# The essence of being a furry



## ZeeDog (Jul 24, 2008)

I am expanding and old essay I did, and want to discuss it to get more ideas, so feel free to argue any point(without angst or attitudes). It is a work in progress, so please bare with me

I find the best way to explain what is furry is based on Ayn Rand's view of romanticism, since it's a sort of romantic view of things, not realistic, but based on ideals you get from reality, in other words, an idea based view of people, where the animal sums up the fundamentals behind that person and represents his or her nature(in other words, "fits" the person). Thus, a dog fursona would fit someone with a nature similar to a dog(playful, loyal, etc), and for that reason, he would view himself as a dog. A fursona is the external imaginary manifestation of his identity, a view into his fundamental nature, an idealized version of himself, since it would be ideally fitting for you to be part dog. Thus, since you see yourself as a dog in spirit, you pick up other things generally associated with animals and pets(cuddles, snuggling, pouncing, nomming, wagging, cuteness, playfulness, yiffyness, etc), which also become part of the ideal you. This can lead to the mistake of feeling that you ARE an animal, when you just share it's spirit(the ideas the it brings). And thus, being a furry can make you a very positive person, since you basically engage in ideal worship. 

It is at this point where I consider someone to be a fur, when they express their anthromorphication. I am not sure when furry meant to just like furry art, but it is not the way I ever saw it used, and in my opinion, it is the not the most practical. Nobody wants a bunch of snobby artist or cynics, who are too smug to wag a tail, start denouncing furs for what they fundamentally are, without being it themselves(and then label it "self criticism"). Neither is "whatever you want furry to be" any good, since it would just dilute furryness and lead to the previous, not to mention have an intellectual base that is total mush.

It is also wise to keep in mind that because some furries do negative things does not mean that it is a fundamental flaw in the idea of furry. For example, because many furries are subjectivist does not mean that furdom is necessarily subjectivist, since it does not directly come from the idea of furry. What is fundamentally furry is: the ideas your fursona brings you, general animal traits and general themes, sweetness or willingness to cuddle(unless contradicted by your fursona), and yiffyness(unless contradicted by your fursona), since all of these are directly derived from the idea of your character and general animal traits, so to criticize this would be to criticize what is fundamentally furry, which would mean you would be fundamentally against furry, and it would be illogical to be one if you were, if you were a consistent person. 

Furry art can be explained similarly, where species gives you a fundamental idea(dogness), which gives personality to a simple character, which makes it more likeable. Thus an anthro cat could make you think of cuteness, a dragon of fearsomeness, etc. It's sort of like giving an animal flavor to a fundamentally human character, making it very aesthetically pleasing. This also means the porn is more romanticized and aesthetically pleasing, which is why we love yiff. Thus, furry is a a romantic art form, one of ideals, and thus, ideas, making it much more human.

I'll keep writing when I get more internets in Yurop D=


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 24, 2008)

That's actually pretty good.

The only thing left to crack is whether this whole association thing comes from stereotyping or plain intuition.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 24, 2008)

I agree that people that only participate in the art aspect shouldn't consider themselves furries. It's like calling yourself a football player because you've watched some of the games. Hell, there are thousands of kids that LOVE mickey mouse and such, but that doesn't make them furries. I draw and like the art, sometimes wear a tail in private, and occasionally act like an animal, yet I still don't consider myself fully furry. It doesn't influence my life enough. For instance, I don't go around wearing T-shirst or jewelery with my spirit animal on it, and most of my friends aren't even aware of my interest in furries. It's like I'm a hobby furry, and I only participate in my free time =3


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 24, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> That's actually pretty good.
> 
> The only thing left to crack is whether this whole association thing comes from stereotyping or plain intuition.



I blame Godzilla putting his sexy self before me on TV at a very young and impressionable age. 

Very logically stated.  I think the term "furry" is also a very, very broad one too that can be applied to a vast crowd with equally vast extremes to which they consider themselves furs (or as to what they consider furs).


----------



## slashersivi (Jul 24, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I agree that people that only participate in the art aspect shouldn't consider themselves furries. It's like calling yourself a football player because you've watched some of the games. Hell, there are thousands of kids that LOVE mickey mouse and such, but that doesn't make them furries. I draw and like the art, sometimes wear a tail in private, and occasionally act like an animal, yet I still don't consider myself fully furry. It doesn't influence my life enough. For instance, I don't go around wearing T-shirst or jewelery with my spirit animal on it, and most of my friends aren't even aware of my interest in furries. It's like I'm a hobby furry, and I only participate in my free time =3


 
Personally I think oppositely from what you do... I don't see why one has to be completely "immersed" to be furry. I don't think I'm an animal nor do I think I have some sort of connection to the animals that make up my fursona (just that I have things in common, sharing traits which I have explained in other threads); I only wear my furry attire at conventions, with the exception of my hoof-slippers because, well they're slippers. x) But I like anthromorphic characters, both drawing and in other media forms (ie Disney and books), and I like animals in general so I call myself a furry. It seems I am less "furry" than you are and yet I still consider myself one (and my WoW guildmates relentlessly call me one as well because they think it's funny o_o). I just don't understand how you can compare a furry artist to a sports spectator. Furry artists are furries. "Furry" isn't some exclusive club just for RLYSRS or fanatical people.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 24, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> I blame Godzilla putting his sexy self before me on TV at a very young and impressionable age.
> 
> Very logically stated. I think the term "furry" is also a very, very broad one too that can be applied to a vast crowd with equally vast extremes to which they consider themselves furs (or as to what they consider furs).


It is a broad term. Not by it's definition, but because it's that thing along the lines of "someone who likes ice-cream" - who doesn't?



Nargle said:


> I agree that people that only participate in the art aspect shouldn't consider themselves furries. It's like calling yourself a football player because you've watched some of the games.


I'm sure it's up to people to decide what to consider themselves.

Thing is though - while watching football doesn't make you a football player, it does make you a football fan. And we just happen to be furry fans.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 24, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Thing is though - while watching football doesn't make you a football player, it does make you a football fan. And we just happen to be furry fans.



Exactly =D

Slasher- What Draco said =3 If you don't want to BE a furry, and you just like them, then you are simply a FAN of furries.


----------



## slashersivi (Jul 24, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Slasher- What Draco said =3 If you don't want to BE a furry, and you just like them, then you are simply a FAN of furries.


 
Well I like costuming and if there was a way to become my fursona without some sort of consequence (which includes being ostracized from society ) then I supposed I would.  Nonetheless I still think of "furries" as any member of the FURRY FANDOM.


----------



## xiath (Jul 24, 2008)

that sounds good.  Being called a furry is a very subjective thing IMO.  I personally believe that people who have a love for furry art (not just a neutral liking for it) could be called a furry, a minor one at that.  

I also believe, that there are different levels of 'furryness', loving the art as the low point and acting like an animal all of the time and wearing fur suits a lot as the high point.

Personally, i fall in the point to where i do wish i was an anthro and do show some traits of dogness in my personality (ie, i growl when not pleased, i also tend to raise my upper lip when made so it looks like i have a snaral (sp???), etc... all without realy trying to do so.).  I don't personally own a fursuit, but that is only because i don't have the money for one. so i guess i could be called a furry


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 24, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Exactly =D
> 
> Slasher- What Draco said =3 If you don't want to BE a furry, and you just like them, then you are simply a FAN of furries.


Wait, what?

"Furry" is a short for "Furry fan", always has been. Neither implies roleplaying or whatever else just because said stuff happens to be relatively popular among other fans - it's just about liking anthros.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jul 24, 2008)

Not bad. Twas a good read and I mostly agreed with it.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 24, 2008)

Draco- Furries ARE the anthro people, and the desire to be one. A furry isn't someone who just enjoys looking at them. If that was true, every flippin kid would be a furry. But they're not. Plus, there's a reason it's called the furry fandom. The people are fans of anthropomorphic animals, thus they like drawing them or looking like them, but some feel the desire to identify _themselves_ as a furry, becoming more then just a fan. I'm not trying to exclude furry fans from the fandom or anything, because they do in fact make up a lot of it.


Slasher- I'm not saying you're not a furry, you actually sound very furry to me. All I'm saying is the mere liking of the art isn't enough to call yourself a furry. Hell, maybe you don't dress up or believe you're an animal, but if you have some sort of fursona or interest in being a furry, then you're more then just a fan. It's a very broad term, but merely liking the art isn't enough. Like I said, watching football or mickey mouse doesn't make you a football player or mickey mouse himself. But if you have the desire to become a football player you can, and if you want to dress up as a mouse (Or even just fantasize about being one) you can "become" one, but either way, you'll be more then just a fan.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jul 24, 2008)

Not necessarily. I am a furry because I _like_ anthropomorphic animals. I always have, and I always will. I was drawn to things like Robin Hood and Crash Bandicoot because I thought anthros were cool, but I have no desire to be one, and that is where you are wrong. By your definition, I'm not a furry.

I don't draw, I don't wish to be one, I don't fursuit, I don't even have a fursona. Am I a furry by your definition? No, I'm not. Am I a furry under mine? Yes, I am.


----------



## slashersivi (Jul 24, 2008)

Nargle, it's fine for you to have that opinion but it irks me that you keep stating it like it's a fact.  Who are you to tell people whether they can consider themselves a furry?  I think the above poster is a good example.

We are ALL furry fans.  "Real" furries, aka anthromorphic animals, are not real.  So it doesn't matter if someone thinks they are one, they are still a fan, not an actual furry.  Furry as we use it is merely a term for a member of the furry fandom, which consists of a wide spectrum of people ranging from people who just appreciate anthromorphics in various medias to people who think they're werewolves.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 24, 2008)

Great Crusader- Yes, there will always be people making their own definitions, especially within this fandom. I'm merely basing it off of the actions of the majority of other people. 

For instance, I know tons of people that are drawn to anthros like yourself, but would never consider themselves a furry. Furries don't even have to exist for people to like animal people.

There are also people that act more "furry" then you, like myself, that don't consider themselves furries. I wear a tail, dress up as an animal for every halloween, sometimes act like an animal in private, and I've rped as a furry (Don't have a fursona, though), yet I still don't call myself a furry. 

I'm just a regular human that's interested in them. You can call yourself whatever you want, but I still have a problem with calling everyone who plays Sonic the Hedgehog or watches Robin Hood a furry.


Slasher- I'm not saying people can't call themselves furries, I just won't consider them to be such. But what about people like myself, that don't consider themselves furries, while you sit there and call me one? Aren't you doing the exact same thing? You're stating it like a fact that anyone who likes animal people is automatically a furry.

(And I'm not saying you CAN'T do it, just quit getting irked when I do the same thing you're doing.)


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

One of my fave quotes (that never seems to amuse anyone else) is Victor Hugo (you know, the guy who wrote the book Les Miserables-- yes it was a book before it was a musical!):



			
				VictorHugo said:
			
		

> It is our belief that if the soul were visible to the eye, every member of the human species would be seen to correspond to some species of the animal world, and a truth scarcely perceived by thinkers would be readily confirmed, namely, that from the oyster to the eagle, from the swine to the tiger, all animals are to be found in men and each of them exists in some man, sometimes several at a time.
> 
> Animals are nothing but the portrayal of our virtues and vices made manifest to our eyes, the visible reflections of our souls. God displays them to us to give us food for thought.


 
Personally, what I think lies at the root of the fandom is a fascination. And at the root of that fascination are two instincts (fairly well documented by evolutionary psych guys) we evolved to have:

One is a fascination with living things, their forms, habits, and essential "character" or "essence" or "spirit." Thus, catness, dogness, horseness, etc, especially if you've ever been aroud cats, dogs, horses, respectively.
The other instinct is a fascination with/awareness of other intelligent beings-- and the reflexive attempt to try and understand or "model" what's going on in their minds.

When you put the two together, you inevitably have an inborn human fascination with the idea of animals with a human point of view (and by extension, intelligence, language, even hands and the rest.)

From there, I think it's fairly normal to try and elaborate this sense of fascination and awe, into a distinguishing part of one's identity. Like you said, people notice that a person has certain "catlike" features, ergo, they identify with a cat.

Through history, human spiritual practices have always found some set of inspirational ideas to latch onto. In some eras, it's the cycle of the seasons and vegetation growth, harvest, death, rebirth-- and the slain-and-ressurected king that goes along with all that. In others, it's the complex but regular patterns of the stars and planets. In others, the perfection and nobility of human form and reason. In many of the first, as with our ancestors over the millenia of the great hunt across the plains of Eurasia-- and I would argue, strongly emergent in the furry fandom-- the fascination is with animal forms and powers.

I agree that it's flimsy to go with some definition of "furry" most of us know misses the mark, like "anthing goes!!!"

On the other hand, I disagree that an especially intense identification with an animal is the most basic thing. The most basic thing is the fascination itself.

I think another thing that comes from identifying with an animal or species, is the whole make-believe game of "what would it be like to be such an animal," and the biggest deal for whitebread joe like me, at least, when it comes to that, is that animals obviously live largely free of the ordinary social baggage and jarringly artificial circumstances we humans find ourselves trapped in.

One of the words I hear furries use to describe this imagined state of mind is "innocence." However you describe it, this similar-but-different, social-but-not-trapped, uncomplicated, baggage- and disgust- and superstition-free attitude toward life that we can imagine having as animals-with-a-point-of-view, is the other part of what I've always seen as essentially furry, and I think you may have been getting at it too, in a way.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Inborn fascination with the idea of thinking animals plus the daydream of naturalness/innocence. That's furry.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Slasher- What Draco said =3 If you don't want to BE a furry, and you just like them, then you are simply a FAN of furries.


 
The thing though is that this's simply contrary to the way the term's being used. Most people take it to mean an actual person with an interest in anthropomorphic art, ideas, &c, who may have so much interest that they self-identify as an animal, anthropomorphic animal, etc. Or may not.

Ultimately, that identification at its healthiest is make-believe, and it's rather incompatible to insist on taking make-believe too literally or too strictly.

And there's the inevitable risk of sounding furrier-than-thou. 

Words have meaning according to the consensus among the people who use the word. With the great majority of words in english, that's the entire body of english speakers. With a word like "furry," though, it's a dispersed fandom. Either way, the most prominent seeming references on language that include the word tend to become authorotative. Which makes Wikifur probably the closest thing we have to an authorotative guide to the word:

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



			
				Wikifur said:
			
		

> Someone who says they are furry is generally expressing an interest in anthropomorphic animals and/or creatures.


----------



## SparkOfMortality (Jul 24, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> One of my fave quotes (that never seems to amuse anyone else) is Victor Hugo (you know, the guy who wrote the book Les Miserables-- yes it was a book before it was a musical!):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is EXACTLY how "furry" I am. Like you just wrote out my beliefs right there. If THAT alone makes you a furry than I am completely and 100% furry.


----------



## E-mannor (Jul 24, 2008)

as far as saying you are actually a furry or not, i say it isnt like being a football player and watching football, its like being... gay, or strait (just an example, dont try to read into it) you simply are, and only you can know.

i say this because if someone goes to conventions in a fursuit just because one of his friends wants him to go with him, he could arguably not be furry, while someone could be an avid furry but be amish on some farm in the middle of nowhere and never even know there is a fandom.


----------



## Giorgio Gabriel (Jul 24, 2008)

WARNING: in this post, I take Furries seriously.  You have been alerted.

Ah, yes.  We return to the supposed innocence of furries, often cited by dyed-in-the-wool members of the fandom as being a healthy and positive aspect of letting one's Fursona shine through, like an expression of one's true spirit without the social restraints and closeminded values of mundane everyday humanity.  It is said to be much more natural and liberating than one's normal human existence...

First off, I will agree that furries act innocently in some ways.  But it is a destructive and somewhat frightening innocence in most ways - an innocence that really means a complete lack of empathy for one's neighbor.  
Children are notoriously unable to feel empathy for things, which is why you will see them torturing animals or hurting them for no good reason, not because they want to.  They are not aware that what they are doing is hurting the animal and causing it pain and suffering - instead, they just want to see what the fly will do once its wings have been pulled off.  Young children are creatures of unbridled Id, and in that way one can say that furries are indeed as innocent-acting as children.  Furs are made to think from the moment of entering the fandom that they must unleash the restrictions on their Id and act on it instead of on their ego or superego.  

The Id was described by Sigmund Freud as being a seething cauldron of excitation.  It is pure chaotic emotion and nothing else, free of logic or mores.  
It is the darkness and mystery in all human minds, the thing that drives us to *want what we want, when we want it.*  The Id fuels our desires and our wants, our basest wishes and our lusts.  It is frightening and yet beautiful thing - and it runs rampant in the minds of all Furs.  One can easily see this by turning their eyes to the most obvious thing in the entire fandom - the porn.  Furry porn is notorious for its excesses, and as silly as it might seem it actually shows a very disturbing trend in the community - a need for constant feeding of the Id.  Fetishes are rife in the fandom, and good luck finding a piece of furry porn that isn't gonzo-styled with oversized cocks and exaggeratedly large amounts of fluids.  Chances are if you're a fur you've typefucked or jerked it/shlicked to the porn before at some point - feel free to deny this at leisure, there will be many who will say yes all the same to this.  
You can see a basal need to have one's filthiest desires played out in the porn, an almost dizzying -need- to experience pleasure enough to sate one's Id - and sating the Id is like trying to put out a nuclear explosion with just your bare hands.  It can never be sated fully and this is where most of them start to spiral down into the highly-defensive madness that we're all too familiar with.

Seeking validation from their peers and superiors, the now Id-driven fur is compelled to let everyone know.  In his or her fragile state, they are unable to handle criticism, since their logic has been abandoned nearly entirely, and as such they easily dissolve once trolled by people on the internet and in reality.  And despite their talk of liberal ways and acceptance there is actually a very solid structure of rules in the fandom.  You can easily draw the ire of others if you go against these rules, and too much of this will result in you eventually being ostracized(this is where the Burned Furs come in, but that is a tale for another day).  
There is a stifling amount of 'acceptance' in the fandom, one-sided acceptance that accepts freaks and sexfiends of all sorts and proudly welcomes them as being upstanding members of the society, but constructive criticism and people who wish to point out and correct the flaws in the fandom are ignored thoroughly.  
Reality checks are right out.  One can never remind a furry of reality - tell an ordinary person on the internet their Real Name and they won't care.  They even sometimes use it as their username.  Tell a Furry his Real Name and it's like speaking the name of a powerful spirit in its presence - they crumble right away in fear and retreat with their tail between their legs, begging you not to tell their friends that Perceival Yiffington the IVth is actually Edward Johnson who lives in his parent's basement.  Reality is what many furs fear immensely, and it reflects in their tendency to fursuit.

So, in reality the fandom actually promotes some very unhealthy values, most of which lead to a slippery slope of insanity.  I am not saying that becoming a furry will turn you into a gibbering, drooling maniac, but the values of the fandom coupled with self-imposed solitude from reality will no doubt result in someone's mental bearing being knocked off balance without the input of the mundane to keep them on the levels.

And that's my take on this all.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 24, 2008)

E-mannor said:


> as far as saying you are actually a furry or not, i say it isnt like being a football player and watching football, its like being... gay, or strait (just an example, dont try to read into it) you simply are, and only you can know.
> 
> i say this because if someone goes to conventions in a fursuit just because one of his friends wants him to go with him, he could arguably not be furry, while someone could be an avid furry but be amish on some farm in the middle of nowhere and never even know there is a fandom.



That's true, but that isn't the context I was using the example in. I was using it as in people who observe furries and people who participate; I wasn't meaning to say that being a furry is a choice like joining the football team. You can't look too deeply into analogies, because there will ALWAYS be inconsistencies and things that don't match up. Simply because no two topics are COMPLETELY alike. Like, if I were to compare dogs and wolves saying they have similar pack mentalities, you could try to counter attack by saying dogs like people but wolves don't. True, but nonetheless, my original example that dogs and wolves have similar pack mentalities remain still.


Furthlingam- Yes, people are pretty much entitled to their opinions. Including me.


Georgio- That inference only applies to a limited amount of furries. There are plenty of people in the fandom that don't plunge into a world of fantasy like you've described.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

SparkOfMortality said:


> That is EXACTLY how "furry" I am. Like you just wrote out my beliefs right there. If THAT alone makes you a furry than I am completely and 100% furry.


 

^_____^ Thanks. I do a lot of thinking about this.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

Giorgio Gabriel said:


> WARNING: in this post, I take Furries seriously. You have been alerted. [etc]


 
For the record, I don't at all think innocence is precise enough a word to be excused, really, nor would I hesitate to laugh if somebody said "Furries tend to be innocent." And that laughter would have its bitterness.

I've been a frequent, outspoken, even reviled critic of unethical and conscienceless behavior and ideas circulated in the fandom, too.

Finally, OTOH, everybody in this culture who's essentially a recovering Abramic theist of one sort or another is bound to have a lousy orientation to make-believe and daydreaming for their own sake. I'm not sure I blame furries especially on this count. Most people just suck at it. At least furries are trying w/o (generally) becoming fundies and zealots.

The 'crumple when you speak their real name' thing was tasty, though.


----------



## Giorgio Gabriel (Jul 24, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Georgio- That inference only applies to a limited amount of furries. There are plenty of people in the fandom that don't plunge into a world of fantasy like you've described.



Less than a quarter isn't really plenty.


----------



## SparkOfMortality (Jul 24, 2008)

Good thing I'm strong willed enough (and not into this enough ) to avoid me becoming like that.

But then again, isn't that what first time meth users say?


----------



## E-mannor (Jul 24, 2008)

@ nargle

 hehe, yea i was just using your analogy, i didn't want people reading into it because it was not in response to anything, just my opinion alone


----------



## Giorgio Gabriel (Jul 24, 2008)

Allow me to address something someone will no doubt bring up eventually.

_"But, Lord Giorgio, if you seemingly hate filth and perversion so much, why do you still remain in the furry fandom?  You're even a dragon, for God's sake - the most filthy and disturbing out of all the species."_

Why, that's a very simple question.  And it's simply answered, as well.  While I can be as mannered and inflect a bit of bonhomie into my usual behavior, enough to ease the fears of the normal folk, I also happen to be fully aware of the ugliness and the vulgarity of the world, in no small part to the Internet.  

The furry lifestyle is so delightfully _dirty_, so full of utter unrestrained carnality that I cannot help but find myself attracted to it like a fly to shit.  The furry fandom makes for a wonderful distraction, submerging yourself in a world of people who follow the urges of their loins and wear their fetishes like badges of honour.  
The Seven Cardinal Sins that the Xtians fear so much runs rampant in the fandom - just look at a dragon snuffing a lesser creature for Wrath, or a morbidly obese fox or such swallowing another whole for Gluttony.  And the best part is that Furries celebrate their perversities and revel in them in some delightfully disturbing show of Saturnalia-like fun on the Internet in their own communities.  

A libertine man such as I, amoral and coarse, who does things for the sheer fun of doing it and savors the thick oily corruption of all the supposed evils that Humanity has to offer - why, Furries are therefore dreadfully interesting to me.  Their lewd, orgiastic nature is a natural draw, of course.  I am unafraid of the fact that I am indulging in a disgusting fetish that would make normal people raise their eyebrows at all the animal people fucking each other in the ass and mouth and such.  One might even say I revel in it.  That is why it annoys me when furverts attempt to make themselves look good by placing unnecessary importance on their fetish.  I just want to enjoy my Dionysian culture of the obscene without DRAGON SPIRIT and INNER ANIMAL.  I agree that everyone has an inner animal, but it's not restricted to furries.  It's called the Id.


----------



## SparkOfMortality (Jul 24, 2008)

Giorgio Gabriel said:


> Allow me to address something someone will no doubt bring up eventually.
> 
> _"But, Lord Giorgio, if you seemingly hate filth and perversion so much, why do you still remain in the furry fandom?  You're even a dragon, for God's sake - the most filthy and disturbing out of all the species."_
> 
> ...



Stop doing that. I don't know whether to burn you at the stake or worship you as a god.


----------



## KaiserVadin (Jul 24, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> It is a broad term. Not by it's definition, but because it's that thing along the lines of "someone who likes ice-cream" - who doesn't?
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's up to people to decide what to consider themselves.
> ...


 I put sugar on icecream when I was a kid to make it taste better  but then I found out it had sugar already in it o.o


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- Furries ARE the anthro people, and the desire to be one. A furry isn't someone who just enjoys looking at them. If that was true, every flippin kid would be a furry. But they're not. Plus, there's a reason it's called the furry fandom. The people are fans of anthropomorphic animals, thus they like drawing them or looking like them, but some feel the desire to identify _themselves_ as a furry, becoming more then just a fan. I'm not trying to exclude furry fans from the fandom or anything, because they do in fact make up a lot of it.


Well, that's just silly. There's furry, and then there's furry roleplay - just like sci-fi roleplay, fantasy roleplay, whatever else roleplay. Some people take it close to heart - but so what? Neither is exclusive to just this fandom. Personally, I would say that someone who spends half of their time a day looking at furry art is a bigger fan than someone who casually plays a fursona of sorts.

As for kids watching Disney and stuff... Who said they're not? None of this excludes whoever likes mickey as a character from being a "furry" - casually or not. Noone might actually give a damn, but that's another thing.



Nargle said:


> All I'm saying is the mere liking of the art isn't enough to call yourself a furry.


Actually it is. It's the only thing everyone here has in common.

Let's put a cross example everyone seems to like around here: Does being attracted to your own sex make you gay? "Of course not, some people just like that sort of thing, but we can't call ALL of them gay. They wouldn't call themselves gay, right."



SparkOfMortality said:


> That is EXACTLY how "furry" I am. Like you just wrote out my beliefs right there. If THAT alone makes you a furry than I am completely and 100% furry.


Ah, the virtue of Dictionary.

In extension: Do you have to be a member of the fandom just for fitting the description? No, not really. Being part of a group is a social choice. Falling under a definition isn't.



KaiserVadin said:


> I put sugar on icecream when I was a kid to make it taste better  but then I found out it had sugar already in it o.o


I used to salt it. Everything tastes better with salt.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jul 25, 2008)

> I used to salt it. Everything tastes better with salt.


Wouldn't that melt the ice cream?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Wouldn't that melt the ice cream?


Don't remember. But thanks to you, I'll have to find out myself now.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

slashersivi said:


> Personally I think oppositely from what you do... I don't see why one has to be completely "immersed" to be furry.
> 
> -I don't necessarily mean that you have to have it as your only or not even your main subculture, but to be consistent. If you admire furry art, don't attack things that are necessarily furry. If you really love it, let your furryness leak into your everyday life. But it's one or the other, either you like furry, or you don't, and either you are a furry, or you're not.
> 
> ...



Well, I'm trying to see why exactly people like furries and want to act like them. And it's not a matter of degree, but of quality. It's either you are a furry, are not, there is no middle ground. I emphazise that the point where you are a furry yourself is when you openly express your anthromotphication, not just when you reach a degree of adquired mishmash of different themes found in furry. Such a definition is impractical, since eventually we'll inflate the meaning of the word and make it meaningless.

I'll be responding to different posts throughout the topic, don't mind me


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

slashersivi said:


> Well I like costuming and if there was a way to become my fursona without some sort of consequence (which includes being ostracized from society ) then I supposed I would.  Nonetheless I still think of "furries" as any member of the FURRY FANDOM.



First off, don't live of the world's uneducated opinion, explain to them why you love furry, don't shyly try to sneak it in. And as I said, I've honestly have not seen it defined like that until recently. I say it would be more practical if the definition was a quality and not a degree, since then anybody could call themselves furries for any relationship to anthro stuff, which would essentually make it more popular at the expense of the idea of furry.



xiath said:


> that sounds good.  Being called a furry is a very subjective thing IMO.  I personally believe that people who have a love for furry art (not just a neutral liking -for it) could be called a furry, a minor one at that.
> 
> I also believe, that there are different levels of 'furryness', loving the art as the low point and acting like an animal all of the time and wearing fur suits a lot as the high point.
> 
> Personally, i fall in the point to where i do wish i was an anthro and do show some traits of dogness in my personality (ie, i growl when not pleased, i also tend to raise my upper lip when made so it looks like i have a snaral (sp???), etc... all without realy trying to do so.).  I don't personally own a fursuit, but that is only because i don't have the money for one. so i guess i could be called a furry



-Yes, even if it's just a little, under my definition you would be considered a furry, even if it's only a light interest in anthromorphizing yourself, not just furry in general



Draco_2k said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> "Furry" is a short for "Furry fan", always has been. Neither implies roleplaying or whatever else just because said stuff happens to be relatively popular among other fans - it's just about liking anthros.



I grew up with the definition being anthromorphizing yourself, so I don't know

Also, this quoting system confuses me o_o


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Not necessarily. I am a furry because I _like_ anthropomorphic animals. I always have, and I always will. I was drawn to things like Robin Hood and Crash Bandicoot because I thought anthros were cool, but I have no desire to be one, and that is where you are wrong. By your definition, I'm not a furry.
> 
> I don't draw, I don't wish to be one, I don't fursuit, I don't even have a fursona. Am I a furry by your definition? No, I'm not. Am I a furry under mine? Yes, I am.



Well, then lets argue which is better



slashersivi said:


> Nargle, it's fine for you to have that opinion but it irks me that you keep stating it like it's a fact.  Who are you to tell people whether they can consider themselves a furry?  I think the above poster is a good example.
> 
> -Lets not worry about who we are to say this or that, but what we say.
> 
> We are ALL furry fans.  "Real" furries, aka anthromorphic animals, are not real.  So it doesn't matter if someone thinks they are one, they are still a fan, not an actual furry.  Furry as we use it is merely a term for a member of the furry fandom, which consists of a wide spectrum of people ranging from people who just appreciate anthromorphics in various medias to people who think they're werewolves.



-As I explained, furries are romanticized people, so they are obviously not real, it is the ideas behind them that matter, like a dogboy meaning you are playful, etc.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> I grew up with the definition being anthromorphizing yourself, so I don't know.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom

I wouldn't call out anthropomorphising yourself as anything different to basic roleplaying. All of us do it - someone wants to be a knight from their favourite novel, others want to learn the way of the Force - and some of us want to be a talking dog standing on it's hindpaws.

Sure, some of us (e.g. me) take it fairly seriously - but that's the special thing about one's affection, isn't it.



ZeeDog said:


> Also, this quoting system confuses me o_o


You could hit "Quote" a few times and then paste the results from each tab into a single one, if you have anywhere near decent concentration skillz.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> One of my fave quotes (that never seems to amuse anyone else) is Victor Hugo (you know, the guy who wrote the book Les Miserables-- yes it was a book before it was a musical!):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



-No, it's not animal innocence, it is the peace of living properly, of worshiping ideals and ideas, and revolving your life around them.(hmmm, I wanna expand on this)


----------



## SparkOfMortality (Jul 25, 2008)

Don't look at the encyclopedia dramatica definition is all I'm saying >__>


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom
> 
> I wouldn't call out anthropomorphising yourself as anything different to basic roleplaying. All of us do it - someone wants to be a knight from their favourite novel, others want to learn the way of the Force - and some of us want to be a talking dog standing on it's hindpaws.
> 
> ...


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> -No, there's more to it than just a desire to RP for fun(also, I don't mean RP specifically, barking, animal mannerisms, wearing a collar, could make you a furry). There's a reason why we love the fandom and our fursona's so passionately, why we pick an animal that fits us, why we identify with it. My theory is that it is ideal worship.


That's still called "roleplaying" though - and personal ideals might or might not be part of it. The Knight/Jedi example I used before applies here as well.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> That's still called "roleplaying" though - and personal ideals might or might not be part of it. The Knight/Jedi example I used before applies here as well.



I'm saying that there's more to furry roleplaying than say Knight/Jedi roleplaying. Or maybe not. Depends on the principles behind it.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> I'm saying that there's more to furry roleplaying than say Knight/Jedi roleplaying. Or maybe not. Depends on the principles behind it.


Inherently, there's no reason there should be. I'd say it depends on each individual case.


----------



## kayko (Jul 25, 2008)

i can support that i love the way you used your words


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Inherently, there's no reason there should be. I'd say it depends on each individual case.



Well, anyway, it would be a conclusion that leads to role playing, among others. But the point is, it's the open anthromorphization of oneself that I refer to. Not sure if this can all be considered role playing, stuff like wearing collars, being cuddly and demanding pettings, as you're not really role playing as expressing your inner identity. Basicaly, RPing as a furry makes you a furry, but being a furry can be things other than RP.


----------



## AnyaDServal (Jul 25, 2008)

SparkOfMortality said:


> Don't look at the encyclopedia dramatica definition is all I'm saying >__>



Take that about as seriously, if not less, than anything you see on crushyiffdestroy, something awful, or portal of evil. It's all just LULZ (god I hate that term).


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Well, anyway, it would be a conclusion that leads to role playing, among others. But the point is, it's the open anthromorphization of oneself that I refer to. Not sure if this can all be considered role playing, stuff like wearing collars, being cuddly and demanding pettings, as you're not really role playing as expressing your inner identity. Basicaly, RPing as a furry makes you a furry, but being a furry can be things other than RP.





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> In *roleplaying*, participants adopt and act out the role of characters, or parts, that may have personalities, motivations, and backgrounds different from their own.


We commonly use the word to refer to people in internet chatrooms or up at some hills somewhere playing out their characters in public, but the actual definition would be this.

Having a fursona is hardly somehow different - and neither are possible idealisation or emotional/personal attachments, etc. It might be a popular thing inside the fandom (actually, we don't have the numbers on that), but that's another matter.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> We commonly use the word to refer to people in internet chatrooms or up at some hills somewhere playing out their characters in public, but the actual definition would be this.
> 
> Having a fursona is hardly somehow different - and neither are possible idealisation or emotional/personal attachments, etc. It might be a popular thing inside the fandom (actually, we don't have the numbers on that), but that's another matter.



Well, basing it on that definition, a fursona is definitely different, since it is basically a idealized or fundamental view of yourself, instead of some random character you have no connection to. That would mean that furry RP is different because the character is essentially you. Hell, I talk with my mate about work and pet him in the same conversation.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Well, basing it on that definition, a fursona is definitely different, since it is basically a idealized or fundamental view of yourself, instead of some random character you have no connection to. That would mean that furry RP is different because the character is essentially you. Hell, I talk with my mate about work and pet him in the same conversation.


Not "random", just different from actual you - as in, flesh and blood.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Not "random", just different from actual you - as in, flesh and blood.



Well, there would be the problem, the fursona is the fundamental you, while the Knight may have nothing to do with you


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Well, there would be the problem, the fursona is the fundamental you, while the Knight may have nothing to do with you


You are not the embodiment of your ideals in flesh and blood - that's why remain ideals as such.

Being a knight of shiny armour might be someone's deepest ideal. Being a furry might be a role assumed just for fun, as well.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 25, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> You are not your ideals in flesh and blood - that's why remain your ideals.
> 
> Being a knight be someone's deepest ideal. Being a furry might be a role assumed just for fun, as well.



No, you are fundamentally your ideals, but inconsistent in practice. For example, I could be Christian, yet sin a lot, and I would still be a Christian at heart. By fundamental, I mean your basic ideas that guide you.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> No, you are fundamentally your ideals, but inconsistent in practice. For example, I could be Christian, yet sin a lot, and I would still be a Christian at heart. By fundamental, I mean your basic ideas that guide you.


That doesn't work. Being a Christian is not an ideal - it's about holding certain beliefs. Being a sinless Christian who ultimately goes to heaven, etc. - that's an ideal.

You're confusing holding certain ideals with actually being ideal.


----------



## SparkOfMortality (Jul 25, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Wouldn't that melt the ice cream?



Who doesn't salt everything?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 25, 2008)

SparkOfMortality said:


> Who doesn't salt everything?


I don't. I mean I do. Dammit.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Yes, concepts and the beings that derive them.


 
Hm? Beings don't derive from concepts. Also concept =/= instinctual fascination.



> -Well, I wouldn't say with animals, but with ideals and concepts in general, and a fascination with people who are examples of them, like heroes, villains, furries, larger than life characters, etc


No, specifically, we have an inborn fascination with animals. We're naturally curious about all sorts of things, true. But the human brain has special reactions to a few particular things, because of how it's wired. For example, we instinctively tend to use word order to structure language and help convey meaning. And, we instinctively pay special attention to the percieved character in animal types.



> -Yes, as I said, this works with other ideas as well, but furries are the ones who use animals as their symbols


 
Except we humans don't react to just any old idea the way we react to animals.



> -However, I separated the fascination(the fandom) from the furries


 
However, my argument was indeed geared to saying: the most basic thing for an individual furry is the fascination itself, not identifying with a particular animal.



> So there has to be some sort of reason to come to furries in the first place, to want to be a fur of all things(as it will bring you more baggage), a reason why they love furries more than other people, and that is that furdom is fundamentally and idealist view of life, so it's more about an idea than an escape.


 
It's non-rational. The find the baggageless quality of depicted anthropomorphic animals appealing and aspire to it, ergo they become furries even though this probably does, as you say, net increase their social baggage.



> -No, it's not animal innocence, it is the peace of living properly, of worshiping ideals and ideas, and revolving your life around them.(hmmm, I wanna expand on this)


 
It's the daydream of animal innocence. The idea that furries are ideal-centric is almost wholly counter-intuitive. I mean, if so, what's their ideal? Feminism? Communism? Mosaic Law?

Also, could I trouble you not to put your own remarks in quotes as though I said them?


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 25, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> No, you are fundamentally your ideals, but inconsistent in practice. For example, I could be Christian, yet sin a lot, and I would still be a Christian at heart. By fundamental, I mean your basic ideas that guide you.


 
That's bizarro talk. We're all fundamentally human, not christian. The christian ideas are overlaid by a little bit of experience here and there, over a massive accumulation of inborn human proclivities and environmental influences that have far more to do with what you when bored as a teenager with your friends, than what you're told Sunday AM.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 26, 2008)

Draco- You're trying to say that in Zeedog's definition of Furry, you're obliged to RP, which is false, right? I do agree that furries don't have to RP, but what Zeedog is describing is NOT RPing. When you RP, you're basically acting, and assigning yourself a character unlike yourself in which you pretend to be. You fill a "role" like in a play. The actor who plays badass mobster probably goes home at night lives a law-abiding life completely different then the one he portrays on TV. However, behaving like a furry, as in, mewing, purring, petting, etc, are NOT forms of RP if that is how YOU would act as yourself. Personally, I yelp when I'm hurt or startled, but I'm not pretending to be a dog. It's my intrinsic reaction, and for that you could call me anthropomorphized. I'm not PRETENDING, but BEING. That is the fundimental difference betwene RPing as a furry, and BEING a furry. People who purr and bark are anthropomorphizing themselves, thus expressing THEIR inner animal, and THAT is what makes them furry. If you are completely human, yet you like the look of furries, then that doesn't make you a furry! Some part of you has to feel remotely animal. The reason I like furry art isn't because I'm furry, it's because I like art in general! Art isn't the main staple of being a furry, you don't even have to like the art to be furry. They're very unrelated! The only reason they've come together, is so people can project their self images for others to see, in a cheeper, more effective way then fursuiting and stuff. And if you like the art because you feel the connection to that little bit of animal inside you when you see it, then that makes you furry. But simply liking the art because it looks cool doesn't. That's why not all kids that like Mickey Mouse are furries, because after the show is over, they forget about animals and return to being a human. But if there is a kid who sees Mickey and feels a strong connection to him because he's an animal, then he could quite possibly be a furry.

And acting furry is not exclusive to purring and such. You could just FEEL furry. And if you feel furry, then you're mentally transforming yourself into something other then pure human. You can express your inner animal feelings however you like, like.. volunteering at an animal shelter because the animal part inside you feels sympathy for poor abandoned pets. You don't have to be outragous about it, skritching and glomping people and claiming to be 100% animal and dressing up. But you gotta feel like something other then just purely a human that enjoys some welldone art.

And when I say the animal part inside you, I'm not refering to you being ACTUALLY part animal, or having an animal spirit or anything. I'm saying that all creatures on this planet have lives that are intertwined. Because of that, a lot of us relate to animals very personally, and that "animal part" tends to shine through. But then again, it's a popular human tendancy to separate themselves from animals completely, and even though they feel sympathy for them every once in a while, they still believe they're on a completely separate plane. Some people even believe that animals are equal, yet still separate. As for me, I'm still neutral. I'm not defining myself as furry just yet, but I'm still not dismissing it completely. I haven't even completely discovered myself yet, so give me some time. 


Zeedog- I agree with everything that you've said! I believe that the furry fandom is watering down the definition just so that everyone who's remotely curious can label themselves the same. I have no clue when being a furry suddenly meant the same thing as liking them. 

And whoever said that I shouldn't compare football players to furries, think about this: There are kids who like watching football players play, and there are kids who strive to BE one. Should they both be labeled in the same fashion? Or do they actually have completely different motives?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 26, 2008)

Roleplaying is, in general, assuming the roles of characters differing from your own - and that's just what we do. Emotional attachments, ideals/idealisations, various projections, etc., etc. are not covered by this definition, but can very well go along with it - and very well do. Nor roleplaying, nor any of these things are a requirement of being a furry fan, however. It's basic definitions.

Personally, yes, I do know how much this whole furry/fursona business can mean to a person - even if my word is all I have in this case - but this behaviour is simply is not exclusive to furry fandom.

A lot of things can be special.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 26, 2008)

What? RPing is NOT the same thing. You even said they contradict the definition, how are they even related? Sure, they're both ways of behaving, but one is obviously pretend, while the other is behaving in a way that expresses your true feelings. I thought I already stated that. 

And yes, you need to feel at least a little bit furry in order to be considered one. But if you want to just like furries, be my guest.

And just because it's not exclusive doesn't mean it's not true. I'm a musician, I have a passion for music, and I feel like I connect with it when I play it. It's the same thing. But if you listen to music and go on about with your life, then you're not a musician. 

Furry doesn't have to be the ONLY special thing in order to be special period. Music is special to a musician, like myself =3


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 26, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Sure, they're both ways of behaving, but one is obviously pretend, while the other is behaving in a way that expresses your true feelings. I thought I already stated that.


Would be nice if we could discuss this without semantics.

Would you say that you're a furry, tails and ears, in real life? I hope not. As long as it's true, it's going to be a character different from yourself. Same applies to whatever you want the character to be mentally.

Would the word "Avatar" mean anything to you?

EDIT: Wait. Do you assume this whole furry thing basically equates to actually embracing parts of your personality you'd be shunned for in real life?



Nargle said:


> And yes, you need to feel at least a little bit furry in order to be considered one. But if you want to just like furries, be my guest.


Furry fan means: "A fan of furries". Someone who likes anthropomorphic animals. We've been over that.



Nargle said:


> And just because it's not exclusive doesn't mean it's not true. I'm a musician, I have a passion for music, and I feel like I connect with it when I play it. It's the same thing. But if you listen to music and go on about with your life, then you're not a musician.


And we're not musicians - we're music fans. Genetics are not quite advanced enough yet for us to possibly be musicians.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 26, 2008)

**Facepalm** You're assuming a furry is someone with ears actually growing out of their head. Stop it. I already told you that it's like a mental projection of your personality. Having to repeat myself is started to get a little tedious o.o

And by the way, if your consider your avatar to be "you," then your avatar is just a depiction of how you feel you should look.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 26, 2008)

Nargle said:


> **Facepalm** You're assuming a furry is someone with ears actually growing out of their head. Stop it. I already told you that it's like a mental projection of your personality. Having to repeat myself is started to get a little tedious o.o


"Furry" is a slang term for an anthropomorphic animal.



Nargle said:


> And by the way, if your consider your avatar to be "you," then your avatar is just a depiction of how you feel you should look.


Not quite what I meant. I asked if you knew the meaning of the word, because it's a bit too ambiguous to throw around like that.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 27, 2008)

Draco- Exactly, but it doesn't have to be a physical thing. You can simply represent yourself as an animal or anthropomorphic creature. As Zeedog said, this fandom is highly based on imagination, not everything should be taken 100% literally. If I say I'm a dog, that doesn't mean I'm REALLY some freak of nature dog that's gained human intelligence and the ability to type. It means I use a dog to represent myself. 

And I didn't think I used the word "Avatar," so why are you quizzing me on its definition..?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 27, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- Exactly, but it doesn't have to be a physical thing. You can simply represent yourself as an animal or anthropomorphic creature. As Zeedog said, this fandom is highly based on imagination, not everything should be taken 100% literally. If I say I'm a dog, that doesn't mean I'm REALLY some freak of nature dog that's gained human intelligence and the ability to type. It means I use a dog to represent myself.


And that's what roleplaying is. 



Nargle said:


> And I didn't think I used the word "Avatar," so why are you quizzing me on its definition..?


Nevermind.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 27, 2008)

Nooo! That doesn't make sense!! You're not RPing if you're being yourself! >.<

Roleplaying is playing a role that isn't yourself. But if it's in your nature to act like/want to be a dog, then you're not RPing as a dog, you're acting like yourself! If just for one day you decided it would be interesting to be like a dog, but then after that you went back to being your normal self, then THAT would be RPing. RPing is a choice, being furry isn't. Many people are born with a certain interest in animals, a certain closeness, and they don't descover until later that it's called being a furry. However, anybody can RP, no matter what their interest in animals is, and that ability doesn't make everyone a furry.

How about this, I want to be an animator after I finish college. So, I study anatomy, observe motion, and practice drawing all the time. I do all the things that animators do, yet I'm not one yet. But, I do feel like it's my purpose to go be an animator. Am I RPing as an animator? Or is that just who I am?

And you know how I said you don't have to mew and skritch and stuff to be a furry? You can just feel like one? Well, feelings aren't RPing either.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 27, 2008)

I can't quite come up with an example to further illustrate the obvious.

So let's see if this will work.


Nargle said:


> Roleplaying is playing a role that isn't yourself. But if it's in your nature to act like/want to be a *Jedi*, then you're not RPing as a *Jedi*, you're acting like yourself! If just for one day you decided it would be interesting to be like a *Jedi*, but then after that you went back to being your normal self, then THAT would be RPing. RPing is a choice, being a *Star Wars fan* isn't. Many people are born with a certain interest in the nature of the *Force*, a certain connection to it, and they don't descover until later that George Lucas described it as being a *Jedi*. However, anybody can RP, no matter what their interest in animals is, and that ability doesn't make everyone a *Star Wars fan*.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 27, 2008)

George Lucas didn't invent animals. The human race pretty much grew up coexisting with them, and evolved ways to react and connect with them. So, it's different then liking Star Wars. 

And seeings as we are animals (But I'll refer to animals as non humans just for the sake of convenience) we have lives intertwined with them, so they're much more significant then Jedis. Maybe if animals were a science fiction movie your example would make sense.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 27, 2008)

Nargle said:


> George Lucas didn't invent animals. The human race pretty much grew up coexisting with them, and evolved ways to react and connect with them. So, it's different then liking Star Wars.
> 
> And seeings as we are animals (But I'll refer to animals as non humans just for the sake of convenience) we have lives intertwined with them, so they're much more significant then Jedis. Maybe if animals were a science fiction movie your example would make sense.


That's like saying Rock is not music because it's a different style to Techno.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 27, 2008)

What..? I don't even see a connection. Care to elaborate?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 27, 2008)

Nargle said:


> What..? I don't even see a connection. Care to elaborate?


You're saying that liking Star Wars is different to liking furries. That's a given - but what you listed does not make them different at their core.

Just like Rock might be different to Techo, yet still remain a musical style.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 28, 2008)

But, animals have always been around, and people have always needed to interact with them. Therefor, the bond between man and animal is a lot more special then the bond between man and fictional character. And it's nothing like rock and techno. If rock was man's best friend and techno was a fictional character in a movie, it'd work.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 28, 2008)

Nargle said:


> But, animals have always been around, and people have always needed to interact with them. Therefor, the bond between man and animal is a lot more special then the bond between man and fictional character. And it's nothing like rock and techno. If rock was man's best friend and techno was a fictional character in a movie, it'd work.


I'd love to see you say that in the face of all the gryphons, unicorns and dragons in the fandom.

Oh wait.


----------



## gypsythecabbit (Jul 28, 2008)

THANK YOU.

I keep on being called a furry because I have two fursonas. I don't feel like a furry, yet I have no problems with the furry fandom. Mostly.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 28, 2008)

Draco, griffins, dragons and unicorns have the same effect on the human brain as animals. They were just made up by humans to be cooler then pre-existing animals. They are made of the same stuff as animals. We can mix species together, like ligers. If we found a way to mix eagles and lions, or bats and lizards, we'd have a whole horde of REAL mythical creatures. 

And plus, how many people out there have actually seen a red fox in person (US I mean, I understand that foxes run around like rats in the UK?)? How is a fox any different then a mythical creature, then? You don't have to come face to face with it to think of it the same was as any other animal.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 28, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco, griffins, dragons and unicorns have the same effect on the human brain as animals. They were just made up by humans to be cooler then pre-existing animals. They are made of the same stuff as animals. We can mix species together, like ligers. If we found a way to mix eagles and lions, or bats and lizards, we'd have a whole horde of REAL mythical creatures.


How is that different from mixing up a Jedi or a Brave Knight? And even if it is, what does it matter? And, lastly, how would any of this address my original point?



Nargle said:


> And plus, how many people out there have actually seen a red fox in person (US I mean, I understand that foxes run around like rats in the UK?)? How is a fox any different then a mythical creature, then? You don't have to come face to face with it to think of it the same was as any other animal.


That's called "Anthropomorphism".


----------



## SpaderG (Jul 28, 2008)

You wrote an essay? Dang, I'm mortified to even be typing on this forum!!! Though it's rather nice. 
Very nice essay.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 29, 2008)

Draco- **Shrug** You brought up the Jedis. I didn't think it made sense, either. 

Aaannnd... what?

Anthropomorphism is liking red foxes like any other animal even if you've never seen one? I thought it was combining human and animal traits?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- **Shrug** You brought up the Jedis. I didn't think it made sense, either.


I said: "How is that different from mixing up a Jedi or a Brave Knight?"

Both are roleplayable, fictional, possibly idealistic or self-projection characters. Thus, it's the same damn thing.



Nargle said:


> Anthropomorphism is liking red foxes like any other animal even if you've never seen one? I thought it was combining human and animal traits?


Nevermind, misread that bit there.

...

What's your point in all of this, again?


----------



## Slayn (Jul 29, 2008)

I enjoyed the read but you just created the famous furry fandom drama thread.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Slayn said:


> I enjoyed the read but you just created the famous furry fandom drama thread.


Welcome to the forums. If you want links to some _actual_ drama threads, I could send you some via PM or something.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 29, 2008)

Draco- My point was, in order to be a furry, you have to feel like one. You can't just feel like you're completely separate from animals altogether but think the artwork is cool and call yourself a furry. But you said feeling like a furry was the same thing as RPing (And that RPing was unnecessary to be considered a furry), which I disagreed, because furries are essentially just being themselves. Then you compared feeling like an animal to feeling like a Jedi, and I said the connection between humans and animals is much different then that of fictional characters. And, mythical creatures have the same effect on the human brain that other animals do, they're just hybrids that are not readilly available for in-person viewing.

Sooo.. I think you were trying to dispute the need to feel like a furry to be one, by claiming it is RPing, which isn't necessary to be a furry.

Slayn- I'm confused, how'd we create a furry fandom drama? Usually drama is defined by making a lot of lowblows and taking everything personally. Draco and I are just having a friendly debate, seeings as our views on a subject vary a bit. **Harbors no ill feelings towards Draco.**


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- My point was, in order to be a furry, you have to feel like one. You can't just feel like you're completely separate from animals altogether but think the artwork is cool and call yourself a furry. But you said feeling like a furry was the same thing as RPing (And that RPing was unnecessary to be considered a furry), which I disagreed, because furries are essentially just being themselves. Then you compared feeling like an animal to feeling like a Jedi, and I said the connection between humans and animals is much different then that of fictional characters. And, mythical creatures have the same effect on the human brain that other animals do, they're just hybrids that are not readilly available for in-person viewing.
> 
> Sooo.. I think you were trying to dispute the need to feel like a furry to be one, by claiming it is RPing, which isn't necessary to be a furry.


Alright, good.

So what do you mean by "Feeling like a furry" if not having and actively associating/playing/do whatever with a your fursona/character? And, as I said before, the latter is not, and never was a requirement to liking cartoon animals.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 29, 2008)

Draco- Well, most people aren't completely satisfied with their natural bodies, furry or not. It's just normal to want to improve. Some people compensate by building up their physical body, or building up their mind. Others modify their bodies with tattoos and piercings, or dressing up in nice clothing. There is a whole host of things people can do to reflect their "inner self." Yet, some people, from a young age, are naturally drawn to animals, and tend to identify with them. Be it real animals or cartoon ones, or even animal based stories, some people are just more drawn to them then they are regular people. For instance, for a long time I wouldn't read books with a human main character. I became addicted to books like Redwall and the Guardians of Ga'Hoole, because the anthropomorphized characters were so much easier to identify with. So, sometimes people with this "connection" to animals want to BE like the furry critters they read about or see on TV, so they start depicting themselves as animals. When I drew myself, I would draw a squirrel or dog with long hair. That's because it felt more correct to be drawn like a squirrel then it did to be drawn like a person. I didn't go around nibbling on acorns and licking my "paws," but animals seemed to represent my personality so much better then my human body. So deep down I felt like a squirrel, rather then a person. I didn't have any desire to be a squirrel, since I liked having the intelligence and capabilities of a human. I didn't want to be cast out into the forest with a brain the size of a pecan and paws with no thumbs, no matter how fluffy and cute my tail was. But I felt that if I could have the comforts of being human AND the good qualities of an animal, I'd be more accuarately representing who I felt like inside. 

The people that I'm talking about that I don't consider furries, are people that separate themselves from animals and don't feel any connection at all. Sure, I know I'm human, and I want to stay human, but that doesn't mean I don't connect with animals. Non-furries don't, though. And liking the artwork doesn't make them a furry. Furry artwork doesn't have any special powers or anything, it's exactly the same as any other artwork. For instance, I don't have to be a Star Wars fan to enjoy a cool painting of a spaceship or something.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- Well, most people aren't completely satisfied with their natural bodies, furry or not. It's just normal to want to improve. Some people compensate by building up their physical body, or building up their mind. Others modify their bodies with tattoos and piercings, or dressing up in nice clothing. There is a whole host of things people can do to reflect their "inner self." Yet, some people, from a young age, are naturally drawn to animals, and tend to identify with them. Be it real animals or cartoon ones, or even animal based stories, some people are just more drawn to them then they are regular people. For instance, for a long time I wouldn't read books with a human main character. I became addicted to books like Redwall and the Guardians of Ga'Hoole, because the anthropomorphized characters were so much easier to identify with. So, sometimes people with this "connection" to animals want to BE like the furry critters they read about or see on TV, so they start depicting themselves as animals. When I drew myself, I would draw a squirrel or dog with long hair. That's because it felt more correct to be drawn like a squirrel then it did to be drawn like a person. I didn't go around nibbling on acorns and licking my "paws," but animals seemed to represent my personality so much better then my human body. So deep down I felt like a squirrel, rather then a person. I didn't have any desire to be a squirrel, since I liked having the intelligence and capabilities of a human. I didn't want to be cast out into the forest with a brain the size of a pecan and paws with no thumbs, no matter how fluffy and cute my tail was. But I felt that if I could have the comforts of being human AND the good qualities of an animal, I'd be more accuarately representing who I felt like inside.


I understand precisely what you're saying.

However, I also understand what the word "Furry" itself means - an interest in anthropomorphic animals. Nothing more, nothing less, it's as simple as a definition gets.

If you want to illustrate a connection between liking anthropomorphic animals and feeling a connection with real-world animals, any kind of spirituality, or anything else - please do. Until then, by the burden of proof principle, we'll have to assume that there's none.

Now, disregard my first sentence. Don't count on me understanding your points by some divine revelation. Every seemingly deeply spiritual point can be laid down in simple terms, or be proven false - that's why things like Science actually work. And if we want to reach an understanding in discussion, it'll have to do.


----------



## SpaderG (Jul 29, 2008)

I think that maybe its the authors JOB to try to make you sync with the characters of a book. Or else its a bad book. They don't have to be animals, though I suspect that's probrably the only book genre example you have.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

SpaderG said:


> I think that maybe its the authors JOB to try to make you sync with the characters of a book. Or else its a bad book. They don't have to be animals, though I suspect that's probrably the only book genre example you have.


Yep. And furry animals are a good communication tool in that regard, even more so for us furries.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 29, 2008)

Spader- Yes, I understand that every author is going to want to make their characters lovable. It's just, no matter how cool the human character is, I always liked the anthro character better. For instance, in Oblivion Elder Scrolls I made my mage character an Argonian (Lizard person) Even though the ones that are REALLY good at magic are the Bretons, which just look like slightly chubby people. And instead of making my theif a sly sneaky elf, I made her a cat person (Can't remember what they're called...)

Draco- Well, I figured the connection between animals and anthros was that I'd imagine myself being still human but with animal traits, seeings as I AM human, so I still have a particular fondness for my own species, and I still like animals, so I just combined them in my head.

Maybe you should elaborate on what "an interest in anthros" is? Because to me, it sounds like "Oh, hey, cute. I like that character. Moving on!" If that is the case, and that truly is the definition of the word, then the label of Furry has been deluted to the point of uselessness...


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jul 29, 2008)

I am nothing on what my fursona name suggests. I am an un-twitchified squirrel. Doesn't live up to what we are described as, so meh.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- Well, I figured the connection between animals and anthros was that I'd imagine myself being still human but with animal traits, seeings as I AM human, so I still have a particular fondness for my own species, and I still like animals, so I just combined them in my head.


Well, you see, both "Connection" and "Animal" are very broad terms. As a human animal, saying that you have a "Connection" with "Animals" is about as informative as saying that some things walk on their legs.

Maybe you could elaborate on that? Non-ambiguously.



Nargle said:


> Maybe you should elaborate on what "an interest in anthros" is? Because to me, it sounds like "Oh, hey, cute. I like that character. Moving on!" If that is the case, and that truly is the definition of the word, then the label of Furry has been deluted to the point of uselessness...


Hardly. We have all kinds of word to describe what people like, and Furry is a legitimate one of them, even if only a small group of people use it. It encompasses a wide spectrum of individuals and levels of involvement, sure, but so does diarrhoea.

If you want a word to describe someone who has a fursona and likes animals (what were you trying to say there...), then be my guest - in fact, I'd be surprised if such words don't crop up with time - but rewriting the dictionary is a fairly futile exercise.

As it stands, we're here for the animal-people, even if quite a few of us wouldn't mind actually being them.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 29, 2008)

Draco- Okay, how 'bout the transition from squirrel in my backyard to squirrel person on paper, is because I am human, so I like humans, yet I still identify with animals, so I cleverly combine the best traits of both and use that to depict myself. =D

But, what your said doesn't really describe what you mean by people's interest in anthros. Do they think they're pretty, or do they identify with them? A person's level of interest can very greatly towards something, all the way from taking a second glance to devoting your life to it. There's got to be SOME cut off point, because not everyone who's seen Bugs Bunny and smiled is a furry.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- Okay, how 'bout the transition from squirrel in my backyard to squirrel person on paper, is because I am human, so I like humans, yet I still identify with animals, so I cleverly combine the best traits of both and use that to depict myself. =D


That's a nice thought, and pretty much sums up why most of us are into this mess.

I still can't think of a word in the English language to describe it - though it has to be a subdivision of "roleplaying" and "spirituality" or somesuch. I guess there's some ground to cover in that respect.



Nargle said:


> But, what your said doesn't really describe what you mean by people's interest in anthros. Do they think they're pretty, or do they identify with them?


Can be either, technically. Though I'm not sure how the latter is possible without the former.



Nargle said:


> A person's level of interest can very greatly towards something, all the way from taking a second glance to devoting your life to it. There's got to be SOME cut off point, because not everyone who's seen Bugs Bunny and smiled is a furry.


It's a definition. Just because most people don't know about it doesn't make it apply less.

And, of course, there's a difference between liking Bugz Bunny cartoons and liking Bugz Bunny as a character. On top of that, there's common communication sense. I.e. when you list your characteristics/interests/beliefs/etc. in order of prominence, since, hey, you may have hundreds.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 29, 2008)

Draco- It's called Furry =D

Um, the latter is very possible without the former. Maybe you don't think you're beautiful, so you identify with the scruffy skunk rather then the pristine, silky kitty.

How does people not knowing the definition change it?

And yes, so what are you trying to communicate as interests? It's a very, very vague term, maybe you could clarify it to me? I'm still not getting what I'm asking for.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- It's called Furry =D


Nice try.



Nargle said:


> Um, the latter is very possible without the former. Maybe you don't think you're beautiful, so you identify with the scruffy skunk rather then the pristine, silky kitty.


Wait. "They're pretty" - thought you meant, anthros?.. I mean, how could you want to be one without digging the idea.



Nargle said:


> How does people not knowing the definition change it?


It doesn't. My point.



Nargle said:


> And yes, so what are you trying to communicate as interests? It's a very, very vague term, maybe you could clarify it to me? I'm still not getting what I'm asking for.


"Interest" is a wide term, yes.

You can be interested in lots of things: stamp collecting, music, videogames, sports, bowling or sticking your head in a microwave - and the interest in anthropomorphic animals just happens to be called "Furry". That's it.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> willingness to cuddle(unless contradicted by your fursona)



Interesting post, I'm just getting into the fandom and I find stuff like this very interesting. Just one thing I didn't get though, what exactly do you mean by 'willingness to cuddle'? Is it something furries do with each other or are you talking about in general?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> Interesting post, I'm just getting into the fandom and I find stuff like this very interesting. Just one thing I didn't get though, what exactly do you mean by 'willingness to cuddle'? Is it something furries do with each other or are you talking about in general?


It's a common stereotype of the fandom, or at least it was before we've all suddenly changed into Drama Queens.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> It's a common stereotype of the fandom, or at least it was before we've all suddenly changed into Drama Queens.



Is it a negative stereotype? I personally find stereotypes that relate to me (race, religion etc.) generally amusing but does this one discredit furries in anyway?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> Is it a negative stereotype? I personally find stereotypes that relate to me (race, religion etc.) generally amusing but does this one discredit furries in anyway?


The first... Probably not. The latter, most certainly. But if you want to talk about negative stereotypes, there are plenty - though, of course, the fandom isn't quite famous enough for anyone to recognise them, except for internet-savvy people.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> The first... Probably not. The latter, most certainly. But if you want to talk about negative stereotypes, there are plenty - though, of course, the fandom isn't quite famous enough for anyone to recognise them, except for internet-savvy people.



I suppose as I go along I'll discover most of them myself, I can imagine the disgusted cries of 'animal #@~!er' emanating from most people I can think of when I try to explain what a furry is. I knew from the beginning that furries got a bad rep, hence my name 'secretfur', I'm too afraid of what my friends and family would do if I told them.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> I suppose as I go along I'll discover most of them myself, I can imagine the disgusted cries of 'animal #@~!er' emanating from most people I can think of when I try to explain what a furry is. I knew from the beginning that furries got a bad rep, hence my name 'secretfur', I'm too afraid of what my friends and family would do if I told them.


Well, then you probably already know.

Both Wikifur and just Wiki provide a few nice references to media portrayal (articles and stuff, in the references) if you want decent info on that.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Well, then you probably already know.
> 
> Both Wikifur and just Wiki provide a few nice references to media portrayal (articles and stuff, in the references) if you want decent info on that.



I saw that CSI episode, you know *that* one. To be honest thats how I discovered furries in the first place so I suppose some good came out of it. Initially, I'll admit that the show influenced my opinions but I soon realised that it represented only a sub-section of the fandom, and even then they were probably misrepresented or exaggerated.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> I saw that CSI episode, you know *that* one. To be honest thats how I discovered furries in the first place so I suppose some good came out of it. Initially, I'll admit that the show influenced my opinions but I soon realised that it represented only a sub-section of the fandom, and even then they were probably misrepresented or exaggerated.


No such thing as bad publicity eh. 

Well, welcome, anyway. Having people that are capable of doing their own research around is always nice.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> No such thing as bad publicity eh.
> 
> Well, welcome, anyway. Having people that are capable of doing their own research around is always nice.




Heh, thanks. It's a shame CSI wouldn't do an episode about the average furry, but that'd probably make for poor ratings.

What am I talking about? I dont even like CSI, and I pray I never will.


----------



## SpaderG (Jul 30, 2008)

I don't like anything on TV unless it's on TV land or it's Sinefeld.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

SpaderG said:


> I don't like anything on TV unless it's on TV land or it's Sinefeld.



What about Stargate? It's got the Unas, reptilian humanoids that basically kick arse. A furry reason to watch sci-fi.


----------



## SpaderG (Jul 30, 2008)

-_- Okay. I remember reading somewhere "Stargate" and "Biggest Nerd" in the same sentence.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> Heh, thanks. It's a shame CSI wouldn't do an episode about the average furry, but that'd probably make for poor ratings.
> 
> What am I talking about? I dont even like CSI, and I pray I never will.


Yeah, that's mass media alright. Don't think I've ever seen a single episode of that myself though.



SpaderG said:


> -_- Okay. I remember reading somewhere "Stargate" and "Biggest Nerd" in the same sentence.


Surely you mean "Star Trek".


----------



## SpaderG (Jul 30, 2008)

Star Wars, Star Trek, Star Gate, It's all been seen that way.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

SpaderG said:


> -_- Okay. I remember reading somewhere "Stargate" and "Biggest Nerd" in the same sentence.



If it's nerdy to like watching commandos blow the ever-loving crap out of aliens with machine guns then I'm the biggest nerd on the internet.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> If it's nerdy to like watching commandos blow the ever-loving crap out of aliens with machine guns then I'm the biggest nerd on the internet.


Winnerz.


----------



## SpaderG (Jul 30, 2008)

-_- Yep. Enjoy the trophy.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco- I just think it isn't so simple.

Secretfur- Hey, welcome! I've never seen that episode of CSI, but I'm so curious. It sounds funny =D

Also, I've never seen Stargate, but I'm a HUGE fan of Star Wars!! My boyfriend is the biggest Star Wars nerd, but he doesn't frequent the internet, so you're title is safe... FOR NOW! >=3


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- I just think it isn't so simple.


Dictionary has to be simple - it wouldn't work otherwise.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2008)

Hey, that's not true. Some words are complicated. Look up the dictionary meaning for Set!


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Hey, that's not true. Some words are complicated. Look up the dictionary meaning for Set!


That's just different meanings, each with a simple explanation. 

If you want truly "complicated" words, you'll have to dig all the way down into slang terms, e.g. "Self-Shadowed Normal Mapping." Misunderstandings are much more common - just look at what qualities people come up for a word "Belief", then compare it to it's real meaning.

Etc.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2008)

The fact that it has so many meanings makes it complicated. Like, a complicated emotion is one comprised of many emotions like angry/sad/happy/worried. Being angry is simple, but being four different emotions at once isn't.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Nargle said:


> The fact that it has so many meanings makes it complicated.


Fine.



Nargle said:


> Like, a complicated emotion is one comprised of many emotions like angry/sad/happy/worried. Being angry is simple, but being four different emotions at once isn't.


Not fine.

You're only using one meaning of "set" at the time - or at least you're supposed to, as doing otherwise would provide an ambiguous statement. Good for poetry, bad for making others understand what the hell are you going on about.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2008)

Well, I was talking about the definition anyways, not the way it's used =3

**Sets the set in a set up of settings**


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Well, I was talking about the definition anyways, not the way it's used =3
> 
> **Sets the set in a set up of settings**


You and your lingual booby-traps.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2008)

Lol =D

Hm, that debate kind of wandered all over the place, didn't it?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Lol =D
> 
> Hm, that debate kind of wandered all over the place, didn't it?


A bit. Think we're the only ones still here...

I'll cut the offtopic for now, if you don't mind. I already have an infraction point for that stuff.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Back from my post-afternoon sleep, and I'm still here. For all those who have never seen Stargate SG-1, I recommend a watch 'cause Richard Dean Anderson is hilarious most of the time.

Getting back on-topic, anymore thoughts on what it is to be a furry?


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco- Oh, okay. But, would you mind explaining what an infraction point is real quick?

Secret- I think 9ish pages of my opinion is plenty, lol =D


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Secret- I think 9ish pages of my opinion is plenty, lol =D



Fair enough lol, always interesting to hear from new people though.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Draco- Oh, okay. But, would you mind explaining what an infraction point is real quick?


It's a mark left from being smacked around with a banhammer.



secretfur said:


> Fair enough lol, always interesting to hear from new people though.


Quite true.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> That doesn't work. Being a Christian is not an ideal - it's about holding certain beliefs. Being a sinless Christian who ultimately goes to heaven, etc. - that's an ideal.
> 
> You're confusing holding certain ideals with actually being ideal.



Actually, the ideal would be Jesus. If you hold him and his teachings as an ideal, and you're christian, fundamentally. You can be flawed in practice, and be chrsitian, fundamentally.

Also, Europe sucks o_o


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Also, Europe sucks o_o



You trashin' my continent?:evil:


----------



## Alblaka (Jul 30, 2008)

Hey! He did!

Do you want to make me and secretfur angry? ^^


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Alblaka said:


> Hey! He did!
> 
> Do you want to make me and secretfur angry? ^^



You wouldn't like us when we're angry...


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Actually, the ideal would be Jesus.


Well that's dumb. You want to be nailed to a cross, too?


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Well that's dumb. You want to be nailed to a cross, too?



Ah Christians, history's running joke. And using the term 'Christian Fundamentalist' isn't exactly the smartest choice. Do you think ZeeDog was the guy who voted in favour of the Westboro Baptists in the poll?

Look out guy, you're one step away from a German/Irish flame war.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> Do you think ZeeDog was the guy who voted in favour of the Westboro Baptists in the poll?


Nope. You can check it if you click the number.



secretfur said:


> Look out guy, you're one step away from a German/Irish flame war.


I rather hope not.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Nope. You can check it if you click the number.
> 
> 
> I rather hope not.



Not you Draco, I'm just 'annoyed' at ZeeDog dissing Europe. I mean who could say Europe sucks? Have you seen the amount of beer we have?


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> Not you Draco, I'm just 'annoyed' at ZeeDog dissing Europe. I mean who could say Europe sucks? Have you seen the amount of beer we have?


Have you seen the amount of guns WE have?


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 30, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> Hm? Beings don't derive from concepts. Also concept =/= instinctual fascination.
> 
> 
> No, specifically, we have an inborn fascination with animals. We're naturally curious about all sorts of things, true. But the human brain has special reactions to a few particular things, because of how it's wired. For example, we instinctively tend to use word order to structure language and help convey meaning. And, we instinctively pay special attention to the percieved character in animal types.
> ...



First off, I think this is a massive misunderstanding of what is a rational being. How would we be talking, through computers, in modern society, if we could not derive concepts? Nor do we have any instinctive fascination with animals, we may have reasons for it, we may have inclinations, but it is not an instinct. And yes, we do act the same way to other things we may attach symbols to, and ideals and ideas we hold dear. ANd I disagree, this would make way too many people furries, people who you would not conceive to be a fur, and inflate the word, making it meaningless, which would kill furry as we know it. 

And lastly, if it were true, that furry is an irrational idea, designed to escape humanity or society(which in no conceivable way does), then no self respecting person should ever be a furry, making it deserving of all the ridicule and bashing in the world. 

Not only does furry not accomplish the idea of an animal innocence that never existed(as it is not innocence, but lack of free will), but it does not explain why the love of anthro animals in the first place, why they are so appealing, as a movement as a whole, and to those who are furs themselves, why they want to escape baggage, by bringing way more baggage, by talking to people who have just as much baggage as anyone else. It's not as if furs don't have problems.

And by ideals, I don't necessarily mean things like heroism, bravery, etc, but ideas. Furry is a way to worship ideas within yourself. In other words, the ideal is the ideas that compose the fundamental you, which you relate to an animal(and by extension, animals in general). You aren't necessarily conscious of this, but it is the general idea that goes on in your head  .


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Have you seen the amount of guns WE have?



Not even bullets can penetrate the average European's self-sense of superiority!


----------



## Alblaka (Jul 30, 2008)

Have you seen the amount of experimental fusion reactors on earth? No?

Theres only one and that one is in south french. And where is the nice french country? EUROPE!!!




TheGreatCrusader said:


> Have you seen the amount of guns WE have?


And by the way: Do you really think you could scare me, a dragon, with a simple gun?





ZeeDog said:


> First off, I think this is a massive misunderstanding of what is a rational being. How would we be talking, through computers, in modern society, if we could not derive concepts? Nor do we have any instinctive fascination with animals, we may have reasons for it, we may have inclinations, but it is not an instinct. And yes, we do act the same way to other things we may attach symbols to, and ideals and ideas we hold dear. ANd I disagree, this would make way too many people furries, people who you would not conceive to be a fur, and inflate the word, making it meaningless, which would kill furry as we know it.
> 
> And lastly, if it were true, that furry is an irrational idea, designed to escape humanity or society(which in no conceivable way does), then no self respecting person should ever be a furry, making it deserving of all the ridicule and bashing in the world.
> 
> ...




Ahhhh... Brain explodes...


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

May I just inquire...


			
				ZeeDog said:
			
		

> Not only does furry not accomplish the idea of an animal innocence that never existed(as it is not innocence, but lack of free will)


What the *fuck*?


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

Alblaka said:


> Have you seen the amount of experimental fusion reactors on earth? No?
> 
> Theres only one and that one is in south french. And where is the nice french country? EUROPE!!!
> 
> ...



Antimatter warheads by 2015! Let's see how well your guns fair against utter annihilation.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Well that's dumb. You want to be nailed to a cross, too?



I think you missed the point of Christianity o_o


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> I think you missed the point of Christianity o_o


Dang. I thought I nailed it.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> May I just inquire...
> 
> What the *fuck*?



Since when do animal's have any conception of good and evil, or the ability to choose either? D:

Also, I was in Italy for 10 days. Everything felt so poor...and, flimsy, and dinky. And I was in Rome, Venice, Florence, and Milan, and I don't think I saw any skyscrapers o_o

Only old buildings D:


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Dang. I thought I nailed it.



Aw come on, you know, imitate Jesus and stuff =(

I went to catholic school all my life, I knows D=


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 30, 2008)

Alblaka said:


> And by the way: Do you really think you could scare me, a dragon, with a simple gun?



A .50 call MG could eat through your scales me thinks(it's useful against light skinned vehicles) o_o

Also, I am to lazy to look at the old posts and respond .-.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Since when do animal's have any conception of good and evil, or the ability to choose either? D:
> 
> Also, I was in Italy for 10 days. Everything felt so poor...and, flimsy, and dinky. And I was in Rome, Venice, Florence, and Milan, and I don't think I saw any skyscrapers o_o
> 
> Only old buildings D:



What does any of this have to do with anything?


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 30, 2008)

secretfur said:


> What does any of this have to do with anything?



Well, I was in Europe, looking at zillion museums all day and had no internets, and it looked like a third world country <,>

Anyway, did anybody else say anything important? D:


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Since when do animal's have any conception of good and evil, or the ability to choose either? D:


Oh. Well, you see, Free Will has nothing to do with moral imperatives - it's simply an exercise of control over one's actions or decisions.



ZeeDog said:


> Aw come on, you know, imitate Jesus and stuff =(


Sounds like a bad idea to me. Personally, I wouldn't trust a guy who claims to be perfect one second, and gets himself nailed to a piece of wood the other. Least of all try to imitate that.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 30, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Well, I was in Europe, looking at zillion museums all day and had no internets, and it looked like a third world country <,>
> 
> Anyway, did anybody else say anything important? D:



So you judge an entire continent just because you couldn't get internet in Italy's cultural hotspots? Seems pretty stupid to me, but I suppose you can say what you want. Originally I thought you were being racist or something.


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Oh. Well, you see, Free Will has nothing to do with moral imperatives - it's simply an exercise of control over one's actions or decisions.
> 
> 
> Sounds like a bad idea to me. Personally, I wouldn't trust a guy who claims to be perfect one second, and gets himself nailed to a piece of wood the other. Least of all try to imitate that.



Actually, you would need some basic conceptual faculties to be able to excersize free will.

And try to understand their point of view, for the sake of the argument =/


----------



## ZeeDog (Jul 31, 2008)

secretfur said:


> So you judge an entire continent just because you couldn't get internet in Italy's cultural hotspots? Seems pretty stupid to me, but I suppose you can say what you want. Originally I thought you were being racist or something.



No, it was the general economic and cultural stagnation. Also, making fun of Europe =/= racism


----------



## Nargle (Jul 31, 2008)

Secret- Don't get too worked up about other people's opinions. They're perfectly harmless. Sticks and stones, man


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 31, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Actually, you would need some basic conceptual faculties to be able to excersize free will.


What?



ZeeDog said:


> And try to understand their point of view, for the sake of the argument =/


What?


----------



## ~secret~ (Jul 31, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Secret- Don't get too worked up about other people's opinions. They're perfectly harmless. Sticks and stones, man



Suppose but sometimes I can get really pissed off when people say things, I know everyone's entitled to an opinion but Europe ROCKS.



ZeeDog said:


> No, it was the general economic and cultural stagnation. Also, making fun of Europe =/= racism



I didn't know some of the most historic places in the world were suffering from economic and cultural stagnation. Have you seen the amount of tourism these places get?


----------



## Nargle (Aug 1, 2008)

Secret- I'm rather fond of the US (Not every bit, mostly the land and some of the people, not so much the current government but how it used to be) but do you know how many people bash Americans? For no good reason? Mindlessly stereotyping and generalizing people to the point of ridiculousness? TONS. And I don't go around throwing fits. And I'm almost 3/4 Irish, so you can't blame that fiery Irish temper


----------



## ~secret~ (Aug 1, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Secret- I'm rather fond of the US (Not every bit, mostly the land and some of the people, not so much the current government but how it used to be) but do you know how many people bash Americans? For no good reason? Mindlessly stereotyping and generalizing people to the point of ridiculousness? TONS. And I don't go around throwing fits.



Never bashed an American in my life proud to say, and I probably never will. I think why a lot of people do is because of how they are portrayed in foreign media.



Nargle said:


> And I'm almost 3/4 Irish, so you can't blame that fiery Irish temper



Being Irish is a cultural thing, not an ethnic one. So I can give it a go.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 1, 2008)

Never said you did bash America, I just think maybe you should grow thicker skin since Europe doesn't get anywhere near the amount of flack the US does =3


----------



## ~secret~ (Aug 1, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Never said you did bash America, I just think maybe you should grow thicker skin since Europe doesn't get anywhere near the amount of flack the US does =3



Fair enough, I suppose there's no sense getting worked up over things people say on the internet. I'll leave that to real life.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 1, 2008)

Good show, wot wot!


----------



## ~secret~ (Aug 1, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Good show, wot wot!



In that case let's all be nice to each other in the spirit of furriness, so apologies to ZeeDog for getting out of hand with what was probably an innocuous comment.

On that note, here's some light humour concerning flatulence - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7536918.stm


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 7, 2008)

secretfur said:


> Suppose but sometimes I can get really pissed off when people say things, I know everyone's entitled to an opinion but Europe ROCKS.



-Well yeah, but it was just casual frustration at my horrible vacation, no need to call me racist <.>

I didn't know some of the most historic places in the world were suffering from economic and cultural stagnation. Have you seen the amount of tourism these places get?[/QUOTE]

Yes, tourism, as in the only thing making money in those places and the only cultural achievements are past achievements. Everything other than the tourists spots looked run down, poor, stagnant, and expensive, and it doesn't seem that anything of much cultural value has been produced since the Renaissance(and in the case of Rome, since roman times). It honestly looks like it hasn't changed much in the past 200 years. There's still ancient, worn down buildings populating the cities and serving as apartments, offices, and shops, and there was not a skyscraper to be seen anywhere, not Rome, not Venice, Not Florence, and not Milan. And to top it all off, I went to modern art museum and got to hear a guide talking about the oh so daring nihilist artists, expressing their emotions and insanity!  I mean, these are pretty important cities, I'd expected them to at least be thriving =/

Also, I clearly can't work the quote system =/


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 7, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> What?
> 
> 
> What?



1- Conceptual level: The intellectual stage where one can form abstractions(a general idea seperate from concrete, which was extracted from said concrete). First, you must identify concretes at the perceptual level, in which you get data provided by the senses, then you identify at the conceptual level, where you identify general ideas based on that data.

Example:

a-The ball fell(concrete)
b-The ball fell again(concrete)
c-*thinkthinkthinkthink*
d-The ball falls(concept)

The ball falls is a general idea seperate from the instances of the ball falling, in other words a concept/abstraction. Since ethics is an abstract idea, and animals as far as we know, can't think at the conceptual level, they can't make have abstract ideas to choose from, which means that they can't make moral choices, which means they can't be either innocent or malicious, they just do their thing. So to be a furry for the idea of animal innocence is ridiculous, not to mention way too specific. My idea of animal symbols is much more practical and broad.

2- Fundamental/ideal you: The person you are at your core, and which you base your ideas and choices on, and which accuracy depends on integrity and consistency.


----------



## gunnerboy (Aug 7, 2008)

dude, that is en excellent paper


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 7, 2008)

#^_^#

Anyway, I'd like for people to debate me about it some more, so I can clarify o.o


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 12, 2008)

Anybody have any more arguments against my essay? I wanna polish it really good o,o


----------



## Nargle (Aug 13, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> animals as far as we know, can't think at the conceptual level



How do we train dogs, though? I thought "If I sit, I get food!" was a concept? 

Maybe animals do think of good and evil, but it's all "I'm good, they're evil." Like.. a chicken might think a fox is evil. And then the fox might think the angry farmer is evil. Usually ethics and values to animals (I'm supposing) is deciding what's most likely to preserve what is important to themselves (I.E. Survival, survival of young-uns, territory, mating rights) So, if another being is threatening their values, they are immoral, and evil. I mean, it's kind of like basic survival skills anyways. Humans think that way, too. (I.E. Protecting our children, our property, and spouses. If someone was threatening those things, they would appear evil.) It's probably one of our most primitive, instinctual ways of thinking.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> How do we train dogs, though? I thought "If I sit, I get food!" was a concept?
> 
> Maybe animals do think of good and evil, but it's all "I'm good, they're evil." Like.. a chicken might think a fox is evil. And then the fox might think the angry farmer is evil. Usually ethics and values to animals (I'm supposing) is deciding what's most likely to preserve what is important to themselves (I.E. Survival, survival of young-uns, territory, mating rights) So, if another being is threatening their values, they are immoral, and evil. I mean, it's kind of like basic survival skills anyways. Humans think that way, too. (I.E. Protecting our children, our property, and spouses. If someone was threatening those things, they would appear evil.) It's probably one of our most primitive, instinctual ways of thinking.



Good point. But as far as we know, they are working on memorized concretes and instinct. For example, learning to sit could be the mix of the instinct to get food, and the memory that he got food last time he sat. He doesn't really understand the concept of "If I sit, I get food", but he understands "I want food, and I last time I sat, I got food". So he doesn't really need to think conceptually, but follow it's instinct combined with the memory of a concrete. In fact, people themselves could live their lives(poorly) similarly, following memorized concretes and feelings instead of ideas(Which objectivists call "anti-conceptual mentalities"). I would have to see studies of the mental capacities of animals myself, so I'm not 100% sure, but this is how I assume they act. 

However, you are spot on on what would be evil to an animal, as well. But, I assumed we were measuring it based on human morality, which is conceptual. So an animal's morality would be automatic, while people have to it manually. For example, an dog will instinctively protect it's children, so the fact that she will be moral will be a given. A human woman, however, could, regardless of how illogical, cruel, and immoral, not protect her children, if she didn't want to. Thus, human morality is fundamentally different from an animal's morality. Human morality depends entirely on your choices, so innocent and malicious are terms only applicable to people.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

"Yarr, I associate with a dog even though I think it's scum."


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Good point. But as far as we know, they are working on memorized concretes and instinct. For example, learning to sit could be the mix of the instinct to get food, and the memory that he got food last time he sat. He doesn't really understand the concept of "If I sit, I get food", but he understands "I want food, and I last time I sat, I got food". So he doesn't really need to think conceptually, but follow it's instinct combined with the memory of a concrete. In fact, people themselves could live their lives(poorly) similarly, following memorized concretes and feelings instead of ideas(Which objectivists call "anti-conceptual mentalities"). I would have to see studies of the mental capacities of animals myself, so I'm not 100% sure, but this is how I assume they act.
> 
> However, you are spot on on what would be evil to an animal, as well. But, I assumed we were measuring it based on human morality, which is conceptual. So an animal's morality would be automatic, while people have to it manually. For example, an dog will instinctively protect it's children, so the fact that she will be moral will be a given. A human woman, however, could, regardless of how illogical, cruel, and immoral, not protect her children, if she didn't want to. Thus, human morality is fundamentally different from an animal's morality. Human morality depends entirely on your choices, so innocent and malicious are terms only applicable to people.



The memory instinct thing is the exact same thing as concepts. That's how humans develop concepts. We see two things happening together (Sitting and food) and we link them, and next time we see one of them, we remember the link, and associate that thing with another thing. Kinda like how humans use "Stop, Drop and Roll." We instinctively don't want to be burned alive, but we use our memories of elementary school presentations to roll on the ground to put the fire out. There's even a handy phrase to go along with it to help up remember it.

Just to let you know, animals aren't automatically compelled to protect their young. There are plenty of animals that eat their young, or just plain abandon them. But some choose to stay and guard them, and since we can't see any external stimuli, it's only natural to assume there is some sort of moral/emotional connection there.


----------



## Autumnal (Aug 16, 2008)

I think being a furry is all about how the individual defines it. If you consider yourself a furry, even though all you do is look at the art and like animals, then sure, you're a furry. If you adamantly insist you're not a furry even though you have a fursona, draw anthroporphic characters, and lurk on a furry forum like FA, I guess you might not be a furry. [though ha, you probably are just a severely closeted one.]

I personally enjoy drawing the art and identify myself with my fursona [a fossa] though I'm not interested in yiff or an intensely immersed experience, and I haven't been to a con before. [I don't think I'll be heading in that direction until I move out.] But I still consider myself a bit furry. Now, I'm not a die-hard one, but I still consider myself a furry.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

Autumnal said:


> I think being a furry is all about how the individual defines it. If you consider yourself a furry, even though all you do is look at the art and like animals, then sure, you're a furry. If you adamantly insist you're not a furry even though you have a fursona, draw anthroporphic characters, and lurk on a furry forum like FA, I guess you might not be a furry. [though ha, you probably are just a severely closeted one.]


Relevant material.



Autumnal said:


> I personally enjoy drawing the art and identify myself with my fursona [a fossa] though I'm not interested in yiff or an intensely immersed experience, and I haven't been to a con before. [I don't think I'll be heading in that direction until I move out.] But I still consider myself a bit furry. Now, I'm not a die-hard one, but I still consider myself a furry.


I personally judge by my free-time factor. You know you're a fan of something if you spend more than half of your free time on it.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Relevant material.



Lol =D



Draco_2k said:


> I personally judge by my free-time factor. You know you're a fan of something if you spend more than half of your free time on it.



That's a nice formula =D Wait, do I count as a fan of dogs if I don't spend time with any dogs, but I chat on dog forums, read dog books, research breeds, and draw dogs? =3 Or do I have to actually spend time with the object of my fandom?


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> That's a nice formula =D Wait, do I count as a fan of dogs if I don't spend time with any dogs, but I chat on dog forums, read dog books, research breeds, and draw dogs? =3 Or do I have to actually spend time with the object of my fandom?


Well, "on it" is a fairly ambiguous term. Besides, it's just one of the possible symptoms.

A fan is... "Someone who has an intense liking of [insert subject here]". Which is a pretty fucked up definition since it doesn't do much to define "intense", but, nevertheless...


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Well, "on it" is a fairly ambiguous term. Besides, it's just one of the possible symptoms.
> 
> A fan is... "Someone who has an intense liking of [insert subject here]". Which is a pretty fucked up definition since it doesn't do much to define "intense", but, nevertheless...



How about.. Someone who has an affinity towards a subject greater then that felt towards most other subjects in their life?

Like.. I like dogs more then TV =D


----------



## Autumnal (Aug 16, 2008)

o-o I would consider that a fan of dogs, hands down.
But that could just be meeeee.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

Autumnal said:


> o-o I would consider that a fan of dogs, hands down.
> But that could just be meeeee.



I agree with ya =D


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> How about.. Someone who has an affinity towards a subject greater then that felt towards most other subjects in their life?
> 
> Like.. I like dogs more then TV =D


Jee, I dunno. I like dogs more than TV, but that's mainly because I don't watch any TV.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Jee, I dunno. I like dogs more than TV, but that's mainly because I don't watch any TV.



Well, because I've got nothing to do, I watch TV a lot more then I used to. And it's not that I dislike TV. If you compare it to something you don't like, it doesn't work =P Like... I like eating oatmeal better then being burned. But I still don't like oatmeal.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Well, because I've got nothing to do, I watch TV a lot more then I used to. And it's not that I dislike TV. If you compare it to something you don't like, it doesn't work =P Like... I like eating oatmeal better then being burned. But I still don't like oatmeal.


Good point.

Though I'm pretty sure that "fan" isn't meant to be an adjective... So far the word itself sound just like another linguistic nonsense. Well, at least it's somewhat useful.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> The memory instinct thing is the exact same thing as concepts. That's how humans develop concepts. We see two things happening together (Sitting and food) and we link them, and next time we see one of them, we remember the link, and associate that thing with another thing. Kinda like how humans use "Stop, Drop and Roll." We instinctively don't want to be burned alive, but we use our memories of elementary school presentations to roll on the ground to put the fire out. There's even a handy phrase to go along with it to help up remember it.
> 
> Just to let you know, animals aren't automatically compelled to protect their young. There are plenty of animals that eat their young, or just plain abandon them. But some choose to stay and guard them, and since we can't see any external stimuli, it's only natural to assume there is some sort of moral/emotional connection there.



In action, yes, they would both do the same thing, but the way they reach that conclusion is different. And animal does things based on instinct or memory and instinct, but man has the extra ability to go by reason. Also, yes, humans can go on memory and feeling as well, they just have the extra ability to conceptualize, which they don't always use.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

Human consciousness is reflex-abstraction-based, just like it is for all other animals with central nervous system.

I suggest brushing up on comparative psychology before arguing about the subject. You know, common sense.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Good point.
> 
> Though I'm pretty sure that "fan" isn't meant to be an adjective... So far the word itself sound just like another linguistic nonsense. Well, at least it's somewhat useful.



I thought I was using it as a noun =\



ZeeDog said:


> In action, yes, they would both do the same thing, but the way they reach that conclusion is different. And animal does things based on instinct or memory and instinct, but man has the extra ability to go by reason. Also, yes, humans can go on memory and feeling as well, they just have the extra ability to conceptualize, which they don't always use.



Okay, if by observing humans and animals they would appear to act in the same way, what makes you think one is motivated by instinct while the other is motivated by something more special?


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I thought I was using it as a noun =\


Yep. And you can't be more noun than another noun. (I think...)

Yet this noun is defined by an adjective ("intense") so uh... Eh.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Yep. And you can't be more noun than another noun. (I think...)
> 
> Yet this noun is defined by an adjective ("intense") so uh... Eh.



Wait, yes you can. What if I were to say I'm more of an artist then this other person, because I'm more talented then him? =3


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Wait, yes you can. What if I were to say I'm more of an artist then this other person, because I'm more talented then him? =3


You're not more of an artist, you're more talented. 

It's acceptable in common speech because anyone can guess what you mean, but, grammatically, and logically, it doesn't seem to make sense... I dunno.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> You're not more of an artist, you're more talented.
> 
> It's acceptable in common speech because anyone can guess what you mean, but, grammatically (and logically), I doesn't seem to make sense... I dunno.



If he's not an artist period, I'm more of an artist then he is. That also means I'm more talented, but only because art and talent go hand in hand. 

I think it makes sense =3 I'm more of a bird person then my mom, I'm more of a cold-weather person as well, I'm more of an Independent then a Democrat or a Republican....


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 16, 2008)

Autumnal said:


> I think being a furry is all about how the individual defines it. If you consider yourself a furry, even though all you do is look at the art and like animals, then sure, you're a furry. If you adamantly insist you're not a furry even though you have a fursona, draw anthroporphic characters, and lurk on a furry forum like FA, I guess you might not be a furry. [though ha, you probably are just a severely closeted one.]
> 
> I personally enjoy drawing the art and identify myself with my fursona [a fossa] though I'm not interested in yiff or an intensely immersed experience, and I haven't been to a con before. [I don't think I'll be heading in that direction until I move out.] But I still consider myself a bit furry. Now, I'm not a die-hard one, but I still consider myself a furry.



While I do agree with independence of thought, it doesn't necessarily mean you will be right, and it would be ridiculous for everybody to be right at the same time, so everybody can't just have their own definition and still be the same fandom, or anything specific at all. For example, people calling themselves furries because they look at furry art would bring them into conflict with what I've seen traditionally called a furry. The people who look at art would expect being a furry only goes as far as art, while the traditional furries would say that it's much more. This would lead to the art furries seeing traditional furries as weirdos, and condemning them for it and encouraging others to "not take it so far", changing the cultural tone. This means that it is important to differentiate between a fan of furry, and a furry.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Okay, if by observing humans and animals they would appear to act in the same way, what makes you think one is motivated by instinct while the other is motivated by something more special?



The fact that you can introspect and see it happening yourself. Also, because both do a specific action, because it would be beneficial in either species, does not mean that their behaviors are identical.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 16, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I think it makes sense =3 I'm more of a bird person then my mom, I'm more of a cold-weather person as well, I'm more of an Independent then a Democrat or a Republican....


No, you _like_ birds, cold weather and Independence more. Spell it out.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> No, you _like_ birds, cold weather and Independence more. Spell it out.



That's true, but they can all still be used in noun form!


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Human consciousness is reflex-abstraction-based, just like it is for all other animals with central nervous system.
> 
> I suggest brushing up on comparative psychology before arguing about the subject. You know, common sense.



First off, how do you define abstraction?

I looked into that, which brought me to Animal Cognition. Honestly, it seems way controversial  and debatable.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 16, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> it seems way controversial  and debatable.



What've we been doing for the past 20 pages? =3 (Actually I dunno how many pages.)


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 16, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> I personally judge by my free-time factor. You know you're a fan of something if you spend more than half of your free time on it.



Oh bother, it appears I am a Warhammer/Dwarf Fortress fan.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

Nargle said:


> That's true, but they can all still be used in noun form!


In speech, yes. In a debate, it's a straight road to logical fallacy. It's always a better idea to deal with primary source, anyway.



ZeeDog said:


> First off, how do you define abstraction?


*Abstraction* is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.[/wiki]

Any relatively organised neural system will operate with abstractions just by analysing, storing and linking together data derived from neural inputs.



ZeeDog said:


> I looked into that, which brought me to Animal Cognition. Honestly, it seems way controversial  and debatable.


Which is why I said you shouldn't talk about it. Basically, anything you've previously said is a)unscientific; b)completely unsupported; c)highly debatable; d)fallacious.

There is currently nothing to suggest that animal cognition is significantly different from human cognition, especially according to neurobiological/evolutionary/historical/psychological models; that a number of species can form concepts, abstractions, as well as exercise reasoning, emotion, free will and, in certain cases, self-awareness are long-confirmed facts.

Common sense: don't talk about something you know nothing about. Which is why I'm not going to say anything conclusive about animal or human cognition/consciousness here.



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Oh bother, it appears I am a Warhammer/Dwarf Fortress fan.


Good for you.


----------



## Frasque (Aug 17, 2008)

Well, furry isn't an objective description, it's nothing you can quantify or determine by administering a test, there's no Platonic ideal and nothing residing at the Institute of Standards & Technogly to compare it to. It's just a word people made up to describe something subjective, so it can be defined any way you want and no two people will ever be able to agree on a definition.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

Frasque said:


> Well, furry isn't an objective description, it's nothing you can quantify or determine by administering a test, there's no Platonic ideal and nothing residing at the Institute of Standards & Technogly to compare it to. It's just a word people made up to describe something subjective, so it can be defined any way you want and no two people will ever be able to agree on a definition.


And what's the point of using that word at all, then?


----------



## Frasque (Aug 17, 2008)

It means something to the people who are using it, but the word itself is meaningless.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

Frasque said:


> It means something to the people who are using it, but the word itself is meaningless.


So basically, it's not a word at all? And all furry sites/art/people have no relevance to one another?


----------



## Frasque (Aug 17, 2008)

Not certain what you mean by relevance. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm certainly not the smartest person here. I might be missing something.

Just from my experience it seems like everyone has their own idea of what furry means. Just looking on this thread everyone's idea of furry includes different defining characteristic. Aside from involving anthropomorphized animals in some way, there's no other point of contact in their definitions. And it's subjective so no matter what one person strongly beleives, their belief is meaningless. Like maybe for one person you aren't a "real furry" if you don't have a fursona, and maybe for another person you aren't a "real furry" unless you RP. Neither of them are right, but neither of them are wrong. 

Anyways, that's only my perspective on the subject.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

Well, I'm just asking. As you said, different people tend to come up with different definitions - though I personally don't consider this an excuse for bludgeoning the language.



Frasque said:


> ...Aside from involving anthropomorphized animals in some way, there's no other point of contact in their definitions...


Bingo. And that's what "furry" is.

There's a word to define people who think they're an animal ("therians"), people who feel a spiritual connection with one ("furry lifestylers"), and people who like anthros ("furries"). I'd say it's always easier to call out things for what they really are.

Or at least it would be if the word "fan" itself wasn't so ambiguous (basically what you said). I'm probably missing something here.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> *Abstraction* is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.[/wiki]



-Okay



Draco_2k said:


> Any relatively organised neural system will operate with abstractions just by analysing, storing and linking together data derived from neural inputs.



-You would have to explain to what data and what you mean by analyzing it.



Draco_2k said:


> Which is why I said you shouldn't talk about it. Basically, anything you've previously said is a)unscientific; b)completely unsupported; c)highly debatable; d)fallacious.



-I'm basing it on casual observation of animals themselves. Anyone can see that animals don't do much that could require independent thought instead of instinct or conditioning. 



Draco_2k said:


> There is currently nothing to suggest that animal cognition is significantly different from human cognition, especially according to neurobiological/evolutionary/historical/psychological models; that a number of species can form concepts, abstractions, as well as exercise reasoning, emotion, free will and, in certain cases, self-awareness are long-confirmed facts.



-And that's my problem, I see nothing to confirm that in the study of Animal Cognition, not to mention there is some debate as to interpretation of results.



Draco_2k said:


> Which is why I'm not going to say anything conclusive about animal or human cognition/consciousness here.



-You just did ^


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Frasque said:


> Well, furry isn't an objective description, it's nothing you can quantify or determine by administering a test, there's no Platonic ideal and nothing residing at the Institute of Standards & Technogly to compare it to. It's just a word people made up to describe something subjective, so it can be defined any way you want and no two people will ever be able to agree on a definition.



Of course, terms aren't true in the same way as concretes are. Instead, we analyze how relevant to reality they are and their usefulness and practicality.


----------



## Frasque (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Of course, terms aren't true in the same way as concretes are. Instead, we analyze how relevant to reality they are and their usefulness and practicality.


 
Which varies from person to person, so there's no One True Definition of furry. It's one of those angels dancing on pinheads things. I guess it's fun to argue about tho since this is like the 5th thread about it I've seen since I joined.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Frasque said:


> Which varies from person to person, so there's no One True Definition of furry. I guess it's fun to argue about tho since this is like the 5th thread about it I've seen since I joined.



There can be different definitions, but it doesn't mean they are all as useful or relevant to reality, and even if you were to say that everyone has different needs or interests, it still wouldn't be practical to any of them if they all have a different definition.


----------



## Frasque (Aug 17, 2008)

Of course they're useful to the person making the definition, but that doesn't mean it has a basis in reality.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Frasque said:


> Of course they're useful to the person making the definition, but that doesn't mean it has a basis in reality.



It's not useful to anyone if it has no basis in reality.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> You would have to explain to what data and what you mean by analyzing it.


Neural perception (data formation) - neural transmission (data transmission) - central neural activity (data analysis) - neural transmission (data transmission) - reaction (data transmission, physical action).

An example of basic centrally processed reflex.



ZeeDog said:


> I'm basing it on casual observation of animals themselves. Anyone can see that animals don't do much that could require independent thought instead of instinct or conditioning.


And Earth is flat. I mean, jee, it sure looks like it.

My personal observations suggest the exact opposite, but neither has any merit in discussion.



ZeeDog said:


> And that's my problem, I see nothing to confirm that in the study of Animal Cognition, not to mention there is some debate as to interpretation of results.


I'm not a textbook, and I'm not an expert in the field. I simply expect you not to argue about something that you just admitted you know exceptionally little about.

If you want to argue that animal consciousness is significantly different from human one in any number of aspects, the burden of proof is on you since you'll be going against discovered biological similarities in most cases.

I can provide some anecdotal evidence for a few things if you want though, but that's hardly too productive.



ZeeDog said:


> You just did ^


You missed the word "conclusive". I know a bunch of stuff on the matter, sure, but I'm not going to say I have undeniable proof to even define what "consciousness" really is, per se.

You can talk about gravity even if you don't know what causes it - but you can't pretend you know the cause right next sentence. Is this a sound enough example?


----------



## Frasque (Aug 17, 2008)

What would you use a definition of furry for anyways?


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

Frasque said:


> What would you use a definition of furry for anyways?


Any word has a definition, that's what makes it part of a language in the first place (a form of information transfer).

Would you join this place if it was called BlargAffinity? Well, I would, I guess, but that's besides the point.


----------



## Frasque (Aug 17, 2008)

But I thought furry just meant you liked anthro animals. Anything else seems like a needless complication. 

Oh well, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, I'll let you smart people hash it out.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

Frasque said:


> But I thought furry just meant you liked anthro animals. Anything else seems like a needless complication.


Absolutely. Problem is, most of the world loves Mickey Mouse, which makes it about as descriptive as "sometime eats food".

Thus, it's really used in sense of "likes anthros a LOT" - which is fucked, because it doesn't do much to define what "a LOT" is.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Neural perception (data formation) - neural transmission (data transmission) - central neural activity (data analysis) - neural transmission (data transmission) - reaction (data transmission, physical action).
> 
> An example of basic centrally processed reflex.



And what is the central neural activity exactly? 



Draco_2k said:


> And Earth is flat. I mean, jee, it sure looks like it.
> 
> My personal observations suggest the exact opposite, but neither has any merit in discussion.



Why not?



Draco_2k said:


> I'm not a textbook, and I'm not an expert in the field. I simply expect you not to argue about something that you just admitted you know exceptionally little about.
> 
> If you want to argue that animal consciousness is significantly different from human one in any number of aspects, the burden of proof is on you since you'll be going against discovered biological similarities in most cases.
> 
> ...



-I meant about animals having similar minds to ours. You're stating them as a fact when there's some debate over interpretation of results. And sure, give some of the evidence.



Draco_2k said:


> You can talk about gravity even if you don't know what causes it - but you can't pretend you know the cause right next sentence. Is this a sound enough example?



But you can theorize, no?


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> And what is the central neural activity exactly?


Neural activity specific to central neural system?.. 



ZeeDog said:


> Why not?


Because it's anecdotal evidence, and neither of us has a chance to verify one another's statements.

I can say that, according to my experience, Earth is flat. I'm sure you realise it's an funny/annoying thing to hear.



ZeeDog said:


> I meant about animals having similar minds to ours. You're stating them as a fact when there's some debate over interpretation of results. And sure, give some of the evidence.


Have you studied biology back in the school? If you did, you'd know that we share neurobiological model with a lot of species - most notably, primates, which we are part of. You'd also know that, according to science, our neural activity is what ultimately defines our consciousness. Putting two and two together, we can estimate certain properties of species consciousness by comparing our neural make-up to that of their own - which is what paints those similarities.

For instance, a lot of mammals posses sufficiently advanced cortex, and even if distribution of functions is drastically across it is different from species to species, we can still estimate certain things based on it - others can be verified through experiments.

With all of this, I'd simply like to remind you that burden on proof lies on you in this argument.



ZeeDog said:


> But you can theorize, no?


Yes. Though it is basic etiquette that you preclude uncertain statements with "I think".


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Frasque said:


> But I thought furry just meant you liked anthro animals. Anything else seems like a needless complication.



Well that's the thing, that's not how I used to see it used, and it covers way too many people that have no real relation, especially to the subculture. The reason why my definition is useful is because it would keep the subculture as an intelligible whole.



Frasque said:


> Oh well, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, I'll let you smart people hash it out.



Nonsense, everybody should discuss it =3


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Well that's the thing, that's not how I used to see it used, and it covers way too many people that have no real relation, especially to the subculture. The reason why my definition is useful is because it would keep the subculture as an intelligible whole.


I have a suspicion that it simply attracts people of different interests. Logically, it'd be useful to define those interests separately to clarify the situation and distinguish between those interests.

I believe I already mentioned lifestylers/furries/therians/etc. previously.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Neural activity specific to central neural system?..



Yes, but what activity, exactly? Reason, instinct, etc?



Draco_2k said:


> Because it's anecdotal evidence, and neither of us has a chance to verify one another's statements.
> 
> I can say that, according to my experience, Earth is flat. I'm sure you realise it's an funny/annoying thing to hear.



Simple everyday examples could help us anyway.



Draco_2k said:


> Have you studied biology back in the school? If you did, you'd know that we share neurobiological model with a lot of species - most notably, primates, which we are part of. You'd also know that, according to science, our neural activity is what ultimately defines our consciousness. Putting two and two together, we can estimate certain properties of species consciousness by comparing our neural make-up to that of their own - which is what paints those similarities.
> 
> For instance, a lot of mammals posses sufficiently advanced cortex, and even if distribution of functions is drastically across it is different from other species, we can still estimate certain things based on it - others can be verified through experiments.
> 
> With all of this, I'd simply like to remind you that burden on proof lies on you in this argument.



Well, quite frankly, I'm not making a biological argument, I'm making an epistemological one. For example, we may know the neurology of humans and animals, but science has not yet advanced as to explain how exactly our thinking works, or why or how it happens. But, you can see it happen in your own mind and can make an epistemological argument, based on the directly observable, and reach a plausible explanation as to why animals seem to not grasp ideas like we do, or advance like we do.



Draco_2k said:


> Yes. Though it is basic etiquette that you preclude uncertain statements with "I think".



The first thing I said in the topic was to debate anything about what I said.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Yes, but what activity, exactly? Reason, instinct, etc?


Can't say anything about "Reason", but, by comparative default, both.



ZeeDog said:


> Simple everyday examples could help us anyway.


I've seen that Earth is flat.



ZeeDog said:


> Well, quite frankly, I'm not making a biological argument, I'm making an epistemological one. For example, we may know the neurology of humans and animals, but science has not yet advanced as to explain how exactly our thinking works, or why or how it happens. But, you can see it happen in your own mind and can make an epistemological argument, based on the directly observable, and reach a plausible explanation as to why animals seem to not grasp ideas like we do, or advance like we do.


I'm not sure I even want to talk to you after that...

Do you honestly ask me me to dismiss hard scientific facts and instead turn to divine revelation?



ZeeDog said:


> The first thing I said in the topic was to debate anything about what I said.


I was asking you not to present your personal guesses as facts.


PS: No, you're not making an epistemological argument. Though I haven't seen your argument here at all - just some claims.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> I have a suspicion that it simply attracts people of different interests. Logically, it'd be useful to define those interests separately to clarify the situation and distinguish between those interests.
> 
> I believe I already mentioned lifestylers/furries/therians/etc. previously.



No, the problem is not really the different interests between people in the fandom, or what I would define as furs, but the problem of people in the fandom not having any relation to the subculture calling themselves furs. I would say the best way to define it would be to group all who anthromorphize themselves as furries(which would make for a cohesive subculture), which would be a group within furry fandom, and while therians would be a group that sees themselves as metaphysically part animal.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> No, the problem is not really the different interests between people in the fandom, or what I would define as furs, but the problem of people in the fandom not having any relation to the subculture calling themselves furs. I would say the best way to define it would be to group all who anthromorphize themselves as furries(which would make for a cohesive subculture), which would be a group within furry fandom, and while therians would be a group that sees themselves as metaphysically part animal.


"Anthropomprhise themselves"?..


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Can't say anything about "Reason", but, by comparative default, both.



Would you say you are guided by instinct? Can you tell the difference between them?



Draco_2k said:


> I've seen that Earth is flat.



Context is important here. You cannot say anything relevant about the Earth's shape unless you have seen it, but you can say something relevant about the animals you've seen. 



Draco_2k said:


> I'm not sure I even want to talk to you after that...
> 
> Do you honestly ask me me to dismiss hard scientific facts and instead turn to divine revelation?



The immediately observable in one's own mind is divine revelation? I am not talking about anything outside the mind, which would require direct observation, but things within it and how it works. How did we get to science without epistemology?



Draco_2k said:


> I was asking you not to present your personal guesses as facts.



Where does it say they are facts?


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> "Anthropomprhise themselves"?..



Fursona, collars, tails, fursuits, meowing, etc


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Would you say you are guided by instinct? Can you tell the difference between them?


To an extent, of course. Everyone is.

Instinct and Reasoning themselves are two separate, non-exclusive faculties. I'm sure you know how to use Google?..



ZeeDog said:


> Context is important here. You cannot say anything relevant about the Earth's shape unless you have seen it, but you can say something relevant about the animals you've seen.


Go outside and see for yourself. Earth is flat. In fact, I'll be amused if you can prove otherwise without referring to any third-part sources.



ZeeDog said:


> The immediately observable in one's own mind is divine revelation?


Imagination, technically. Imagining things can be fun (lol furry), but it has zero merit in discussion. Arguments do, however.



ZeeDog said:


> I am not talking about anything outside the mind, which would require direct observation, but things within it and how it works. How did we get to science without epistemology?


Philosophy has nothing to do with Science, and never did. What are you trying to say?..



ZeeDog said:


> Where does it say they are facts?


You do. Examples:

"Animals are incapable of free will."
"Animals cannot form concepts."
"Animals cannot reason."

The proper format would be: "I don't see how animals would be capable of free will" or, if you don't want to betray your lack of knowledge, "Animals have free will?"

No, these aren't exact quotes - I might have missed something, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Fursona, collars, tails, fursuits, meowing, etc


This only leads to more fracturing. Do you associate with your fursona? Do you have spiritual connection with it? Do you just do it for fun? Do you have one or multiple? Do you just like meowing? Do you just like fursuiting? Do you just like collars?

Also, I think we've strayed way off with that other discussion. What was that all about in the first place?


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> This only leads to more fracturing. Do you associate with your fursona? Do you have spiritual connection with it? Do you just do it for fun? Do you have one or multiple? Do you just like meowing? Do you just like fursuiting? Do you just like collars?
> 
> Also, I think we've strayed way off with that other discussion. What was that all about in the first place?



No, because all of those are brought together by the general idea of anthropomorphizing yourself. Fursonas, collars, meowing are all just the consequences, not the uniting principle.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> No, because all of those are brought together by the general idea of anthropomorphizing yourself. Fursonas, collars, meowing are all just the consequences, not the uniting principle.


Then why do you want to fracture the definition of "Furry" itself?


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> To an extent, of course. Everyone is.
> 
> Instinct and Reasoning themselves are two separate, non-exclusive faculties. I'm sure you know how to use Google?..



How would you define instinct? And reason?



Draco_2k said:


> Go outside and see for yourself. Earth is flat. In fact, I'll be amused if you can prove otherwise without referring to any third-part sources.



But is your knowledge of Earth part, or a whole unit? Is seeing a small part of a planet the same as seeing a whole animal? That's why context is important, because the personal observations admitted into the discussion should be enough to make an intelligible observation. Basically, is this observation enough to make a general conclusion from? 

And anyway, I've personally observed the Earth being round. The timezone was different in Italy.



Draco_2k said:


> Imagination, technically. Imagining things can be fun (lol furry), but it has zero merit in discussion. Arguments do, however.



By that logic, anything anything observable within the mind has no merit, which would include concepts, which would make science, discussion, even everyday life impossible.



Draco_2k said:


> Philosophy has nothing to do with Science, and never did. What are you trying to say?..



Philosophy is the basis for science, as well as anything else in life. For example, your metaphysics would have to be "Universe with order", your epistemology "reason, based on the observable by the senses", your ethics must support it is moral for you to find the truth, and your politics shouldn't prohibit science. A proper philosophy is essential to science, and comes before science.



Draco_2k said:


> You do. Examples:
> 
> "Animals are incapable of free will."
> "Animals cannot form concepts."
> ...



And I said all of it is debatable, as in, it is not a fact, beforehand. Isn't it the same thing?


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

May I ignore this for a moment.

What are we arguing about here, and why? Maybe it would make more sense to go back to original question, whatever it was?


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Then why do you want to fracture the definition of "Furry" itself?



Fracture it how? Wouldn't anthromorphizing yourself be a single uniting principle? Not to mention those who do not fall under this definition would still be part of furry fandom itself. So it's not a fracture as it is a subdivision.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Fracture it how? Wouldn't anthromorphizing yourself be a single uniting principle?


So far the uniting principle is the devotion to anthropomorphic characters. Why would you want to fracture it, yet stop at a certain point?



ZeeDog said:


> Not to mention those who do not fall under this definition would still be part of furry fandom itself. So it's not a fracture as it is a subdivision.


They're synonyms.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> So far the uniting principle is the devotion to anthropomorphic characters. Why would you want to fracture it, yet stop at a certain point?



Because you can like the art, without understanding the rest of the subculture(like the types who like the art, but groan at the sight and avoid pouncing, nomming, etc), while it would be pretty difficult to not understand if you wag your tail during RP, for example.

Also, one of my points is that I've generally never saw it used as a synonym of furry fandom.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 17, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Because you can like the art, without understanding the rest of the subculture(like the types who like the art, but groan at the sight and avoid pouncing, nomming, etc), while it would be pretty difficult to not understand if you wag your tail during RP, for example.


And you can "understand the rest of subculture" without paying attention to art scene. Wouldn't that make two separate subgroups within a bigger one?

And uh... You didn't answer my question. You can fracture role-players and art fans both on their merits, just like you can with the "furry" itself - but why would you want to do it in the first place, and why stop where you did?

About that other discussion: see end of previous page.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 17, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> And you can "understand the rest of subculture" without paying attention to art scene. Wouldn't that make two separate subgroups within a bigger one?
> 
> And uh... You didn't answer my question. You can fracture role-players and art fans both on their merits, just like you can with the "furry" itself - but why would you want to do it in the first place, and why stop where you did?
> 
> About that other discussion: see end of previous page.



Actually, it's not about RP or collars or meowing specifically, but that you anthromorphize yourself, because in the process, you must grasp the idea of anthropomorphizing, and thus, get the subculture as a whole. If you only look at art, you don't necessarily have to get it,  since you might just appreciate the style, but not the ideas behind it. Because of this, the subculture might seem irrational and fanatical to you, so you would have mainstream culture and the furry subculture tied to the same word, and would cause conflict.

As for what the previous discussion has to with this: it started with someone saying that people were attracted to to furry because of lack of social pretenses and animal innocence, to which I said was ridiculous, because animals couldn't really be innocent or malicious because they lack conceptual faculties, and furry was better explained through animal symbolism and anthromorphization, which lead to comparative psychology, and here we are.


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 18, 2008)

ZeeDog said:


> Actually, it's not about RP or collars or meowing specifically, but that you anthromorphize yourself, because in the process, you must grasp the idea of anthropomorphizing, and thus, get the subculture as a whole. If you only look at art, you don't necessarily have to get it,  since you might just appreciate the style, but not the ideas behind it. Because of this, the subculture might seem irrational and fanatical to you, so you would have mainstream culture and the furry subculture tied to the same word, and would cause conflict.


As I said before, role-playing, art, spirituality, self-identification and reasoning can be applied to "Furry" independently as well as separately.

I have no idea what you mean exactly by "anthropomorphising yourself", and why does it suddenly deserve a category on it's own, least of all above all other interests encompasses by the fandom.



ZeeDog said:


> As for what the previous discussion has to with this: it started with someone saying that people were attracted to to furry because of lack of social pretenses and animal innocence, to which I said was ridiculous, because animals couldn't really be innocent or malicious because they lack conceptual faculties, and furry was better explained through animal symbolism and anthromorphization, which lead to comparative psychology, and here we are.


Well, that's a lot simpler then: it can be both.

Whether or not animals are "innocent" (stupid concept to begin with) doesn't affect how people perceive them - so some might very well be "into it" because of it. Just like like they could be into it due to spirituality, or symbolism, or self-identification, or plain old "Cool" factor.


----------



## Albino-Kitsune (Aug 18, 2008)

I always looked at furry like being a drug user. It makes you happy but people aren't going to understand. Some will be angry, many won't understand, a few won't care, but there is that handful that you can't trust with knowledge like that and you could find yourself in between a rock and a hard place if they let it known to anyone else.

In short, you just don't tell people you're furry. Ever. Unless you're sure they're furry too or can handle it. I don't like other people knowing things they're not going to understand and won't take the time to learn the facts about before they start dribbling nonsensical crap at me.

As far as what makes you furry, furry just is. I do believe it's that simple. 
It's an appriciation of animals or animal traits and a kinship to something other then the human element. 

"Humans are boring, let's break away from that." Is the idea I get sometimes when I think about furry. xD


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 25, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> As I said before, role-playing, art, spirituality, self-identification and reasoning can be applied to "Furry" independently as well as separately.



Not really. There are some things that can be appreciated independently of the fandom, and some that require you to appreciate the fandom. For example, someone who likes RP would not repudiate furry art, but someone who likes furry art may dislike furry RPers. The different parts of furry fandom are more like a piramid than a list of separate things.

Top top bottom 

Lifestyle -> RPing -> Art 

Where the everything from the beginning of each part, to the bottom of the pyramid, is included in it. So a lifestyler will like everything, Art fans will only like the art. Also, by like, I don't mean necessarily participate in the activity, but more tolerate and accept the activity as good. So you'd be at RP even if you don't RP, if you think furry RP is great. Essentially, how far you think it should go. 



Draco_2k said:


> I have no idea what you mean exactly by "anthropomorphising yourself", and why does it suddenly deserve a category on it's own, least of all above all other interests encompasses by the fandom.



Which brings to my point, those who anthropomorphize themselves are a different group of people, with their own subculture and traditions. Basically, the point where consider yourself an anthro animal in spirit(whether it be RP, fursuits, dog collars, etc) is where you start calling yourself a furry, since you'd be guided by ideas differently than the rest of the fandom. Also, I don't really mean to unite the fandom as much as unite furries themselves. What is considered furry fandom is another topic entirely.



Draco_2k said:


> Well, that's a lot simpler then: it can be both.
> 
> Whether or not animals are "innocent" (stupid concept to begin with) doesn't affect how people perceive them - so some might very well be "into it" because of it. Just like like they could be into it due to spirituality, or symbolism, or self-identification, or plain old "Cool" factor.



Which is the same thing I concluded. Animal innocense is ridiculous, but it still would fit under my theory.


----------



## ZeeDog (Aug 25, 2008)

Albino-Kitsune said:


> I always looked at furry like being a drug user. It makes you happy but people aren't going to understand. Some will be angry, many won't understand, a few won't care, but there is that handful that you can't trust with knowledge like that and you could find yourself in between a rock and a hard place if they let it known to anyone else.
> 
> In short, you just don't tell people you're furry. Ever. Unless you're sure they're furry too or can handle it. I don't like other people knowing things they're not going to understand and won't take the time to learn the facts about before they start dribbling nonsensical crap at me.



Which is what I aim to change. Your furryness shouldn't be hidden, it should be clearly and rationally explained out in the open. Ignorance of what furry is among the general population will only hurt us. 



Albino-Kitsune said:


> As far as what makes you furry, furry just is. I do believe it's that simple.
> It's an appriciation of animals or animal traits and a kinship to something other then the human element.



Nah, stuff that just is more fundamental than a specific subculture(stuff like A is A)


----------



## Draco_2k (Aug 25, 2008)

Hey, welcome back.


ZeeDog said:


> Not really. There are some things that can be appreciated independently of the fandom, and some that require you to appreciate the fandom. For example, someone who likes RP would not repudiate furry art, but someone who likes furry art may dislike furry RPers. The different parts of furry fandom are more like a piramid than a list of separate things.
> 
> Top top bottom
> 
> ...


This is outright incorrect.

Personally, I've been in the fandom long enough to see people who are into roleplaying, but don't care about art, people who are into spirituality who don't have a fursona, as well as those who like art, roleplaying and have a fursona altogether. These interests are not necessarily interconnected, less of all being in hierarchical relationship to one another.

Furthermore, your claims are non-sequitir. Explaining your hypotheses would help a lot more than asserting the lot of them in rapid succession. That is to say, present the full logical chain instead of just the conclusions. You know, etiquette.



ZeeDog said:


> Which brings to my point, those who anthropomorphize themselves are a different group of people, with their own subculture and traditions. Basically, the point where consider yourself an anthro animal in spirit(whether it be RP, fursuits, dog collars, etc) is where you start calling yourself a furry, since you'd be guided by ideas differently than the rest of the fandom. Also, I don't really mean to unite the fandom as much as unite furries themselves. What is considered furry fandom is another topic entirely.


That's also wrong.

There is no such thing as "anthropomorphising yourself" (please don't make up words without explaining their meaning).  Fursuiting, fursonas, collars, etc. are not necessarily connected to spirituality (can be just for fun), and the only thing "Furry" ever meant is an appreciation of anthropomorphic characters.* Look it up.

*Barring Furry Lifestylers. Google can also clear that up.



ZeeDog said:


> Which is the same thing I concluded. Animal innocense is ridiculous, but it still would fit under my theory.


What theory.

Also, "Innocence" only has any meaning under some sort of law.



ZeeDog said:


> Which is what I aim to change. Your furryness shouldn't be hidden, it should be clearly and rationally explained out in the open. Ignorance of what furry is among the general population will only hurt us.


General population doesn't even know what the fuck that is. Leave them alone.


----------



## Cascading-Eclipse (Oct 18, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> One of my fave quotes (that never seems to amuse anyone else) is Victor Hugo (you know, the guy who wrote the book Les Miserables-- yes it was a book before it was a musical!):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The human brain is the only one smart enough to even study itself, and through that study others, they say.

To me, being a furry is the love of animals, anthromorphic or no. I love wolves to a huge degree. I mean, I'm not going to go out and fuck a wolf in the ass, but I seem to have an affinity to them. Have you ever seen "Never Cry Wolf"? That's the movie that got me into the furry fandom, in a sense.


----------



## Cascading-Eclipse (Oct 18, 2008)

And, god people, quit arguing. Furry means different things for different people.  For instance, for me it means my attraction to furry porn, and affinity to wolves. For someone else, it could be something entirely different. Quit calling each other wrong. You can't be wrong. Furry is a noun based on opinions. Therefore, whenever you say something about it, you're never right and never wrong.


----------



## FurTheWin (Oct 18, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I agree that people that only participate in the art aspect shouldn't consider themselves furries. It's like calling yourself a football player because you've watched some of the games.


Well, that analogy doesn't work well considering being a football player denotes participation in an activity while, as I see it, being a furry just denotes an increased interest in the subject of animal anthropomorphism.

I consider a person "furry" when he or she is especially interested in this subject of furry. More than average.

For instance: If a person "just likes" Disney's Robin Hood, I don't consider him/her a furry, but if one of the major reasons he/she likes the movie is the furryness of the characters then I consider that person a furry.

That is my opinion at least. There seems to be as many opinions on the matter as there is people in the fandom.


----------



## FurryWurry (Oct 19, 2008)

What goes around, comes around ;3

This argument was old more than a decade ago when alt.lifestyle.furry split from alt.fan.furry.

You're furry if you believe you're furry.


----------



## Nox (Oct 20, 2008)

Nargle said:


> *I agree that people that only participate in the art aspect shouldn't consider themselves furries. It's like calling yourself a football player because you've watched some of the games. Hell, there are thousands of kids that LOVE mickey mouse and such, but that doesn't make them furries.* I draw and like the art, sometimes wear a tail in private, and occasionally act like an animal, yet I still don't consider myself fully furry. It doesn't influence my life enough. For instance, I don't go around wearing T-shirst or jewelery with my spirit animal on it, and most of my friends aren't even aware of my interest in furries. It's like I'm a hobby furry, and I only participate in my free time =3


 
Thank you. You just said what I have always tried to tell people. A Furry IS someone who connects with the animal. I do. I am a Furry. Thats why  wonder why some 'furries' BWAA over trolls...when they only draw/like the art. :\


----------



## Nevarous (Oct 20, 2008)

I know I'm new here, but please don't bite my head off for throwing in my two cents.


I believe this whole furry thing is a matter of spirit, such as I acted like my animal long before I knew what a furry was, furrydom didn't start with the word or even with the Internet.

Humans have always seen themselves as one animal or another, look at Native Americas, some tribes named their kids after animals. But did this mean the man named "Rabbit" was a frightened little guy? Or that the one called "Eagle" was a great and mighty killer? Even though they were named after animals they shared few traits with their name-sakes.

But the further humans got from their hunter/gatherer ways the more they began to think of themselves as animals.
Today, a man who sees himself as a rabbit may be frightened and scared or even just see himself a very lucky.

I think that the close they get to a future that has little or no room for animal like habits, the more people will start to see themselves as animals.

Somehow humans went to believing in animal like souls, but not acting like them. To thinking themselves as non-animals but act animal like in secret.


I think I just mudled up my thoughts and made a jumble of words out of what sounded like a good train of thought at the time.


----------



## Spin~TF~Spin (Oct 20, 2008)

The OP's post and what I have observed from many furries makes the assumption that there is a "fundamental self" which can then be expressed outwardly, and with true clarity, throught the constrution of a fursona.

Now, whether there is or isn't a fundamental and true "self" is something you could spend all day arguing one way or another so it isn't my intent to argue one way or another. What I find truly interesting is that many furries tend to keep assuming there is a true "self" and accept it as if it were proven fact. 

Now, what could be the cause behind such a phenomenon? Could it just be chance, given that many non-furs also believe in a fundamental entity of the "self"?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 20, 2008)

Nox said:


> Thank you. You just said what I have always tried to tell people. A Furry IS someone who connects with the animal. I do. I am a Furry. Thats why  wonder why some 'furries' BWAA over trolls...when they only draw/like the art. :\



I don't _'connect'_ with _the_ animal, yet I'm a furry.
I just think many animals are awesome/pretty/cute.


----------

