nice clean pics of your favorite characters you're gonna run into some porn. That's life. It's not all sunshine and fairies. Sorry, but people makes these images to; 1: to get off on, and 2: to piss you off. This scenario can be either/or but In my honest opinion, a great majority of this stuff is created to get someone off. 
Furries then pick up these images and post them all over the place just to screw with people. I wish they didn't, but you can't let those few ruine your opinion on all furries as a whole. Some white people are still bigot towards minorities but you won't see me denying I'm a white guy.
I"m a furry, and I'm socially normal.


----------



## Dass (Jan 25, 2010)

furatail said:


> I don't mind porn at all. However, I don't find it funny to shove those kinds of images into the faces of others.
> Now we all know if your looking for nice clean pics of your favorite characters you're gonna run into some porn. That's life. It's not all sunshine and fairies. Sorry, but people makes these images to; 1: to get off on, and 2: to piss you off. This scenario can be either/or but In my honest opinion, a great majority of this stuff is created to get someone off.
> Furries then pick up these images and post them all over the place just to screw with people. I wish they didn't, but you can't let those few ruine your opinion on all furries as a whole. Some white people are still bigot towards minorities but you won't see me denying I'm a white guy.
> I"m a furry, and I'm socially normal.



*COUGH* necromancer!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 25, 2010)

Dass said:


> *COUGH* necromancer!



Inorite?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 25, 2010)

furatail said:


> I don't mind porn at all. However, I don't find it funny to shove those kinds of images into the faces of others.
> Now we all know if your looking for nice clean pics of your favorite characters you're gonna run into some porn. That's life. It's not all sunshine and fairies. Sorry, but people makes these images to; 1: to get off on, and 2: to piss you off. This scenario can be either/or but In my honest opinion, a great majority of this stuff is created to get someone off.
> Furries then pick up these images and post them all over the place just to screw with people. I wish they didn't, but you can't let those few ruine your opinion on all furries as a whole. Some white people are still bigot towards minorities but you won't see me denying I'm a white guy.
> I"m a furry, and I'm socially normal.



You should leave while you still can.


----------



## Rojo Hunter (Jan 26, 2010)

Zaaz said:


> Robin Hood is the gateway drug to furry fandom.
> 
> Z




And I'm a great example of that (=^_^=)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 27, 2010)

Rojo Hunter said:


> And I'm a great example of that (=^_^=)



Stop necroing fucking threads and let this one die!


----------



## Torbi (Jan 27, 2010)

It's not furry, it was a cute twist on the classic tale of Robin Hood, but it was made when the whole concept of furry was not widely known at all. I'm sure there were people back then whole acted like a furry, but didn't have anything to call it. I think this is stereotyped as a furry film, just like TLK is, because so many furries love the movies, and some have even been inspired to become furries because of said film. Any film, animated or not, that is all about animals (especially canines) will always be stereotyped as being a "furry" film. 

 But to answer your question. This film is not intentionally furry, so there for it is not a furry film.


----------



## Hir (Jan 27, 2010)

It's just

A cartoon

Technically it's furry since it has anthropomorphic animals, but made for furries? Fuck idk.

:|


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 27, 2010)

Somebody, for the love of FAF lock this damn thread.


----------



## Torbi (Jan 27, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Somebody, for the love of FAF lock this damn thread.


 
Ahh yes...another great debate thats gone way too far XD


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 27, 2010)

Torbi said:


> Ahh yes...another great debate thats gone way too far XD



No, this topic has been super necro'd, it died last july, and some tard has necro'd it.


----------



## Torbi (Jan 27, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> No, this topic has been super necro'd, it died last july, and some tard has necro'd it.


 

Ohh.....god....I didn't know that...prolly didn't help that I posted to it earlier today x3


----------



## Taren Fox (Jan 27, 2010)

Furry wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Robin Hood. Many (most?) furs consider Robin Hood to be the first definitively "furry" movie.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 27, 2010)

Wow... 

No more Reviving potions.


----------



## Jimfoxx (Jan 27, 2010)

It might have not been intentional......
but i consider it to be furry


----------

