# Anthropomorphic Vs Furry.



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 5, 2010)

I don't understand why people get pissy when a cartoon character or game character get called "furry".

Before I continue I will just clarify that I prefer to call cartoon characters and video game characters anthro.

The definition of "furry" has two definitions.

1: It refers to a member of the "furry fandom"

2: It refers to an anthropomorphic animal.

So, the way I see it is, if cartoon animals and animal like game characters are in anthropomorphic form, then, calling them furry isn't really wrong as furry is just the furry slang term for anthro.

Discuss.


----------



## Debacle (Jun 5, 2010)

Your right really.. If you call something furry _everyone knows what your talking about_, they just get pissy about the technical meaning of the word. Because they can.


----------



## Willow (Jun 5, 2010)

I prefer saying anthro, but I really don't care

Furry was an adjective before it became a fandom


----------



## Tweaker (Jun 5, 2010)

I figure it's either an issue of semantics (the double meaning of the word can be confusing, I guess) or the negative stigma associated with the fandom. Maybe a bit of both, I dunno.


----------



## TashkentFox (Jun 5, 2010)

Is K-9 anthropomorphic, a furry or both?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 5, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> Is K-9 anthropomorphic, a furry or both?



K-9 would be anthropomorphic, not an anthropomorphic animal as K-9 is a robot. but K-9 is a machine with speech therefore anthropomorphic.


----------



## TashkentFox (Jun 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It would be anthropomorphic, not an anthropomorphic animal as it is a robot. but it is a machine with speech therefore anthropomorphic.



Please refrain from calling K-9 'it'. Anyway, he's also got a collar and looks like a cross between a Highland Terrier and an FSO Polonez, so that does make him technically a furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 5, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> Please refrain from calling K-9 'it'. Anyway, he's also got a collar and looks like a cross between a Highland Terrier and an FSO Polonez, so that does make him technically a furry.



Edited it, is that better? ^^


----------



## TashkentFox (Jun 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Edited it, is that better? ^^



A little, but don't be afraid of calling him 'he'.


----------



## Atrak (Jun 5, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> A little, but don't be afraid of calling him 'he'.



But she isn't a he.


----------



## Shima Muurine (Jun 5, 2010)

I nearly shat bricks when I logged on. I remember this thread from last year!


----------



## Attaman (Jun 5, 2010)

Is this bird here a Furry?

By your definition, _yes._

IMO, _most_ Furries are Anthropomorphic Animals, but not all Anthropomorphic Animals are Furries.  I have to use the _most_ because some "furry" creations are apparently not even animals (but new species completely unrelated to natural creatures) or, like Telnac, never were or will be biological animals given anthropomorphic traits (Telnac is a Human who was turned into an AI and given a robot body, that was shaped draconically).  

Saying "All anthro's are Furries" is bullcrap to me:  Look at that Raven I posted in the start of this post.  How many times have you seen Furries argue they're a Furry?  Hell, how many of you - if asked "What do you consider a Furry?" - would even list that creature in your top 100?  Top 200?  500?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jun 5, 2010)

OP, I think you are missing some screws

1.Furry - Has fur :V

I'd rather say that all furries believe they are souls of animals in human bodies and all anthros at some point get a gay buttsex comission.

Anthro = Object with human attributes. You could say a human is an anthro, because it has what not human attributes. How come anthropology is research of the human.

Furry =
1.Has fur
2.  Member of the furry fandom
3) A reference to *anthropomorphic animals*.

The name is anthropomorphic animals - not anthro, not furry, not fagsona.

Though people just shorten it up with incorrect words like furry and words that don't get used at all like anthro.


----------



## Stratelier (Jun 5, 2010)

But of course "anthro" is _itself_ a slang term for "anthropomorphic animal", considering it originates from the Greek word for _human_.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jun 5, 2010)

Well I often call any anthropomorphic character a furry but then again I know a lot of people think it's only furry if created by/for furs. I guess in a strict sense I would only use furry to refer to characters made for and by furs but casually I'll still call any anthro character furry.

I suppose the issue is further confused by the Ursa Major awards, which are a furry thing but open to anything with an anthropomorphic character.


----------



## Lightnin' (Jun 5, 2010)

Anthro is any type of creature that has human like features. Example: WAY back when I was on a little site called neopets(dont hit me for saying that word), any person who referred to their pets as like children, siblings, etc, I always knew them to say antro.

Once you deal in the actual animals that are REAL animals, but with human like features, Ive always seen them to be called furries.

But to be a "furry", most people labeled that as what we are here or the thousands of porn pictures. Basically instead of drawing the short stick, you drew the thorned one.

OH! And looking at Rakuen's picture, would you consider Pokemon furry or anthro?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jun 5, 2010)

> OH! And looking at Rakuen's picture, would you consider Pokemon furry or  anthro?



Non-anthro pokemon are neither. Anthro pokemon are anthro. When they are made for the furry fandom then they can be considered furry. Otherwise they are just a related fandom.


----------



## Lightnin' (Jun 5, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Non-anthro pokemon are neither. Anthro pokemon are anthro. When they are made for the furry fandom then they can be considered furry. Otherwise they are just a related fandom.


 
I like that answer. I like it a lot.


----------



## Browder (Jun 5, 2010)

I don't know. Semantics hardly matter as long as I know what the person is talking about. The general rule on FAF is that Furry is the fan and Anthro is the character. Whatever. I never really minded either way.


----------



## Tony-the-Wolf (Jun 5, 2010)

you know for a topic with this title, you really should have put a poll in here


----------



## gdzeek (Jun 5, 2010)

Think people just use anthro as a shield to not associate with furries but like to draw furry art. kinda like saying "soft" cuss words fudge instead of the f-bomb, crud instead of crap. that sorta deal seems most prominant.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 5, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> OP, I think you are missing some screws
> 
> 1.Furry - Has fur :V
> 
> ...



I know what anthro is. I was being lazy because I'd written anthropomorphic animal out so many times I started just typing anthro, hoping people on here had the intelligence to know what I was referring too.

As you said anthro is short for anthropomorphic, which is what the animals we like are, so anthro is technically correct, it is just an abbreviation many furries use.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jun 5, 2010)

Because furrie have a nasty habit of considering anything remotely animal part of the fandom, like Lonny Toons, werewolves, Disney and bunch of other stuff.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 5, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Because furrie have a nasty habit of considering anything remotely animal part of the fandom, like Lonny Toons, werewolves, Disney and bunch of other stuff.



Maybe that is because when the fandom was first started it was about being fans of such characters. As well as comic characters.

EDIT: A group of guys who shared an interest in such anthro's got together at comic cons, and it escalated from there, way back in the 80's. So those who include such characters are not really that far wrong in doing so.


----------



## Slyck (Jun 5, 2010)

It doesn't matter. We know what you're talking about.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jun 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Maybe that is because when the fandom was first started it was about being fans of such characters. As well as comic characters.
> 
> EDIT: A group of guys who shared an interest in such anthro's got together at comic cons, and it escalated from there, way back in the 80's. So those who include such characters are not really that far wrong in doing so.



That maybe the "central point" of the fandom, but that's not the "central point" of the cartoons.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 5, 2010)

I notice when I post this matter I'm almost always blotted out when I comment on such.  Some more examples:

Ecco the Dolphin & Background Dolphin:  Though it's another universe, they are still labeled as Dolphins.  They can speak.  By OP definition, Furry.

Ungoliant (the Spider): Another Furry, as she can speak and Spiders cannot speak.  More arguable as she could be argued as _different_ from a Spider quite readily.  Not as concrete as Ecco, but still a good one.

The Talking Mudcrab Merchant:  Now, this one's special for two reasons.  One, it's a fictional animal.  Two, it's a fictional animal that _normally cannot talk_.  Once more, Furry by OP's definition.  

Ocarina of Time Owl:  Furry, under the same clause as an Ecco the Dolphin dolphin.

Sperm Whale & Petunias from HHGttG (And, technically, the Dolphins too):  Furry, again having traits not normally reserved to the animal and having been anthropomorphized.

And, the most fun one:  A Mecha-any 'sona of someone posting in this thread:  _Not_ Furry, unless it involves itself in the Furry Fandom in its own universe.  Why?  Simple:  It's not an anthropomorphized animal.  It's not even an animal.

Funny how this works, eh?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 5, 2010)

Attaman said:


> I notice when I post this matter I'm almost always blotted out when I comment on such.  Some more examples:
> 
> Ecco the Dolphin & Background Dolphin:  Though it's another universe, they are still labeled as Dolphins.  They can speak.  By OP definition, Furry.
> 
> ...



10/10 for entirely missing the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> 10/10 for entirely missing the point I was trying to make.



From what I gathered - apologies if wrong - Furry should just be synonymous with anthropomorphic animal.  Is that correct?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 5, 2010)

Attaman said:


> From what I gathered - apologies if wrong - Furry should just be synonymous with anthropomorphic animal.  Is that correct?



It could just be the way I see the meaning of the word furry within the fandom. To me, furry is just another term for anthropomorphic animal, seeing as that is quite a mouthful calling them furry is so much easier. 

I don't personally call everything furry. I like to abbreviate anthropomorphic animal by simply saying anthro.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It could just be the way I see the meaning of the word furry within the fandom. To me, furry is just another term for anthropomorphic animal, seeing as that is quite a mouthful calling them furry is so much easier.


  Then my post still stands.  All the things I linked and labeled as Furry are anthropomorphic animal.  If it's supposed to be within the fandom (the definition), that's slightly different (in that you might not be referring to such works as being fandom-related).  If it's supposed to refer to stuff outside the fandom as well, however (for instance any example of an anthropomorphized animal), then my post holds.

EDIT:  It may be miscommunication on one of our parts, but it DOES read like you're saying Anthro Animal = Synonymous w/ Furry.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Jun 5, 2010)

I usually say anthro so people don't get confused.  Anthro can't mean anything else in the context of furry fandom.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jun 6, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I know what anthro is. I was being lazy because I'd written anthropomorphic animal out so many times I started just typing anthro, hoping people on here had the intelligence to know what I was referring too.
> 
> As you said anthro is short for anthropomorphic, which is what the animals we like are, so anthro is technically correct, it is just an abbreviation many furries use.



Furries need more words to invent


----------



## FuReNzIc (Jun 6, 2010)

People usually just think furry as the adjective when your explaining it :\
Even worst... they don't even know about the word Anthromorphic -facepalm-


----------



## Attaman (Jun 6, 2010)

FuReNzIc said:


> People usually just think furry as the adjective when your explaining it :\
> Even worst... they don't even know about the word Anthromorphic -facepalm-



Just a test:  Is this anthropomorphic?


----------



## JoeStrike (Jun 6, 2010)

This should clear things up once and for all:

http://www.furrynation.com/Furry definition page.html


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jun 6, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Because furrie have a nasty habit of considering anything remotely animal part of the fandom, like Lonny Toons, werewolves, Disney and bunch of other stuff.


And what a fucking shock, a group of people who like anthropomorphic animals consider anthropomorphic animals to be part of their fandom. BLASPHEMY. :V


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 6, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> And what a fucking shock, a group of people who like anthropomorphic animals consider anthropomorphic animals to be part of their fandom. BLASPHEMY. :V



In my experience, it's the people who hate furries who tend to lump anything with a tail in the "ewww gtfo furfags" territory.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 6, 2010)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> In my experience, it's the people who hate furries who tend to lump anything with a tail in the "ewww gtfo furfags" territory.


In my experience, it's anything animal-like that can be readily Rule /34/'d that the fandom tends to lump into "OMG TOTALLY FURRY" territory.  Cartoon characters, game characters, ancient gods...


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 6, 2010)

Attaman said:


> In my experience, it's anything animal-like that can be readily Rule /34/'d that the fandom tends to lump into "OMG TOTALLY FURRY" territory.  Cartoon characters, game characters, ancient gods...



It's funny how different people can have different experiences.


----------



## cpam (Jun 6, 2010)

The definition of Furry, as it was understood when the Furry Fandom was first coming together:

     1)  An anthropomorphic animal.  That would include lizards, birds, dinosaurs, dolphins and anteaters.  Basically, any animal that can talk or think like a man.  Doesn't matter if it's a real or a fantasy animal, a genetic uplift or a cartoon character.

     2)  A creator of any work of art that predominantly features anthropomorphic animals.  Artwork, fiction, poetry, music, sculpture, fursuits, etc.

     3)  A fan of works of art about anthropomorphic animals.

That sums it up in a nutshell.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 6, 2010)

cpam said:


> The definition of Furry, as it was understood when the Furry Fandom was first coming together:
> 
> 1)  An anthropomorphic animal.  That would include lizards, birds, dinosaurs, dolphins and anteaters.  Basically, any animal that can talk or think like a man.  Doesn't matter if it's a real or a fantasy animal, a genetic uplift or a cartoon character.
> 
> ...



You just put the same thing I did. Cartoon animals which have human traits, by this definition are furry because furry is a term used in the fandom to refer to three different things depending on what context it is used in. This is why I am saying that those that call cartoon characters, video game characters etc are not actually wrong in doing so.

We all know the definitions of the word furry. Now lets look at cartoon characters like bugs bunny, hmm, he is a bunny, he walks on two legs.....talks like a human, that makes him anthropomorphic, now furry is also used as a slang term in the fandom for anthropomorphic.

Anyone seeing what I mean yet?


----------



## Phrozen_Sky (Jun 6, 2010)

That's a good point. I guess it really doesn't matter either way. Like what gdzeek said, anthro can be used as an unfamiliar term with the general public. I didn't know until today that some people really don't like the furry fandom. :/


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 6, 2010)

We had this discussion before Randy. Should it really be necessary to rehash common sense?

When you call something furry you are implying ownership to the fandom or the fandom as the intended audience. That's pretentious and you know it. We should be above that.

Anime is made for anime fans. Video games are made for gamers. Anthropomorphic animal literature, movies, cartoons etc etc is/tend to be made for everyone. Not for furries. Furries just happen to like it because it's right down their ally. If something is going to be "Furry" that means it was made by us/for us because we don't have a canon technically like other groups do. 

Thundercats is not furry. Scooby Do is not furry. VGcats is not furry. Pearls before Swine is not furry. Red-wally Abbey is not furry. It does not take but half a brain cell to figure out WHY. It wasn't made for us. It was not made by us. We may like it but we are not the intended audience. So why call it furry? Why not just be a little more mature and respectful and just call it anthro animal if we have to label it anything at all.

Save the term furry for things that are made for us, such as our costumes, our comics, our pod-casts, our conventions, our art, and our literature?


----------



## cpam (Jun 6, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> When you call something furry you are implying ownership to the fandom or the fandom as the intended audience. That's pretentious and you know it. We should be above that.



That is actually incorrect.  When you call something furry, you are simply saying that it is anthropomorphic in nature.  That is all.



Trpdwarf said:


> Anime is made for anime fans. Video games are made for gamers. Anthropomorphic animal literature, movies, cartoons etc etc is/tend to be made for everyone. Not for furries. Furries just happen to like it because it's right down their ally. If something is going to be "Furry" that means it was made by us/for us because we don't have a canon technically like other groups do.



That is not only incorrect, it is amazingly presumptuous.  Furry material was _not _made or originally intended _solely _for the sake of furry fans.  In fact, quite a few folks who started out as fans are now doing such work professionally, and some work that was initially embraced by furry fans had moved out to the mainstream arena.  (*Usagi Yojimbo*, as an example, began in an independent furry comic; *Omaha The Cat Dancer *began in a furry fanzine.)  You're attempting to claim that the tail is wagging the dog.  Fans come about and gather as a result of the material, not the other way around.  There are anime fans because there was anime, and so on and so on.



Trpdwarf said:


> Thundercats is not furry. Scooby Do is not furry. VGcats is not furry. Pearls before Swine is not furry. Red-wally Abbey is not furry.



Incorrect.  As they are all about anthropomorphic animals, they are indeed furry.  That is the only definition that need apply.



Trpdwarf said:


> It does not take but half a brain cell to figure out WHY. It wasn't made for us. It was not made by us. We may like it but we are not the intended audience. So why call it furry? Why not just be a little more mature and respectful and just call it anthro animal if we have to label it anything at all.



It does not matter if the material was by fans or not; that is not a relevant criteria.

The origin of the use of the term Anthro as an alternative for Furry -- and I should know this as I was one of those who originally proposed it over a decade ago -- was simply to differentiate the more questionable adult material from the rest of the furry material.  Frankly, there were quite a few of us who felt the term 'furry' had become sullied enough to have taken on a different meaning than what had been intended and had come to mean a cheap form of internet pornography, and several wanted to distance themselves from _that _definition.

After all this time, it's come to blur together, and many folks seem to feel that there is no single definition anymore (they're wrong) or that any definition at all has no real meaning or purpose.  Best to stick with the original intent: Furry = a) anthropomorphic animal; b) art about anthropomorphic animals; c) creators and fans of art about anthropomorphic animals.

No more, no less.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 6, 2010)

cpam:  Look at the examples I gave earlier.  You're going to tell me, right now, straight faced, that all those examples I gave (barring the last one) _are_ furries?  Furthermore, while I don't agree to the "Sonic = Furry" thing, are you going to tell me that Mecha-Sonic is less Furry (actually, not furry at all) _specifically because_ it's a Robot?  Which might be applicable to at least two FAFers 'sonas?


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 6, 2010)

Attaman said:


> cpam:  Look at the examples I gave earlier.  You're going to tell me, right now, straight faced, that all those examples I gave (barring the last one) _are_ furries?  Furthermore, while I don't agree to the "Sonic = Furry" thing, are you going to tell me that Mecha-Sonic is less Furry (actually, not furry at all) _specifically because_ it's a Robot?  Which might be applicable to at least two FAFers 'sonas?



The God Worm Leto is totally furry.
He gets all of the bitches and he is Anthro in nature. :V



cpam said:


> -shit no one cares about-



-sigh-
Where do these people come from?


----------



## cpam (Jun 6, 2010)

Attaman said:


> cpam:  Look at the examples I gave earlier.  You're going to tell me, right now, straight faced, that all those examples I gave (barring the last one) _are_ furries?  Furthermore, while I don't agree to the "Sonic = Furry" thing, are you going to tell me that Mecha-Sonic is less Furry (actually, not furry at all) _specifically because_ it's a Robot?  Which might be applicable to at least two FAFers 'sonas?



To your examples, I say Yes.  Absolutely.  I might personally quibble about the spider and other insects, but somebody else might make a good argument for them, so let's leave them in.  As for the dolphins, why not?  I've actually edited and co-written a book that had dolphins and whales as part of a worldwide furry community, and we certainly considered them to be furry.  Same for Sonic.  Sonic is a hedgehog who walks and talks like a man.  Can't think of a better example of anthropomophization than that.  They all fit the basic definition: furry = anthropomorphic animal.

A robot is an anthropomorphic device.  If it's modeled after a furry, than I suppose it could be considered a furry, though I'd personally be far more hesitant to do so.  For me, it would have to have a transplanted intelligence from an actual furry before I could consider it as one.


----------



## cpam (Jun 6, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> -sigh-
> Where do these people come from?



From the very birthplaces of the fandom.  Respect thy elders, young padawan.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 7, 2010)

cpam said:


> From the very birthplaces of the fandom.  Respect thy elders, young padawan.



No.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 7, 2010)

cpam said:


> That is actually incorrect.  When you call something furry, you are simply saying that it is anthropomorphic in nature.  That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh look another person who has bought into the forced "Furry equals Anthro-animal". Either that or you are trolling. I'll humor you a bit. Casting aside you are beginning to sound like that insufferable pathetic meat sack of a un...er I mean charming equine with questionable intelligence...you can't have gamers unless someone creates games.This is not the tail wagging the dog but quite the opposite. What you are suggesting has the tail deciding it is the dog and not just part of it. Fans don't spontaneously come about you know. At least not on my planet. Someone had to decide that hitting each other over a leather ball in tight clothes was something worth organizing about before Foot Ball came around and then you had to get enough fans for the NFL to form.

Furry? That's the end result of years and years of a theme that started at the beginning of mankind growing into something more than what it ever was. People at one time decided to give human qualities to animals. Hence the idea of Anthropomorphic Animals. Eventually you began to find people who created this stuff and people who liked it formed a niche. In the beginning it was mostly children, but then as it went on adults found they could like it too and then it began to get more risque. You began to see it pop up to be used but never fully isolated on it's own till some Science Fiction fans fragmented off to create their own fandom.

That is your history. While the name for what we are and what we create has gone through revisions and changes Anthropomoprhic Animal is still the umbrella. We are just one part of it underneath. We are not the umbrella. We do not describe the umbrella. The umbrella describes us.

Who are you to decide that well "Since I made some inter fandom suggestion suddenly I get to claim that that we describe the umbrella and not the other way around?". No it does not work that way. I will not respect you due to being "Older". I am not a padiwan. I am the master. How fair is to make all people regardless of being furry or not, associated with us just because they have anthro animal content? If you think that is fair you have much to learn young grass-hopper...or should I say old grass-hopper.

These days furs are so pretentious that they think they can take every anthro-animal and own it as part of their group. They think they can throw out some faulty logic like "Well furry is a descriptor".  I don't care if some furfag sucked enough cock to get Dictionary.com to spew that madness. Give me the furfag who did it and a rusty paring knife.....

A mascot for a hot dog vendor that is a bull-dog costume in shorts is anthro animal. When it's a anthro dog putting it's hot dog into another anthro animal drawn for Cuddlesmcblubberwolf the proud furry it's furry.

When a comic made for furries goes mainstream it's still furry. But when a comic made for gamers is made with anthro animal characters it's not.

That line has blurred because people are too afraid to have barriers. They are so busy wanting to cater to their "Sexual acceptance" that they have a phobia for boundaries. That and furs are desperate for a history/canon that we just don't have. We don't have that luxury. That's not a bad thing. But all in all Anthro is not an alternative for furry. It can't be. Anthro came first. Anthro animal is what describes furry. You're putting the cart before the horse, or making the tail think it's the dog. No matter how big furry becomes furry does not describe anthro. So get that idea out of your head. Anthro animal describes Furry.

Remember kids. While all furry things are anthro animal, not all anthro animals are furry. If you say Anubis is furry I'm' going infract  you for sheer amounts of stupidity(lol not really but I can dream can't I?) and request you either have your uterus cut out or your left testicle castrated(which ever one applies). This issue is a lot more complex than people want to give it credit for.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 7, 2010)

Anthro = Anthropomorphic characters and media involving them.
Furry = People who think anthro's are awesome and media made by/for furries.

Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## cpam (Jun 7, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Oh look another person who has bought into the forced "Furry equals Anthro-animal". Either that or you are trolling.



No, I was being quite serious and straight-forward about it.  And with much less antangonism and sarcasm.



Trpdwarf said:


> I'll humor you a bit. Casting aside you are beginning to sound like that insufferable pathetic meat sack of a un...er I mean charming equine with questionable intelligence...you can't have gamers unless someone creates games.This is not the tail wagging the dog but quite the opposite. What you are suggesting has the tail deciding it is the dog and not just part of it. Fans don't spontaneously come about you know. At least not on my planet. Someone had to decide that hitting each other over a leather ball in tight clothes was something worth organizing about before Foot Ball came around and then you had to get enough fans for the NFL to form.



Isn't that pretty much what I'd said?  First there is the 'whatever', then there are the 'whatever' fans.  But that's _not _what you were trying to say earlier.  To quote you, you said "Anime is for the anime fans".  That's not so.  Anime is for the customer, and that means whosoever happens to watch the show or the movie.  Everyone.  Not just the fans, but the general public.  The fans may appreciate and worship it more and generate a fandom about it, but it was never done specifically for them.   Same is true wherever you want to apply it.  The NFL is not open only for football fans, but for the general public, and the NFL would love for nothing better than to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.  (Not that they need to worry for lack of fans...)

And, as furry material is generally widespread, from Mickey Mouse to Sonic to the Berenstein Bears to Abbott & Costello Meet The Werewolf, it is obviously _not _intended _strictly _for the furry fans.



Trpdwarf said:


> Furry? That's the end result of years and years of a theme that started at the beginning of mankind growing into something more than what it ever was. People at one time decided to give human qualities to animals. Hence the idea of Anthropomorphic Animals. Eventually you began to find people who created this stuff and people who liked it formed a niche. In the beginning it was mostly children, but then as it went on adults found they could like it too and then it began to get more risque. You began to see it pop up to be used but never fully isolated on it's own till some Science Fiction fans fragmented off to create their own fandom.
> 
> That is your history. While the name for what we are and what we create has gone through revisions and changes Anthropomoprhic Animal is still the umbrella. We are just one part of it underneath. We are not the umbrella. We do not describe the umbrella. The umbrella describes us.
> 
> Who are you to decide that well "Since I made some inter fandom suggestion suddenly I get to claim that that we describe the umbrella and not the other way around?".



I'm sorry, but if that's the tack you want to play, then who are _you _to say differently?  Seems to me that I have just as much right, if not more so (if we really want to view things in this manner) to say things as I see them.  It isn't a matter of "because I was here first, this is the way it is", but a matter of "I was there, and this is the way it happened".



Trpdwarf said:


> No it does not work that way. I will not respect you due to being "Older". I am not a padiwan. I am the master. How fair is to make all people regardless of being furry or not, associated with us just because they have anthro animal content? If you think that is fair you have much to learn young grass-hopper...or should I say old grass-hopper.



It isn't a matter of it being fair or unfair.  It is a matter of what it is.  If the word 'furry' refers to an anthropomorphic animal -- as it was indeed coined and intended to refer to such -- then _any _anthropomorphic animal is a furry character.  Any book containing anthropomorphic characters is therefore a furry book.  It doesn't matter when they were written or by whom; it only matters that they fit the description.  I view this as an inviolable fact not open to interpretation or opinion.

You're right about the umbrella.  But I'm saying, _this _is the umbrella.



Trpdwarf said:


> These days furs are so pretentious that they think they can take every anthro-animal and own it as part of their group. They think they can throw out some faulty logic like "Well furry is a descriptor".  I don't care if some furfag sucked enough cock to get Dictionary.com to spew that madness. Give me the furfag who did it and a rusty paring knife.....
> 
> A mascot for a hot dog vendor that is a bull-dog costume in shorts is anthro animal. When it's a anthro dog putting it's hot dog into another anthro animal drawn for Cuddlesmcblubberwolf the proud furry it's furry.



I see no distinction between the two examples.



Trpdwarf said:


> When a comic made for furries goes mainstream it's still furry. But when a comic made for gamers is made with anthro animal characters it's not.



I see absolutely no distinction between the two.  How can you?  And the examples I gave weren't exactly comics made for furries -- they were just released within a furry arena.  Their intent was always to go to much wider audiences in the long run.

Let's consider *Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles*.  Originally released as an independent comic, and featured many anthropomorphic characters throughout its run.  It also had a spate of stories that guested Usagi Yojimbo.  Would you consider the Turtles to be furry (a 'morph doesn't need to have fur to be a furry) or a furry book, and if not, how do you then consider Usagi, who you seem to accept as a furry?  Is he then not a furry when he visits the turtles?  Or do they become furry when they visit his book?



Trpdwarf said:


> That line has blurred because people are too afraid to have barriers. They are so busy wanting to cater to their "Sexual acceptance" that they have a phobia for boundaries. That and furs are desperate for a history/canon that we just don't have. We don't have that luxury. That's not a bad thing. But all in all Anthro is not an alternative for furry. It can't be. Anthro came first. Anthro animal is what describes furry. You're putting the cart before the horse, or making the tail think it's the dog. No matter how big furry becomes furry does not describe anthro. So get that idea out of your head. Anthro animal describes Furry.



No, you're quite confused here.  _Anthropomorphism _came first.  Furry came -- well, not second, as there were a lot of other terms in-between: funny animals, talking animals, magic animals, etc.  But then came Furry.  And then, as I explained, the advent of Anthro as an alternative term, which never really quite took off.



Trpdwarf said:


> Remember kids. While all furry things are anthro animal, not all anthro animals are furry. If you say Anubis is furry I'm' going infract  you for sheer amounts of stupidity(lol not really but I can dream can't I?) and request you either have your uterus cut out or your left testicle castrated(which ever one applies). This issue is a lot more complex than people want to give it credit for.



Sorry, but it _is _far simpler than you wish it to be, and no more complex than I've explained it, your anxiety notwithstanding.  And, yes, I _do _consider Anubis to be furry.  Sure, why not.  _All _anthro animals are indeed furry.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 7, 2010)

cpam said:


> No, I was being quite serious and straight-forward about it.  And with much less antangonism and sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not being antagonistic.

That said you should get the basic point. If a person in Japan decides to make "Anime" even though anyone can watch it the intended audience is Anime fans. They cater to that type of fan the same way Marvel caters to a type of fan.

That said that is not Furry material. How more pretentious can you get? To sit there and call religious concepts such as Anubis furry? What is wrong with you? How can you be that arrogant? I can't even imagine such pretentiousness in myself.

I at least have more merit's to what I am saying because at least I understand the concept of things called respect and I know my place. You are just going with the flow playing the "well lets just side with what is popular" well being popular isn't always being right. As a furry I have no right to sit and tell other people who have nothing to do with us that their content is part of us. You should know better than to be that way. You should know better as an oldie than to assume everything out there that is anthropomorphic animal is for us or should be called by your name. By sitting there and going "well this is the way it is all anthro animal things are by our name now" you are acting like a selfish child who thinks the world belongs to him.

The only way we got this furry =  anthro animal thing started was by being huge douches like a certain equine fur who literally disregards any respect at all for things like history, spirituality, religion, and artists rights and intent.

Which is what you shit on when you run around claiming things that were made for everyone and not a specific audience, or are created in concept for religious/spirituality our name...or just created for the sake of it...is furry.

I am rather amused by your mentality. To sit there and basically say people have no right to say what their content is because this is how it is? That is what you are doing. Do you realize what problems this create at all? The PR problems...or even if you don't care about the image do you understand the conflict this arrogance causes with other groups?

No...the Umbrella of Anthropomorphic Animals is not us. It's not our place to shit all over things like people's spirituality, religion, or rights/intend just to try to make ourselves feel more presentable and make a conection to canon we don't have.

I don't understand why furries must do this to themselves. We already have so many artists to cater to just us. Writers to cater to just us. We have costume makers to cater to us, people who make accessories just for us...we have so much we make for ourselves and that is something to be proud of. Why isn't that enough? Why must we need more. Why can't we be happy with getting our group off the ground without being bottle fed chopped up content that is often the case with Anime and gaming communities where in order to even get content it has to go through filters?

You should be happy with what we have done with ourselves and for ourselves so far and not be so damn greedy. That is what this comes down to. We are not happy enough with we have. So we have to take content and call it ours and then whine about "well the words change". It's suddenly okay to force other people and their content to associate with our stigma.

I call bull-shit. I don't care if it's the unpopular stance, or that so many people will disagree with me. I understand what so few appear to understand these days.

When something is made by/for furries it's furry. Anything else is unwarranted self importance, selfishness, greed, and an entitlement complex for people too blind to be happy with what they have and too full of themselves to have respect for other people, culture, and to some point these days religion, spirituality, and history.


----------



## cpam (Jun 7, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'm not being antagonistic.
> 
> That said you should get the basic point. If a person in Japan decides to make "Anime" even though anyone can watch it the intended audience is Anime fans. They cater to that type of fan the same way Marvel caters to a type of fan.
> 
> That said that is not Furry material. How more pretentious can you get? To sit there and call religious concepts such as Anubis furry? What is wrong with you? How can you be that arrogant? I can't even imagine such pretentiousness in myself.



I see nothing pretentious or arrogant in saying it at all.  I call it as I see it.  Regardless of the origins of the animalistic deities, Egyptian or otherwise, if they are anthropomophic, then they are furry.  I don't see any problem whatsoever with that distinction, and I'm amazed that you would be so offended by it.



Trpdwarf said:


> I at least have more merit's to what I am saying because at least I understand the concept of things called respect and I know my place. You are just going with the flow playing the "well lets just side with what is popular" well being popular isn't always being right.



I don't know what you mean by it being 'popular'.  I say what I say because I see it as a fact, and because I believe it to _be _a fact.



Trpdwarf said:


> As a furry I have no right to sit and tell other people who have nothing to do with us that their content is part of us. You should know better than to be that way. You should know better as an oldie than to assume everything out there that is anthropomorphic animal is for us or should be called by your name. By sitting there and going "well this is the way it is all anthro animal things are by our name now" you are acting like a selfish child who thinks the world belongs to him.



Frankly, I wonder now if _you're_ not the one who's being a little pretentious here.  Simply because a term may be coined long after the fact doesn't make it untrue, nor is it somehow 'selfish' or inappropriate to use it wherever it applies.  If it fits, it fits.  We're not taking anything away from anything or anybody that was there before, nor are we somehow devaluing it.  We've simply found another way to say it, and we've applied it appropriately wherever it does fit.



Trpdwarf said:


> The only way we got this furry =  anthro animal thing started was by being huge douches like a certain equine fur who literally disregards any respect at all for things like history, spirituality, religion, and artists rights and intent.



...I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to here...?



Trpdwarf said:


> Which is what you shit on when you run around claiming things that were made for everyone and not a specific audience, or are created in concept for religious/spirituality our name...or just created for the sake of it...is furry.



Now I _do _think you're taking your position entirely too seriously.  I don't see or understand why the origins of any given thing, religious or otherwise, would make any difference in the slightest.  A cup that was made and christened for a religious service is still called a 'cup', and even if it is referred to or listed as a chalice or a goblet, the term 'cup' is still quite correct and applicable.  Same with the term furry.  Anubis is a manlike entity with the head of a jackal.  This makes him an anthropomorphic figure and that in turn makes him a furry character.  The term does not change or devalue him in any way.  It is simply a description.



Trpdwarf said:


> I am rather amused by your mentality. To sit there and basically say people have no right to say what their content is because this is how it is?



If their content is a ham sandwich, then it is food, no matter how loudly they insist that it only be referred to only as a ham sandwich because they made it and this is how they want it known.  The truth is that it is a ham sandwich, but it is also food.

An artist can say whatever he wants about his work and he can call it whatever he wants, but in the end, if it has an anthropomorphic theme, then it is furry.  Regardless of whatever he or I may think.



Trpdwarf said:


> That is what you are doing. Do you realize what problems this create at all? The PR problems...or even if you don't care about the image do you understand the conflict this arrogance causes with other groups?



Frankly, no.

Unless you're trying to refer to the whole 'furry = crap' mentality that exists outside of the fandom, to which I can only say, "Well, _that _ship has _already _sailed", and "I _told _them this was going to happen _years _ago".  Bluntly put, it's too late to worry about that _now_.  No amount of tiptoeing around the word is going to help at this late stage, and it has _nothing _to do with the fact of the term anyway.

And if that _wasn't _what you were referring to, well... then never mind.



Trpdwarf said:


> No...the Umbrella of Anthropomorphic Animals is not us. It's not our place to shit all over things like people's spirituality, religion, or rights/intend just to try to make ourselves feel more presentable and make a conection to canon we don't have.



I'm still not getting this.  How is the use of the word Furry 'shitting' all over anybody's religion or rights!?  This is a charge that simply makes no sense to me.  It's a term, nothing more.



Trpdwarf said:


> I don't understand why furries must do this to themselves. We already have so many artists to cater to just us. Writers to cater to just us. We have costume makers to cater to us, people who make accessories just for us...we have so much we make for ourselves and that is something to be proud of. Why isn't that enough? Why must we need more. Why can't we be happy with getting our group off the ground without being bottle fed chopped up content that is often the case with Anime and gaming communities where in order to even get content it has to go through filters?
> 
> You should be happy with what we have done with ourselves and for ourselves so far and not be so damn greedy. That is what this comes down to. We are not happy enough with we have. So we have to take content and call it ours and then whine about "well the words change". It's suddenly okay to force other people and their content to associate with our stigma.



I don't remember anybody _forcing _anybody else to do anything whatsover.



Trpdwarf said:


> I call bull-shit. I don't care if it's the unpopular stance, or that so many people will disagree with me. I understand what so few appear to understand these days.



Well, you're one up on me then, because that's the second time you've made a reference to popular or unpopular stances, and I have no idea what you're talking about.  A word is what it is.  "A rose is a rose is a rose..."  That's all.



Trpdwarf said:


> When something is made by/for furries it's furry. Anything else is unwarranted self importance, selfishness, greed, and an entitlement complex for people too blind to be happy with what they have and too full of themselves to have respect for other people, culture, and to some point these days religion, spirituality, and history.



See, I see this in quite the opposite light.  I think the idea that something furry _must _be made by furries in order to be called furry is the _height _of self-importance and selfishness, that no one else has the right to do so.  Furry is something that can done by any artist at any time whether he does so consciously or not, through intent or not.  It has nothing to do with respect or a lack of respect; it just simply is.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 7, 2010)

cpam said:


> I see nothing pretentious or arrogant in saying it at all.  I call it as I see it.  Regardless of the origins of the animalistic deities, Egyptian or otherwise, if they are anthropomophic, then they are furry.  I don't see any problem whatsoever with that distinction, and I'm amazed that you would be so offended by it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the words of a wise person "Spirituality is not a fanclub". 

I'm not offended so much as troubled by it. It's a rather poor way of thinking. Then again furries...you learn to not underestimate them. You don't see Anime fans running around claiming Cartoon = Anime but then again they have a canon and we don't and we apparently can't handle that. Well people like you can't fathom it.

How could you not? You are so good at parroting that side, the greedy child who wants everything regardless of his or her place. It's popular right now apparently in places that are not FAF, for irrational furs to run around claiming everything under the moon that looks like an animal but talks or has human traits is furry.

I'm not being pretentious. I'm being rational here. When you decide to go "All anthropomorphic animals equal furry" you are pretty much not only killing diversity within the umbrella but you are pretty much defecating on everything that dares to be anthropomorphic animal but not be directly made or associated with us. Furry equals anthro animal is not a FACT. You just pretend it is so that you don't have to refute any of my arguments or points.

Anubis is a religious figure. It was made by the Egyptians for their beliefs. It is not furry. To claim that it is not furry is not pretentious bur respectful perhaps of culture and boundaries and history itself. But to demand that it falls under our name by association as a human like animal is....very pretentious. Kind of insulting too. There are native Americans who still still believe in things like the trickster god(if you can call it a god) that took the form of a coyote to teach lessons. He was also called Old Man Coyote. According to your logic because in his coyote form he is an anthro animal he's suddenly furry and thus Native American spirituality/beliefs are suddenly furry. As for the Hindu they have a Monkey God tied in with a religious story. Do you realize that anthropomorphic animals still have a heavy role in current modern religions and belief systems? By deciding that "Well anthro animal is furry" you are pretty much calling all those beliefs and religions furry to some extent. Their characters at the very least. Isn't that, I dunno a little wrong?

If you can't see why it is selfish, why it is greedy, and what is wrong with this mentality than obviously you have blinders on and I can't take those off for you. Perhaps I am being serious but you know we are discussing things and a wee bit of seriousness is a little well, acceptable isn't it?

See I'm the kind of person who likes to listen to both sides. One of the biggest things....THE BIGGEST THINGS amongst other things that puts us in conflict with others is this giant self-righteous mentality that our fandom who's numbers don't even begin to compare to other existent fandoms such as the Anime community and the general Science Fiction community feels it within their ability to redefine a universal concept as being auto attached to us just because we lack a true canon.

Might I remind you that Anime fans don't go around saying the all cartoons are anime, and perhaps that's for the best. After all all sorts of soccer moms go around convinced all cartoons should be good for children and look where that gets them. The point is that things can have multiple branches. The branch does not define the tree.

The Furry fandom, and it's descriptor Furry is just one branch of the tree that is Anthropomorphic Animals. If you think I'm putting the tail as wagging itself, it's not compared to being a branch and saying you are the tree. Nice way to just ignore all the other branches and you know, the trunk too for which no life exists for the branch without it.

And like it or not you are shitting on other people's religions and spirituality. You are basically taking something that is part of them and pretty much labeling it a fan-club. Which is rather, you know, insulting. Are you going to call things like Hinduism a fan club? Just because they have some figures in their religion that happen to be anthro-animal. Are they furry all the sudden? I don't think so.

That said I do hope sincerely that the further the fandom goes on existing the less of your thinking we can see. Perhaps we can embrace a better fandom that knows it's place, and does not shit all over people's right to intent.

BTW: If I were not a furry, and made anthro animal art every once in a while, and someone told me that I have to accept being blanket labeled and lumped with the Furry Fandom, I would seriously be hard pressed to not slap that person in the face. Such arrogance is not to be argued with or rewarded I'll admit(although I'm guilty of arguing it now)

After all what right does some random person of some relativity small group figuratively speaking have to lump me in with a fandom that is full of perverts, pedophiles, animal rapists...etc etc. Sure there are some better aspects but still. I have the right to say what my content is and is for within reason. No douche-bag on the internet(or in real life) is going to tell me otherwise just to make his fandom seem more acceptable by going before the media and lying to them about every anthro animal thing being "FURRY" now.

It may be just a term but how you throw it about...has implications whether you want to admit to them or not.

It's all circular at this point. So have a good day.


----------



## Tao (Jun 7, 2010)

I think if they are a talking animal they can be called furry because there are furries with feral fursonas as well as anthro


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jun 7, 2010)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Anthro = Anthropomorphic characters and media involving them.
> Furry = People who think anthro's are awesome and media made by/for furries.
> 
> Seems pretty simple to me.


It is but most furries seem to be suffering from some mental retardation so they always get it wrong and call characters from cartoon and videogames "furry" because it's easier to say than "anthro" or "anthropomorphic animals". I personally just call 'em cartoon animals.

Although I do think some people freak out way too much because we have the balls to associate some cartoon animals with our fandom. But even though some furries like to so desperately believe there is some spiritual shit over it that's been around for thousands of years, the reality of it all that furry fandom started out with a bunch of people who were fans of the cartoon animals you'd see in Disney's and WB's cartoons.

I personally think furries are terrible content creators (unless it's about porn which can get you a quick fap) and don't really want to have anything to do with it. I consider myself furry because I'm a fan of the Looney Tunes and other media with anthropomorphic animals not created by actual furries, so I do not hesitate to associate Bugs Bunny or Usagi Yojimbo with furry.

TL;DR I'm a furry because I'm a fan of cartoon animals by professionals, not by other fans.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jun 7, 2010)

There is a lot of things made by non furry people that some furs might consider furry. Which it is for them, tho maybe not for others.

Many things are not really furry, just things that furries like. So somethings the majority will consider it furry related. Like said earlier a lot more if done from a other fur.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 7, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> We had this discussion before Randy. Should it really be necessary to rehash common sense?



I have plenty.



> When you call something furry you are implying ownership to the fandom or the fandom as the intended audience. That's pretentious and you know it. We should be above that.



Actually I disagree. From my own experience and observations a large majority of people use furry to simply refer to an anthropomorphic animal.



> Anime is made for anime fans. Video games are made for gamers. Anthropomorphic animal literature, movies, cartoons etc etc is/tend to be made for everyone. Not for furries. Furries just happen to like it because it's right down their ally. If something is going to be "Furry" that means it was made by us/for us because we don't have a canon technically like other groups do.



I disagree here to. Anime, video games etc are not JUST made for fans, they are made for whom ever wishes to watch them or play them. There is no label on an anime DVD that says "Sorry, this DVD is for fans only".



> Thundercats is not furry. Scooby Do is not furry. VGcats is not furry. Pearls before Swine is not furry. Red-wally Abbey is not furry. It does not take but half a brain cell to figure out WHY. It wasn't made for us. It was not made by us. We may like it but we are not the intended audience. So why call it furry? Why not just be a little more mature and respectful and just call it anthro animal if we have to label it anything at all.



by the definition of the word furry, yes they are. When the fandom first started it was for fans of such media. They were not MADE for furries. You make it sound like that unless it is "specifically" made for furries we are not allowed to be fans of it.



> Save the term furry for things that are made for us, such as our costumes, our comics, our pod-casts, our conventions, our art, and our literature?


Again, I have not seen a label on ANY furry comic that specifically states "For furries only". As far as I am concerned they are for whoever wants to read them, not just furries.


----------



## cpam (Jun 7, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> In the words of a wise person "Spirituality is not a fanclub".
> 
> I'm not offended so much as troubled by it. It's a rather poor way of thinking. Then again furries...you learn to not underestimate them. You don't see Anime fans running around claiming Cartoon = Anime but then again they have a canon and we don't and we apparently can't handle that. Well people like you can't fathom it.



Not really a good argument, as Anime actually _does _mean Animated Cartoon.  But we've come to accept that Anime refers _specifically _to Japanese-made animations.  So not really a good parallel to the furry/anthro argument.



Trpdwarf said:


> How could you not? You are so good at parroting that side, the greedy child who wants everything regardless of his or her place. It's popular right now apparently in places that are not FAF, for irrational furs to run around claiming everything under the moon that looks like an animal but talks or has human traits is furry.



I'm still in the dark as to what you keep referring to as a 'popular argument' elsewhere, but if, as you say, FAF seems to be the one place that holds contrary to the standard definition of Furry, then that suggests that FAF is in danger of becoming pretty inbred and unable to see beyond itself.



Trpdwarf said:


> I'm not being pretentious. I'm being rational here. When you decide to go "All anthropomorphic animals equal furry" you are pretty much not only killing diversity within the umbrella but you are pretty much defecating on everything that dares to be anthropomorphic animal but not be directly made or associated with us. Furry equals anthro animal is not a FACT. You just pretend it is so that you don't have to refute any of my arguments or points.



There is no pretense on _my _part.  It _is _a fact, and not because of any decision that I've personally made.  It is so because that was how it came to be when the fandom came to be and the word first came to be bandied about.  The fans knew exactly what they wanted the word to mean and that was how they used it.  Trying to argue otherwise is a pretty blatant act of denial.



Trpdwarf said:


> Anubis is a religious figure. It was made by the Egyptians for their beliefs. It is not furry. To claim that it is not furry is not pretentious bur respectful perhaps of culture and boundaries and history itself.



Again, the reasons for Anubis' creation or purpose are _irrelevant_.  They have no bearing whatever on his being or not being furry, and pointing out that he is a furry is not pretension but a simple acknowledgment.  You make _far _too much of his religious or spiritual importance, to a degree that I find to be the _real _pretension.



Trpdwarf said:


> But to demand that it falls under our name by association as a human like animal is....very pretentious. Kind of insulting too. There are native Americans who still still believe in things like the trickster god(if you can call it a god) that took the form of a coyote to teach lessons. He was also called Old Man Coyote. According to your logic because in his coyote form he is an anthro animal he's suddenly furry and thus Native American spirituality/beliefs are suddenly furry. As for the Hindu they have a Monkey God tied in with a religious story. Do you realize that anthropomorphic animals still have a heavy role in current modern religions and belief systems? By deciding that "Well anthro animal is furry" you are pretty much calling all those beliefs and religions furry to some extent. Their characters at the very least. Isn't that, I dunno a little wrong?



No.  Why should it be?  After all, I'm not the one saying that the _beliefs _are furry.  I'm only saying that Anubis and Coyote _themselves _are furry, as they indeed are.  



Trpdwarf said:


> If you can't see why it is selfish, why it is greedy, and what is wrong with this mentality than obviously you have blinders on and I can't take those off for you. Perhaps I am being serious but you know we are discussing things and a wee bit of seriousness is a little well, acceptable isn't it?



A serious discussion, especially on these boards, is quite refreshing in fact.  But I find your seriousness a bit intense and troubling, especially when you begin attributing motivations to my statements.  IE, in order for me to say what I say, I must be selfish and am only doing so to parrot the popular argument (whatever that is).  I say exactly what I mean and for no other reasons than that these are the facts of the matter.



Trpdwarf said:


> See I'm the kind of person who likes to listen to both sides. One of the biggest things....THE BIGGEST THINGS amongst other things that puts us in conflict with others is this giant self-righteous mentality that our fandom who's numbers don't even begin to compare to other existent fandoms such as the Anime community and the general Science Fiction community feels it within their ability to redefine a universal concept as being auto attached to us just because we lack a true canon.
> 
> Might I remind you that Anime fans don't go around saying the all cartoons are anime, and perhaps that's for the best. After all all sorts of soccer moms go around convinced all cartoons should be good for children and look where that gets them. The point is that things can have multiple branches. The branch does not define the tree.
> 
> ...



I don't think so either.  Your arguments are now drifting and have just swerved into the Nonsense Department.  I've never said any such thing.  You're jumping to conclusions based on your own assumptions.  The religions themselves are not furry, but if they've deities that are anthropomorphic, then those specific deities _are _furry.  It's a very simple equation.  There's no insult attached or intended, and if someone takes it as an insult, well, there's no avoiding the thin-skinned in life, but that still doesn't change any of the facts.



Trpdwarf said:


> That said I do hope sincerely that the further the fandom goes on existing the less of your thinking we can see. Perhaps we can embrace a better fandom that knows it's place, and does not shit all over people's right to intent.



I already know fandom's place; I've never had any illusions of it.  But the notion that it somehow 'shits over people's right to intent' is just one of the most -- and I hate to use the word since its already 'way overused in this conversation, but nothing else really fits -- _pretentious _notions that I've heard in a long time.  I'm not even entirely sure what you _mean _by a 'right to intent'.  Furry is a descriptive term; it does nothing to alter or negatively influence the thing that it describes.  Anubis is a furry; that does not mean he stops being a mythic deity.  Coyote is a furry; that does not alter his importance in the Indian legends or stories.  If you're worrying that it somehow does, then you're worrying far too much about the inconsequential.



Trpdwarf said:


> BTW: If I were not a furry, and made anthro animal art every once in a while, and someone told me that I have to accept being blanket labeled and lumped with the Furry Fandom, I would seriously be hard pressed to not slap that person in the face. Such arrogance is not to be argued with or rewarded I'll admit(although I'm guilty of arguing it now)
> 
> After all what right does some random person of some relativity small group figuratively speaking have to lump me in with a fandom that is full of perverts, pedophiles, animal rapists...etc etc. Sure there are some better aspects but still. I have the right to say what my content is and is for within reason. No douche-bag on the internet(or in real life) is going to tell me otherwise just to make his fandom seem more acceptable by going before the media and lying to them about every anthro animal thing being "FURRY" now.



You're a good decade or so too late for _this _particular fight.  Where were you when we were struggling to keep Furry separate from the Furry Lifestylers who fought like hell to merge it all together?  Where were you when the newcomers came along, believing and professing that Furry was open and accepting of bestiality and every other imaginable (and even some unimaginable) forms of fetishistic pornography?  _That _battle has been done and _lost _quite a long while ago, I'm sad to say.



Trpdwarf said:


> It may be just a term but how you throw it about...has implications whether you want to admit to them or not.
> 
> It's all circular at this point. So have a good day.



Well, I don't just throw it about.  I employ it exactly as it was always intended to be employed, and I use it where it is accurately applicable.  And the simple and unadulterated fact is that furry equals anthropomorphic animal, anthropomorphic works, or fans of anthropomorphic works.

Nothing more than that, and certainly nothing less.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 7, 2010)

So, apparently, the only way a person in the media can avoid having their creation lumped in with the Furry Fandom - whether they want it to be separate or not - is to say "Oh no, this isn't an anthropomorphized animal.  It's its own species, and said species was _always_ [walking on two legs / could speak / had hands / etcetera]", as then it's no longer an anthro but a unique species (and thus exempt from the Furry label).

The main problem I have with the "All anthropomorphic = furry" is that it's _nearly the exact same_ as "All rectangles are squares."  No, they're not.  And, unfortunately, _I_ am going to have to be the one to explain on multiple levels:

1)  Not all Fur creations are anthropomorphized animals.  Again, Robo-Furs and unique species.  If someone's creation was said to be a unique species or based off a robot, it would _never_ be a Furry character because it was never an anthropomorphized animal.  No, an Anthro-Fox shaped Robot doesn't count as an Anthro, because it's not an anthropomorphized animal:  It's a Robot shaped like one.  Just like how a man-shaped Robot is not instantaneously a human.  The problem here is that it discounts at least a good couple hundred / thousand characters and 'sonas from the fandom, simply because their creator didn't make them a biological pre-existing animal.

2)  Back to the square-rectangle thing, all squares are rectangles, yes.  However, going back to the "nearly" and remembering point one, just because it has four right angles (it's based on an animal) and has two parallel sets of sides (is given humanoid traits) does not mean that it is instantly a square (a Furry).  The problem being that, since no-one can point to any specific trait common within the fandom - and this leads back to Trp's "No concise canon" bit - there are many furs who go "Well ah well it's close enough slap Furry on it anyways."

3)  As Trp pointed out, you're associating - whether by design or not - things that have _absolutely nothing to do with the fandom_ as open range for its members.  X-Men's big schtick is Mutants - specifically those who were based from humans.  Under the same association that "Any animal that has been anthropomorphized may be applied to the Furry Fandom", any human that has been turned into a Mutant or gifted with rare powers may be applied to Marvel's fanbase.  Warhammer, HEROES, Star Wars (specifically for Jedi), and more:  All of these are now, under the same argument, now a part of the Marvel fanbase.  You don't want to be associated with Marvel?  _Tough luck buddy, Marvel says you're a part of it and thus you have no say about it._

4)  The blatant disrespect presented towards a creator's opinion or intent.  This combines with #3.  People who have specifically said "My work is not Furry" and "I do not in any way want to be associated with the Furry Fandom":  Too bad chum, _they_ have dibs because you made the critical error of applying _speech_ to one of your characters.  It makes someone else's opinion null and void on a subject:  It leaves only the Fandom's voice as important, nobody else's.  

5)  The fandom is, apparently, able to take in everything but at the same time disown anything that would be negative for it.  Apparently, though the definition of most people is "A member of the Furry Fandom" or "An anthropomorphized animal", and that can be applied to anything they want in a free grab, someone / something that would make the fandom look bad is _immediately_ able to be disregarded as not part of the fandom or not a representation of its ideals:  It is.  You made the grab to take everything, pay the consequences that you said it was a part of your fandom.  Oh, wait, that means all that Rule /34/ porn of all those animal characters if Furry Porn.  We can't have that, it'd make the fandom look bad!  Only porn officially spewed out on a Furry Site is Furry Porn, the rest of it is just /34/.  See, we're not sexual!  We have our cake, and eat it too!

6)  To close back up on point 1, a lot of people will then say "Well, alright, they can count too."  In that case, they're changing the base of the definition slightly.  The catch with that?  Surprise:  You just admitted it's not a clear cut "Anthro = Furry, non-Anthro = Non-Furry".  You just admitted - even if you can't clearly describe it and where the lines end - that there _is_ a separation between what counts as a Furry character.  


Tl;dr:  Attaman does not like several of his favorite universes suddenly being torn apart and losing all individuality as fifty other fandoms suddenly make a property grab for each and every individual component, nor that people can apparently selectively choose anything they want to be part of the fandom and throw out all of it that's bad.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 7, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'm not offended so much as troubled by it. It's a rather poor way of thinking. Then again furries...you learn to not underestimate them. You don't see Anime fans running around claiming Cartoon = Anime but then again they have a canon and we don't and we apparently can't handle that. Well people like you can't fathom it.



True anime fans don't. However anime is just a form of animation.



> How could you not? You are so good at parroting that side, the greedy child who wants everything regardless of his or her place. It's popular right now apparently in places that are not FAF, for irrational furs to run around claiming everything under the moon that looks like an animal but talks or has human traits is furry.



Because by the definition of the multiple meanings of the word furry, they are. You can not deny the definitions of a word.



> I'm not being pretentious. I'm being rational here. When you decide to go "All anthropomorphic animals equal furry" you are pretty much not only killing diversity within the umbrella but you are pretty much defecating on everything that dares to be anthropomorphic animal but not be directly made or associated with us. Furry equals anthro animal is not a FACT. You just pretend it is so that you don't have to refute any of my arguments or points.



You are just pretending it isn't. again I will refer to the origins of the fandom back in the 80's where a group of people got together at sci-fi cons I believe to share their interests in anthropomorphic animals created by mainstream companies such as WB and Disney. You have ignored the entire point I was trying to make in this thread. I suggest you go back and re-read my OP.




> If you can't see why it is selfish, why it is greedy, and what is wrong with this mentality than obviously you have blinders on and I can't take those off for you. Perhaps I am being serious but you know we are discussing things and a wee bit of seriousness is a little well, acceptable isn't it?



No it is not being selfish or greedy, at least not on my part. When I use the word furry I use it to refer to ANY anthropomorphic animal no matter it's origins. I am not trying to "claim" anything for the fandom. but you do seem to forget the origins as to why the fandom exists in the first place.



> Might I remind you that Anime fans don't go around saying the all cartoons are anime, and perhaps that's for the best. After all all sorts of soccer moms go around convinced all cartoons should be good for children and look where that gets them. The point is that things can have multiple branches. The branch does not define the tree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaui (Jun 7, 2010)

only anthropomorphic creatures with fur should be called "furries"

everything else should be called "scalies" or "anthros"

EDIT: Shitpost is really bad, but I think you get the idea.


This is as ridiculous as somebody like me who used to try and differentiate between "feral" and "nonmorphic", well, jeez, that's like calling a black person african american and an indian person native american! It's just another way of saying it but I suppose it means the same thing, although "feral" has quite a "wild" connotation to it, and I hardly consider my quadruped fursona  a feral raccoon, what a redundant term that would be, a wild wild animal @_@


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 7, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Tl;dr:  Attaman does not like several of his favorite universes suddenly being torn apart and losing all individuality as fifty other fandoms suddenly make a property grab for each and every individual component, nor that people can apparently selectively choose anything they want to be part of the fandom and throw out all of it that's bad.



I will agree with you and Trp that some furries do use the word furry in a "property grabbing" sense as you put it. I feel the point I was trying to make has blown over some peoples heads.

So I will try to explain it a little better. We all know the two main definitions of furry now so I wont bother repeating it, now keeping that definition in mind calling bugs bunny a furry is not incorrect if the word is used as a simpler term for anthro.

However it should not be used by some who "property grab" everything for the fandom.

I believe it depends on the context one uses the word in.


EDIT:I am tempted to ask for a thread lock because the shear walls of texts in here is giving me a headache. @.@


----------



## cpam (Jun 7, 2010)

Attaman said:


> So, apparently, the only way a person in the media can avoid having their creation lumped in with the Furry Fandom - whether they want it to be separate or not - is to say "Oh no, this isn't an anthropomorphized animal.  It's its own species, and said species was _always_ [walking on two legs / could speak / had hands / etcetera]", as then it's no longer an anthro but a unique species (and thus exempt from the Furry label).



I think there would have to be some sort of logical proof to support such a statement.  To use, as an example, the Na'vi from the movie Avatar, I would say that these are _not _furries, in spite of their apparent furriness.  They are aliens.  They have evolved from some sort of feline/primate species, the same as humans have evolved from apes.  They are a parallel to humanity.  On the other hand, I would say that the Kzin from Larry Niven's books or the Hani from C H Cherryh's Chanur series _are _furry, despite their alien status because they were strongly designed to reflect specific animal characteristics.  I'll admit this tends to be a gray area and there's likely to be argument, but I find this to be a convincing condition.



Attaman said:


> The main problem I have with the "All anthropomorphic = furry" is that it's _nearly the exact same_ as "All rectangles are squares."  No, they're not.  And, unfortunately, _I_ am going to have to be the one to explain on multiple levels:
> 
> 1)  Not all Fur creations are anthropomorphized animals.  Again, Robo-Furs and unique species.  If someone's creation was said to be a unique species or based off a robot, it would _never_ be a Furry character because it was never an anthropomorphized animal.  No, an Anthro-Fox shaped Robot doesn't count as an Anthro, because it's not an anthropomorphized animal:  It's a Robot shaped like one.  Just like how a man-shaped Robot is not instantaneously a human.  The problem here is that it discounts at least a good couple hundred / thousand characters and 'sonas from the fandom, simply because their creator didn't make them a biological pre-existing animal.



I would agree so long as said robot is totally mechanical and has no independent personality.  If it develops one in harmony with the personalities of the furs about it, or has a consciousness transferred into it from a fur, then I would say that it has become a furry.  If it's furry in design, then I don't know why we wouldn't call it a furry; maybe a furrinoid.



Attaman said:


> 2)  Back to the square-rectangle thing, all squares are rectangles, yes.  However, going back to the "nearly" and remembering point one, just because it has four right angles (it's based on an animal) and has two parallel sets of sides (is given humanoid traits) does not mean that it is instantly a square (a Furry).  The problem being that, since no-one can point to any specific trait common within the fandom - and this leads back to Trp's "No concise canon" bit - there are many furs who go "Well ah well it's close enough slap Furry on it anyways."



Frankly, I don't see a problem with the basic definition of a furry being an animal with sapience.  That would seem to cover all that really needs to be covered.



Attaman said:


> 3)  As Trp pointed out, you're associating - whether by design or not - things that have _absolutely nothing to do with the fandom_ as open range for its members.  X-Men's big schtick is Mutants - specifically those who were based from humans.  Under the same association that "Any animal that has been anthropomorphized may be applied to the Furry Fandom", any human that has been turned into a Mutant or gifted with rare powers may be applied to Marvel's fanbase.  Warhammer, HEROES, Star Wars (specifically for Jedi), and more:  All of these are now, under the same argument, now a part of the Marvel fanbase.  You don't want to be associated with Marvel?  _Tough luck buddy, Marvel says you're a part of it and thus you have no say about it._



I'm not sure I completely track this argument, but it seems that you're repeating the unique and crippling notion that something is furry _only _if its _from _the fandom.  That just doesn't follow, as there would have to be something furry _first _in order for there to be a fandom to grow up around it.  The fandom was attracted to anthropomorphic stories, cartoons and comics and called them Furry.  Hence, anything that has anthropomorphic animals is furry.



Attaman said:


> 4)  The blatant disrespect presented towards a creator's opinion or intent.  This combines with #3.  People who have specifically said "My work is not Furry" and "I do not in any way want to be associated with the Furry Fandom":  Too bad chum, _they_ have dibs because you made the critical error of applying _speech_ to one of your characters.  It makes someone else's opinion null and void on a subject:  It leaves only the Fandom's voice as important, nobody else's.



I don't understand this business about 'blatant disrespect'.  It has nothing to do with either respect nor disrespect.  It's simply about description.  The creator's desires don't have much to do with it either.  If an artist does a portrait, then he's doing a portrait no matter how hard he tries to claim that it's really a landscape tipped over on its end with some big guy who came out and stood in front of his line of sight.  The object itself defines what it is, not the artist.

5)  The fandom is, apparently, able to take in everything but at the same time disown anything that would be negative for it.  Apparently, though the definition of most people is "A member of the Furry Fandom" or "An anthropomorphized animal", and that can be applied to anything they want in a free grab, someone / something that would make the fandom look bad is _immediately_ able to be disregarded as not part of the fandom or not a representation of its ideals:  It is.  You made the grab to take everything, pay the consequences that you said it was a part of your fandom.  Oh, wait, that means all that Rule /34/ porn of all those animal characters if Furry Porn.  We can't have that, it'd make the fandom look bad!  Only porn officially spewed out on a Furry Site is Furry Porn, the rest of it is just /34/.  See, we're not sexual!  We have our cake, and eat it too![/QUOTE]

I'm not familiar with rule 34.

Seriously.  I'm not.

But as to the overall statement, I think it's overstated.  There is a concern that pornography threatens to overtake and undermine any worthwhile interests that the fandom has had.  That's not uncommon and is in step with virtually every other artistic interest in the world, from music to television to fine art, that the prurient interests of the lowest common denominator will drown out the better qualities of any given artform.  Furry is not the only one in this boat, and there's nothing either uncommon or unwarranted in this concern.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 7, 2010)

I only use "furry" when the game/story/etc. was made with the intent of being called "furry".


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 7, 2010)

I only call things "Furry" when it is a fandom-made piece, or made by a person in the fandom.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 7, 2010)

I still go by the definition of
"furry is the fan, anthro is the character"


----------



## cpam (Jun 7, 2010)

I call a spade a spade.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 7, 2010)

cpam said:


> I call a spade a spade.



Lol.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 7, 2010)

cpam said:


> I call a spade a spade.



That spade could be a kitty litter scooper.
Or a hoe.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 7, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That spade could be a kitty litter scooper.
> Or a hoe.



Hoe's only work when paid!


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 7, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Hoe's only work when paid!



I wouldn't be surprised if someone paid for a gardening tool to later shove up their asshole. :V


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 7, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if someone paid for a gardening tool to later shove up their asshole. :V



Handle is long enough. XD

I'd use a broom though, at least the floor would get swept when they walk.


----------



## Geek (Jun 7, 2010)

ALL ANIMALS ARE FURRIES.


----------



## Cchytale Murilega (Jun 13, 2010)

I always thought of them to be slightly different, but the same in some aspects. Like for anthro, I think of just like...bipedal dragons or something... But for furry, I think of dirty activities and things like that. That's just how I always perceived the terms as.


----------



## south syde dobe (Jun 13, 2010)

Geek said:


> ALL ANIMALS ARE FURRIES.



No they are furry :|


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 29, 2021)

A Anthro and Furry arent the same thing. Only idiotic Furries thought of calling both themselves and their supposed interest Furries. Supposed because the vast majority draw animal art, not Anthro art. "Anthro" came first, not "Furry". Anyone who calls a Anthro a Furry sounds ignorant as hell and should never be taken seriously.


----------



## Regret (Jul 29, 2021)

Solid 11 year necro


----------



## Bababooey (Jul 29, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> A Anthro and Furry arent the same thing. Only idiotic Furries thought of calling both themselves and their supposed interest Furries. Supposed because the vast majority draw animal art, not Anthro art. "Anthro" came first, not "Furry". Anyone who calls a Anthro a Furry sounds ignorant as hell and should never be taken seriously.


You're absolutely obsessed. This is just pathetic at this point.
You are 33 years old. Please do something better with your life than be butthurt about how furries use a word.


----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 29, 2021)

Chomby said:


> You're absolutely obsessed. This is just pathetic at this point.
> You are 33 years old. Please do something better with your life than be butthurt about how furries use a word.


33?


----------



## Bababooey (Jul 29, 2021)

Blood_Shift said:


> 33?


That's what your profile says. Regardless, please do something better with your life. You are not suppose to reply to old threads like this. I don't know why you are so obsessed other than you are greedy for validation.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 29, 2021)

Unfuckingbelievable.  You guys cannot possibly be this dumb.  PUT HIM ON FUCKING IGNORE AND REPORT HIS STUPID SHIT.  NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HOW YOU FLEXED ON A TROLL.


----------



## Bababooey (Jul 29, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> Unfuckingbelievable.  You guys cannot possibly be this dumb.  PUT HIM ON FUCKING IGNORE AND REPORT HIS STUPID SHIT.  NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HOW YOU FLEXED ON A TROLL.


Bruh. Chill the hell out. You are making yourself look just as bad as him.
Do yourself a favor and ignore this thread if it is making you so enraged.

Edit: This is where I tap out.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 29, 2021)

Chomby said:


> Bruh. Chill the hell out. You are making yourself look just as bad as him.
> Do yourself a favor and ignore this thread.


Shut up, dumbfuck, I even DMed you before this to POLITELY address this and you have decided to go ahead and completely validate my opinion that you are too stupid to be helped.


----------



## Bababooey (Jul 29, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> Shut up, dumbfuck, I even DMed you before this to POLITELY address this and you have decided to go ahead and completely validate my opinion that you are too stupid to be helped.


Yikes.


----------



## Borophagus Metropolis (Jul 29, 2021)

Amazing


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Jul 29, 2021)




----------



## Blood_Shift (Jul 29, 2021)

Oy, I guess non-Furries were rite: you can't say anything to Furries, as they'll just b-tch and complain. Nu wonder this fandom is dying.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 29, 2021)

*sighs..*


----------

