Furry
noun/adjective
>One can be said to be A furry, and one can be said to DO things that are describable AS furry.
"Furry" encompasses Animals with anthropomorphic aspects, and people who are interested in animals with anthropomorphic aspects.
Things like animals using spoken language, reading/writing, holding cups with their fore-[~]hands[/~]hooves, and assorted other human-like behavior that is otherwise not associated with the native creature.
Like ponies. Specifically, My Little Pony ponies.
Yes, ponies ARE definitively furry.
And, one can like furry things without identifying AS a furry,... but....
Tl;dr ITT OP tries to divest horsefuckers from their denial of being furries
/sp/ - Football
Yea, for the Denver Broncos are Football Now and Forever
File (): AABAF51433BFEC1E2D4A9D0AAC58975E-69374.jpg (67.7 KB, 569x438, 4cr9qr.jpg)
File (): ED38594C8D05920BEA38780A4FB94305-52184.jpg (51.0 KB, 1080x560, Screenshot_20230506_112003_Google.jpg)
Anonymous
No.21981
File (): 130E3FFFE46376EA2B676111EA55A548-197742.png (193.1 KB, 794x794, image-180-1.png)
I can see why people would associate horsefuckers with furries, based on their traits at face value, but I think it's important to note that horsefuckers are also a distinct niche of their own, and a lot of horsefuckers prefer not to be lumped together with furries. This was a theme at the recent Mare Fair.
That being said, I have no real hard feelings for furries. Furries have had a lot of overlap with bronies/horsefuckers for a while now.
I think there's also a question of what a "furry" really is to begin with. It's such a large umbrella term that it can be applied to fans of practically any genre or media if interpreted generously enough. If the definition of furry is vague enough, then surely horsefuckers could be interpreted as such, but a lot of horsefuckers still do not self-identify as furries.
That being said, I have no real hard feelings for furries. Furries have had a lot of overlap with bronies/horsefuckers for a while now.
I think there's also a question of what a "furry" really is to begin with. It's such a large umbrella term that it can be applied to fans of practically any genre or media if interpreted generously enough. If the definition of furry is vague enough, then surely horsefuckers could be interpreted as such, but a lot of horsefuckers still do not self-identify as furries.
Anonymous
No.21982
>>21980
I think the main reason mareschizos avoid association with furries is because they know that if mlp becomes a definitive sector of the "furry fandom", furries will flood into their spaces (cons, boorus, forums, projects, etc) and dilute the pony fandom. This is why people on the boorus get pissed when furry version of pony OCs get posted there.
I think the main reason mareschizos avoid association with furries is because they know that if mlp becomes a definitive sector of the "furry fandom", furries will flood into their spaces (cons, boorus, forums, projects, etc) and dilute the pony fandom. This is why people on the boorus get pissed when furry version of pony OCs get posted there.
Anonymous
No.21983
File (): 3E9A664024E2268336A7E552BF236C68-352158.png (343.9 KB, 1000x1000, ANON VJ DAY WW2.png)
I have no problem with the furries. there's a lot of overlap between the two fandoms. pic related
Anonymous
No.21984
Hypothetically speaking, if someone came up to you and said "Hey, Ive got this Luna* suit, never been worn, would you wanna try it on?"....
Now, theres an obvious difference between being willing to wear random-surprise Luna suit and making/buying a Luna suit (*- insert preferred pony here), but my argument is that if circumstances were "optimal" (you) would wear the suit.
I know we all have hangups around furries. Anyone partial to MrMetokur, Internet Historian, et al has plenty ofreasons to have hangups with furries.
Except,... THOSE furries are as particular to the entire furry group/fandom as that AJ killer was to the MLP fandom.
Im just saying, you can be more or less "sane" and still be a furry. Or, just "like furry things".
Now, theres an obvious difference between being willing to wear random-surprise Luna suit and making/buying a Luna suit (*- insert preferred pony here), but my argument is that if circumstances were "optimal" (you) would wear the suit.
I know we all have hangups around furries. Anyone partial to MrMetokur, Internet Historian, et al has plenty ofreasons to have hangups with furries.
Except,... THOSE furries are as particular to the entire furry group/fandom as that AJ killer was to the MLP fandom.
Im just saying, you can be more or less "sane" and still be a furry. Or, just "like furry things".
This is like saying that the Star Wars fandom is just a subset of the Star Treck fandom, because both are about Sci Fi space series and there is decent overlap between their fans. No, the two have distinct origins and are their own things, even if the two likely had non-zero influence on the development of the other.
The same with the pony and furry fandoms. The furry fandom is its own thing with its own history, and My Little Pony is centered around the fandom of the TV show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, with its own development cycle.
>but the characters are anthropomorphized!
And Star Trek, Star Wars, Cowboy Bebop, Babylon 5, and Warhammer 40k all have space ships, so they are the same series and same fandom. No, they obviously are not.
Furry characters and Gen 4 ponies aren't even anthropomorphized in the same, or even similar ways. The only way that Gen 4 ponies (or Gen 5, or Gen 3, or Gen 1 for that matter) is that they talk and sometimes do human like things. Furry characters are bipedal, and otherwise have far more human traits. And while it's true that a hell of a lot of people who once watched Disney movies with talking animals later became furries - just as many who have watched inset-x-sci-series-here later became fans of insert-y-sci-fi series-here, not all of them did, and Disney movies and their fandom is clearly distinct from the furry fandom.
The same with the pony and furry fandoms. The furry fandom is its own thing with its own history, and My Little Pony is centered around the fandom of the TV show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, with its own development cycle.
>but the characters are anthropomorphized!
And Star Trek, Star Wars, Cowboy Bebop, Babylon 5, and Warhammer 40k all have space ships, so they are the same series and same fandom. No, they obviously are not.
Furry characters and Gen 4 ponies aren't even anthropomorphized in the same, or even similar ways. The only way that Gen 4 ponies (or Gen 5, or Gen 3, or Gen 1 for that matter) is that they talk and sometimes do human like things. Furry characters are bipedal, and otherwise have far more human traits. And while it's true that a hell of a lot of people who once watched Disney movies with talking animals later became furries - just as many who have watched inset-x-sci-series-here later became fans of insert-y-sci-fi series-here, not all of them did, and Disney movies and their fandom is clearly distinct from the furry fandom.
>>21985
No anon, star trek and star wars are all encompassed by the umbrella of "sci-fi"
Just as Ponies, warcats, Lion King, et al are all encompassed by the umbrella of "furry"
No anon, star trek and star wars are all encompassed by the umbrella of "sci-fi"
Just as Ponies, warcats, Lion King, et al are all encompassed by the umbrella of "furry"
>>21986
This is a fair point. "Furry" can be considered a genre, or at least self-identified furries see it that way.
This is a fair point. "Furry" can be considered a genre, or at least self-identified furries see it that way.
>bakes bait thread in /sp/
>gets banned
Jeez, I wish the admins were this efficient when dealing with retarded britmutts and boomers.
What a faggot website full of faggot furries.
>gets banned
Jeez, I wish the admins were this efficient when dealing with retarded britmutts and boomers.
What a faggot website full of faggot furries.
File (): 758C35602E7DA7709F87D25B25DBFF5C-50820.jpg (49.6 KB, 643x450, 9f82ce.jpg)
>>21990
It seems only those who've had an affair with Lotus can dodge the bullet no matter what. That'll explain how niggel's still here.
It seems only those who've had an affair with Lotus can dodge the bullet no matter what. That'll explain how niggel's still here.
File (): 836DB2451885EA13F90C5426C691DF31-183449.png (179.1 KB, 1000x1206, Arizona.png)
>>21990
No, in fairness I was banned for this and a number of other shenanigans which, when compiled together gave *ahem* anon "sufficient" justification to then ban. Also there was the 404 message thing, not sure how that worked.
But yeah, dont tell horsefuckers theyre furries they might lose their shit
No, in fairness I was banned for this and a number of other shenanigans which, when compiled together gave *ahem* anon "sufficient" justification to then ban. Also there was the 404 message thing, not sure how that worked.
But yeah, dont tell horsefuckers theyre furries they might lose their shit
Anonymous
No.21998
>>21995
Ill invite - both to not hijack and for aesthetics - to the Cozy Pub thread, of which Im also OP.
No, not version 2, thats haram.
But while being many things, I am not a shill
Ill invite - both to not hijack and for aesthetics - to the Cozy Pub thread, of which Im also OP.
No, not version 2, thats haram.
But while being many things, I am not a shill
Anonymous
No.22003
>>21987
>>21986
Furry isn't a genre though, it's a fandom of its own. And if it were, it isn't broad enough to include every single talking animal fandom like Bluey, My Little Pony, or Disney Films. Quadrupedal as opposed to substantially more anthropomorphised bipedal creatures.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aF2GxWi7Ag&pp=ygUPa251ZHNlbiBmdXJyaWVz for a decent history of the early furry fandom
>>21986
Furry isn't a genre though, it's a fandom of its own. And if it were, it isn't broad enough to include every single talking animal fandom like Bluey, My Little Pony, or Disney Films. Quadrupedal as opposed to substantially more anthropomorphised bipedal creatures.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aF2GxWi7Ag&pp=ygUPa251ZHNlbiBmdXJyaWVz for a decent history of the early furry fandom
>>22001
>Ill invite - both to not hijack and for aesthetics - to the Cozy Pub thread
Sorry but the momentum is happening here. Perhaps if you would not abandon your thread and keep it alive instead the situation would be different.
>Ill invite - both to not hijack and for aesthetics - to the Cozy Pub thread
Sorry but the momentum is happening here. Perhaps if you would not abandon your thread and keep it alive instead the situation would be different.
>>22006
Heavens no, Im attempting to segregate discussions based on topic. This thread is about how horesefuckers are furries in denial, etc., while the other thread can allow for discussions of bans, etc.
Heavens no, Im attempting to segregate discussions based on topic. This thread is about how horesefuckers are furries in denial, etc., while the other thread can allow for discussions of bans, etc.
>>22007
Well, my view... I might be mistaken, is to encourage the shitstorm, no matter where or when, just let the post counting to increase.
Well, my view... I might be mistaken, is to encourage the shitstorm, no matter where or when, just let the post counting to increase.
>>22007
Even if horsefuckers were a "degree" of furry, what difference would it really make? What is the necessity of this discussion, or the consequences of accepting brownies/horsefuckers/mareschizos as "furries"?
Even if horsefuckers were a "degree" of furry, what difference would it really make? What is the necessity of this discussion, or the consequences of accepting brownies/horsefuckers/mareschizos as "furries"?
File (): 994C41C66D235D7AFAF37042F3828FD7-135867.png (132.7 KB, 1246x991, 61c77841601e3dfe547750133f537ba0-imagepng.png)
>>21996
>>21988
Can you cease shitting up every part of the board with your obsessive hatred of individual posters that have nothing to do with the thread? Jesus, it's like these people are your exes. Weren't you supposed to be quitting the board anyways? Fuck off with your Boom Boom/Nigel thirst posting.
If Elway or Fasces wanted Nigel or Boom Boom banned, they'd be banned. They don't, and that's why they are not. I'm not vetoing anything. It's much more fun to review Nigel's fan fiction or turn his posts into text-to-speech movies in any case.
Also, for the record, I had no part in the decision to ban Ninjas the last time.
>>21988
Can you cease shitting up every part of the board with your obsessive hatred of individual posters that have nothing to do with the thread? Jesus, it's like these people are your exes. Weren't you supposed to be quitting the board anyways? Fuck off with your Boom Boom/Nigel thirst posting.
If Elway or Fasces wanted Nigel or Boom Boom banned, they'd be banned. They don't, and that's why they are not. I'm not vetoing anything. It's much more fun to review Nigel's fan fiction or turn his posts into text-to-speech movies in any case.
Also, for the record, I had no part in the decision to ban Ninjas the last time.
>>22010
>What is the necessity of this discussion?
It depends, in my case I only wish to make you seethe.
>What is the necessity of this discussion?
It depends, in my case I only wish to make you seethe.
Anonymous
No.22013
>>22012
Well, I'm not seething, because I've already had this argument a million times over the past decade, and it no longer triggers my autism.
I know schizos who would seethe about this though.
Well, I'm not seething, because I've already had this argument a million times over the past decade, and it no longer triggers my autism.
I know schizos who would seethe about this though.
>>22010
The same 'necessity' of being a /pol/lack who reject mlp cuz reasons, only to realize later I had so much in common with, and was rejecting friends of
The same 'necessity' of being a /pol/lack who reject mlp cuz reasons, only to realize later I had so much in common with, and was rejecting friends of
>>22011
Oh wow, did pooper finally let you out of your cage?
Maybe if I was the only one, your narrative would make more sense. Many, many users have left because you refused to kick that bisexual nigger. You yourself admitted it when you were begging niggel to stay.
Oh wow, did pooper finally let you out of your cage?
Maybe if I was the only one, your narrative would make more sense. Many, many users have left because you refused to kick that bisexual nigger. You yourself admitted it when you were begging niggel to stay.
>>22014
You are going a bit too far. One thing is shared goals, but a different one is to partake in perversion.
You are going a bit too far. One thing is shared goals, but a different one is to partake in perversion.
Anonymous
No.22017
>>22016
>partake in perversion
Not defending furries, but it's not like horsefuckers are free of perversion.
This is the fandom that boiled rainbow dash in cum.
>partake in perversion
Not defending furries, but it's not like horsefuckers are free of perversion.
This is the fandom that boiled rainbow dash in cum.
>>22015
>Many, many users have left because you refused to kick that bisexual nigger.
>kick the fags I don't like out
Ahem. I might one of them and I'm not going anywhere.
Just saying.
>Many, many users have left because you refused to kick that bisexual nigger.
>kick the fags I don't like out
Ahem. I might one of them and I'm not going anywhere.
Just saying.
File (): A246BB83CAB3937A8EA8E33DC758FC9A-198961.png (194.3 KB, 1360x1188, 6299933.png)
>>22020
That's not the point, you idiot. There comes a point, perhaps after years and years of trying. When it's probably better to let go of your british husbando. Too bad lotus couldn't grow out of it.
That's not the point, you idiot. There comes a point, perhaps after years and years of trying. When it's probably better to let go of your british husbando. Too bad lotus couldn't grow out of it.
File (): 9C5EAC42FE3A1E38CB42B7AD565F36D5-35967.jpg (35.1 KB, 500x392, ca84b4.jpg)
>>22016
Uhm, about that. Im generally not one to abide statistics, but furscience.com has accumulated a wealth of statistics wrt anonymously self-reporting furries, and the overall percentages indicate that zoophilia - as one example - is LESS prevalent than non furries.
Gestalt: I know, furries have a reputation. Or rather, SPECIFIC AND EXCLUSIVE furries have a reputation. Overwhelmingly, furries can be witnessed to being comparable to say,... horsefuckers.
Uhm, about that. Im generally not one to abide statistics, but furscience.com has accumulated a wealth of statistics wrt anonymously self-reporting furries, and the overall percentages indicate that zoophilia - as one example - is LESS prevalent than non furries.
Gestalt: I know, furries have a reputation. Or rather, SPECIFIC AND EXCLUSIVE furries have a reputation. Overwhelmingly, furries can be witnessed to being comparable to say,... horsefuckers.
File (): D9DD30B241C7443324557E7069D1970B-272111.png (265.7 KB, 839x691, 4107507-maud_blank_stare_s4e18.png)
>>22015
>I left
>Is still here, adding nothing of value
The post you are referring too is one where I was pointing out Nigel's ingratitude. The point of that post was to explain to Nigel, in detail, why he was being a faggot. I spoke about it with the other members of staff, and they all agreed that what was done was fine. The people I was thinking about would have left anyways - one became a literal communist just a couple months later, and left just because. Another explicitly stated that Nigel wasn;t the reason and that /mlpol/ had run its course. Another left mlp altogether when he saw the leaks for G5, I guess afraid it wouldn't be the latest fad... or something. Still another... Is actually the OP of this thread. We didn't really lose anything of value. Elway's response to Nigel, however, lead to his review series that is one of the best things that this board has created.
So no, I'm not going to cater to bitchy fags like you.
>>22021
You're starting to sound like him now. Like him and HCL
>I left
>Is still here, adding nothing of value
The post you are referring too is one where I was pointing out Nigel's ingratitude. The point of that post was to explain to Nigel, in detail, why he was being a faggot. I spoke about it with the other members of staff, and they all agreed that what was done was fine. The people I was thinking about would have left anyways - one became a literal communist just a couple months later, and left just because. Another explicitly stated that Nigel wasn;t the reason and that /mlpol/ had run its course. Another left mlp altogether when he saw the leaks for G5, I guess afraid it wouldn't be the latest fad... or something. Still another... Is actually the OP of this thread. We didn't really lose anything of value. Elway's response to Nigel, however, lead to his review series that is one of the best things that this board has created.
So no, I'm not going to cater to bitchy fags like you.
>>22021
You're starting to sound like him now. Like him and HCL
>>22022
No one is guessing identities. I'm purposeful shitting on lotus even if I'm not directly replying to him. Are you retarded?
No one is guessing identities. I'm purposeful shitting on lotus even if I'm not directly replying to him. Are you retarded?
>>22023
>Overwhelmingly, furries can be witnessed to being comparable to say,... horsefuckers.
Not even close.
Horsefuckers are not drug-addicts, nor pedophiles, nor communists, neither homosexuals. I believe mare pussy keep them in line.
>Overwhelmingly, furries can be witnessed to being comparable to say,... horsefuckers.
Not even close.
Horsefuckers are not drug-addicts, nor pedophiles, nor communists, neither homosexuals. I believe mare pussy keep them in line.
>>22024
So you lied to him just so he would stay? That's even worse, how can you say it out loud?
>So no, I'm not going to cater to bitchy fags like you.
Am I asking anything from you? Anyways, namefag more often and sooner or later you won't be able to hop out of this. I'm not niggas or your other mod faggots. I don't need to advertise my presence, unless I consider it to be funnier. Later, fag.
So you lied to him just so he would stay? That's even worse, how can you say it out loud?
>So no, I'm not going to cater to bitchy fags like you.
Am I asking anything from you? Anyways, namefag more often and sooner or later you won't be able to hop out of this. I'm not niggas or your other mod faggots. I don't need to advertise my presence, unless I consider it to be funnier. Later, fag.
Anonymous
No.22030
>>22024
Do you ladies need a room?
>>22027
Not even CLOSE to being accurate, though understandable.
The overwhelming majority of furries arent mentioned in media and such. Cuz theyre chill about shit.
Its that way with most fandoms and interest groups. You get outliers who draw attention/infamy, but the vast majority are sweet, kind, personable, and more or less socialized.
I invite evidence to the contrary, but I assert that furries - just like horsefuckers - are a group stygmatized by individuals who have become notorious.
I mean, Y'all dont ALL have RD cum jars, right?
>inb4 RDcumjar-posting
Do you ladies need a room?
>>22027
Not even CLOSE to being accurate, though understandable.
The overwhelming majority of furries arent mentioned in media and such. Cuz theyre chill about shit.
Its that way with most fandoms and interest groups. You get outliers who draw attention/infamy, but the vast majority are sweet, kind, personable, and more or less socialized.
I invite evidence to the contrary, but I assert that furries - just like horsefuckers - are a group stygmatized by individuals who have become notorious.
I mean, Y'all dont ALL have RD cum jars, right?
>inb4 RDcumjar-posting
>>22028
Oh but I'm done trying to make this place more appealing. You both only serve as tools. You don't even now how much of your drama is actually on you. Niggel didn't lashed out against the writefags on his own volition.
Oh but I'm done trying to make this place more appealing. You both only serve as tools. You don't even now how much of your drama is actually on you. Niggel didn't lashed out against the writefags on his own volition.
>>22032
>Oh but I'm done trying to make this place more appealing
I'm curious. How exactly you did it?
>Oh but I'm done trying to make this place more appealing
I'm curious. How exactly you did it?
>>22027
>Horsefuckers are not drug-addicts, nor pedophiles, nor communists, neither homosexuals
We have all of those things too though.
>Horsefuckers are not drug-addicts, nor pedophiles, nor communists, neither homosexuals
We have all of those things too though.
>>22035
Nigger, post furry or non-furry
With respect
>>22036
This is the most important point. Its easy to get distracted by the notables. I STILL have "Kero the Wolf" memorized, and cant unsee.
Bit Kero the Wolf is one of hundreds of thousands, and among the exacting minority. Like, maybe a handful on his tier.
Not to sugarcoat, its not great that theres people like him, but it goes that way for society, and interest groups as a whole.
One would be remiss if they avoided camping, because a person who did bad things was an avid camping enthusiast. There are good people who like camping, and are arguably among the majority.
So it is with furries
Nigger, post furry or non-furry
With respect
>>22036
This is the most important point. Its easy to get distracted by the notables. I STILL have "Kero the Wolf" memorized, and cant unsee.
Bit Kero the Wolf is one of hundreds of thousands, and among the exacting minority. Like, maybe a handful on his tier.
Not to sugarcoat, its not great that theres people like him, but it goes that way for society, and interest groups as a whole.
One would be remiss if they avoided camping, because a person who did bad things was an avid camping enthusiast. There are good people who like camping, and are arguably among the majority.
So it is with furries
Anonymous
No.22039
>>22040
You do, do you? So you ARE suggesting that all horsefuckers are part and parsel to the AJ killer? He was a horsefucker, after all, and your tone suggests that distinctions are irrelevant.
You do, do you? So you ARE suggesting that all horsefuckers are part and parsel to the AJ killer? He was a horsefucker, after all, and your tone suggests that distinctions are irrelevant.
>>22042
That sounds like a distinction. A specific one.
But distinctions are okay when it comes to ponies,but dont exist for any other genre?
That sounds like a distinction. A specific one.
But distinctions are okay when it comes to ponies,but dont exist for any other genre?
>>22044
>But distinctions are okay when it comes to ponies
There is a reason exists Ponerpics and Derpibooru. Both field different human species.
>But distinctions are okay when it comes to ponies
There is a reason exists Ponerpics and Derpibooru. Both field different human species.
Anonymous
No.22046
>>22045
Yes, because people are wont to deny being furries. Or rather, ppl are wont to divide their segment of furry (and attempt to rebrand under a different name) for a variety of reasons.
>ponerpics
Nigger please, thats just opportunism
Yes, because people are wont to deny being furries. Or rather, ppl are wont to divide their segment of furry (and attempt to rebrand under a different name) for a variety of reasons.
>ponerpics
Nigger please, thats just opportunism
But lets be honest,... you would totally wear the Luna suit,....
And if you can admit that, you can acknowledge that its not bad to want to wear a Luna suit. Why WOULDNT u wanna be best princess, if just for a moment?
Its not bad to want to wear the Luna suit.
It IS bad to want to fuck animals (except horses, apparently), children, use drugs, and lots of other bad things. Those are bad.
So, if you DO wanna wear the Luna suit, but DONT wanna have sex with obscure/illegal things,... is that a thing? Like, can you avoid over-the-top degeneracy while still accepting ponies?
Yes!
And theres countless who think the same way!
And most of them identify as furries!
And if you can admit that, you can acknowledge that its not bad to want to wear a Luna suit. Why WOULDNT u wanna be best princess, if just for a moment?
Its not bad to want to wear the Luna suit.
It IS bad to want to fuck animals (except horses, apparently), children, use drugs, and lots of other bad things. Those are bad.
So, if you DO wanna wear the Luna suit, but DONT wanna have sex with obscure/illegal things,... is that a thing? Like, can you avoid over-the-top degeneracy while still accepting ponies?
Yes!
And theres countless who think the same way!
And most of them identify as furries!
>>22047
>It IS bad to want to fuck animals (except horses, apparently)
Horses are white, so it's okay to fuck them.
>It IS bad to want to fuck animals (except horses, apparently)
Horses are white, so it's okay to fuck them.
File (): A4F3520DE0BDB772758071EB69E7BBDB-362185.jpg (353.7 KB, 1920x1200, Black-Horse-Desktop-Background.jpg)
Anonymous
No.22051
>>22047
> It IS bad to want to fuck animals (except horses, apparently), children, use drugs, and lots of other bad things. Those are bad.
This, but unironically
> It IS bad to want to fuck animals (except horses, apparently), children, use drugs, and lots of other bad things. Those are bad.
This, but unironically
File (): B8C1679018C383E2D6A79174A08A4077-3242024.mp4 (3.1 MB, Resolution:1280x720 Length:00:01:42, video0-1.mp4) [play once] [loop]
File (): C706B49C18F1B08278EEEEE80535D570-405003.png (395.5 KB, 750x508, unknown-113-1.png)
I know alot of y'all are being ironic, but its very telling when the same crowd that REEEEs about degeneracy, openly endorses zoophilia. Jus sayin'
File (): 4910E9922C71077E6933E21826633818-4154286.png (4.0 MB, 2827x3997, dcp0rij-c5f4b8e1-5a09-47af-9d20-387d2fb6abd0.png)
Anonymous
No.22057
File (): FA27576C2C38DFFE536312D78503DDB0-83661.png (81.7 KB, 469x527, 5afc9fbb.png)
File (): 689A40EFE690172092A3100DE66988B1-52703.jpg (51.5 KB, 590x419, horse-614956.jpg)
>>22054
Does anypony have that edit of the orange Anon plowing Aryanne from behind and saying "I strongly disavow and condemn homosexuality"?
Does anypony have that edit of the orange Anon plowing Aryanne from behind and saying "I strongly disavow and condemn homosexuality"?
Anonymous
No.22060
>>22058
I think I have something like that. The problem is that has not been renamed to find it. Sorry.
I think I have something like that. The problem is that has not been renamed to find it. Sorry.
File (): 3FDE2633FB65F8A7FFB2C836A36DF99B-1326356.png (1.3 MB, 1793x2188, 1557073.png)
Anonymous
No.22062
File (): 29D7147603297B86CB59BF4A49B10EF8-80924.jpg (79.0 KB, 1199x854, F8dCXz7acAATJAc-1.jpg)
File (): 92327780858EBC1FC9FC5C54F815ECDA-965279.png (942.7 KB, 721x1080, lUjbusQ-1.png)
Anonymous
No.22069
In the entirety of my interactions with horsefuckers, about 6 years total, I have met ONE unironic horsefucker.
Reiterating, of all the ppl Ive interacted with, there was ONLY one who WASNT full of shit, and honestly meant what they said (with a record to prove it) about fucking horses.
But then theres y'all. Who wanna play pretend. "If I meme it enough, Ill be based right?"
While crying about degeneracy.
And mostly 'christian' Ill wager.
Smh
Reiterating, of all the ppl Ive interacted with, there was ONLY one who WASNT full of shit, and honestly meant what they said (with a record to prove it) about fucking horses.
But then theres y'all. Who wanna play pretend. "If I meme it enough, Ill be based right?"
While crying about degeneracy.
And mostly 'christian' Ill wager.
Smh
Anonymous
No.22074
>>22070
>In the entirety of my interactions with horsefuckers, about 6 years total, I have met ONE unironic horsefucker
>my interactions with horsefuckers
WTF
>In the entirety of my interactions with horsefuckers, about 6 years total, I have met ONE unironic horsefucker
>my interactions with horsefuckers
WTF
Anonymous
No.22077
>>22066
You thought we’d all go fur
But hell no sir we’re pretty sure
Our mare fixation has no cure!
>>22070
>you are degenerates for fucking horses!
>you guys are full of shit and don’t fuck horses!
Pick one.
Also, horses are sexy, so it’s really not the same. And you obviously haven’t met enough horsefuckers. Did you go to MareFair?
You thought we’d all go fur
But hell no sir we’re pretty sure
Our mare fixation has no cure!
>>22070
>you are degenerates for fucking horses!
>you guys are full of shit and don’t fuck horses!
Pick one.
Also, horses are sexy, so it’s really not the same. And you obviously haven’t met enough horsefuckers. Did you go to MareFair?
I have made a Venn diagram that I hope will clear up this controversy once and for all.
>>22099
Except thats not accurate. A better diagram would have furries encompassing horsefuckers entirely, with only the smallest crescent evading the furry bubble.
This is due to the fact that furries were objectively defined long before MLP even came out. You can criticize the overly generalized definition of furries all you want - plenty do - but that doesnt change the fact that all MLP activity - whether the individual self-identifies AS a furry - is furry in nature.
Except thats not accurate. A better diagram would have furries encompassing horsefuckers entirely, with only the smallest crescent evading the furry bubble.
This is due to the fact that furries were objectively defined long before MLP even came out. You can criticize the overly generalized definition of furries all you want - plenty do - but that doesnt change the fact that all MLP activity - whether the individual self-identifies AS a furry - is furry in nature.
>>22101
You haven't yet clearly defined what a furry is. What counts as a furry? Is anyone who ever enjoys or appreciates a form of media that includes anthropomorphized animals a furry?
You haven't yet clearly defined what a furry is. What counts as a furry? Is anyone who ever enjoys or appreciates a form of media that includes anthropomorphized animals a furry?
I'll phrase differently
>>22102
>Is anyone who ever enjoys or appreciates a form of media that includes anthropomorphized animals a furry?
Technically and definitively, no. Self-identification is a necessary component.
Having SAID that, horsefuckers self-identify as part of the MLP fandom, which IS definitively furry in that it centers around/toward anthropomorphized ponies,....
So yes, all horsefuckers are furries, but some are in denial.
>>22102
>Is anyone who ever enjoys or appreciates a form of media that includes anthropomorphized animals a furry?
Technically and definitively, no. Self-identification is a necessary component.
Having SAID that, horsefuckers self-identify as part of the MLP fandom, which IS definitively furry in that it centers around/toward anthropomorphized ponies,....
So yes, all horsefuckers are furries, but some are in denial.
>>22104
Wouldn't that make Disney movies fans, Pokemon fans, and d&d players "furries"? What's the criteria? Where does it end?
>Self-identification is a necessary component.
Why does it matter with one component, but not the other? People self-identify as bronies, but don't identify bronies as furries.
Wouldn't that make Disney movies fans, Pokemon fans, and d&d players "furries"? What's the criteria? Where does it end?
>Self-identification is a necessary component.
Why does it matter with one component, but not the other? People self-identify as bronies, but don't identify bronies as furries.
>>22104
>IS definitively furry in that it centers around/toward anthropomorphized ponies
On what basis do you imply that the ENTIRE archetypical concept of anthropomorphizing animals is furry? It's a literary concept that exists independently of the furry fandom. It's as old as humanity itself, since long before the "furry" fandom came about.
Next you're going to tell me that ancient Egyptian priests, practitioners of most other pagan religions (99.9% of humans in history), Greek poets like Aesop, speculative evolution science fiction writers, cave painters, Japanese monks cataloguing Yokai, all of the Roman empire, all Hindus, and basically anything else that
>IS definitively furry in that it centers around/toward anthropomorphized ponies
On what basis do you imply that the ENTIRE archetypical concept of anthropomorphizing animals is furry? It's a literary concept that exists independently of the furry fandom. It's as old as humanity itself, since long before the "furry" fandom came about.
Next you're going to tell me that ancient Egyptian priests, practitioners of most other pagan religions (99.9% of humans in history), Greek poets like Aesop, speculative evolution science fiction writers, cave painters, Japanese monks cataloguing Yokai, all of the Roman empire, all Hindus, and basically anything else that
>>22103
The OP doesn't specify the degree to which those criteria apply.
Is Imhotep a furry? He talked about anthropomorphized animals a lot.
Is Aesop a furry?
Were Dacians furries?
How much do you have to be interested in anthropomorphized animals do you need to be? What kind of interest must it entail? How anthropomorphized do the animals have to be?
The OP doesn't specify the degree to which those criteria apply.
Is Imhotep a furry? He talked about anthropomorphized animals a lot.
Is Aesop a furry?
Were Dacians furries?
How much do you have to be interested in anthropomorphized animals do you need to be? What kind of interest must it entail? How anthropomorphized do the animals have to be?
File (): BBAD23FB65680C2A428037A0FEAA712F-3998463.jpg (3.8 MB, 2245x2246, Miles_the_Denver_Broncos_Mascot.jpeg)
>>22104
Are Broncos Fans furries?
Are ALL sportsball fans with an animal mas ot furries, since they identify with a group and that group is associated with an anthropomorphic animal?
Are all Christians furries, due to Christ being repeatedly referred to as a lamb in symbolism?
Are all Hindus furries, because they're fully committed to an identity that involves anthropomorphic animal figures?
Are fans of Hesiod's works furries?
Are African Magic Warriors furries? They don't use fursuits, but they have fancy masks.
Are people who celebrate Easter furries, because of Peter Rabbit?
Are fabs of LotR furries, because it has anthropomorphic dragons and spiders?
What's the criteria?
Are Broncos Fans furries?
Are ALL sportsball fans with an animal mas ot furries, since they identify with a group and that group is associated with an anthropomorphic animal?
Are all Christians furries, due to Christ being repeatedly referred to as a lamb in symbolism?
Are all Hindus furries, because they're fully committed to an identity that involves anthropomorphic animal figures?
Are fans of Hesiod's works furries?
Are African Magic Warriors furries? They don't use fursuits, but they have fancy masks.
Are people who celebrate Easter furries, because of Peter Rabbit?
Are fabs of LotR furries, because it has anthropomorphic dragons and spiders?
What's the criteria?
File (): 80BB2488E6FF0143326E209241AEC003-1208272.jpg (1.2 MB, 3965x4096, 8a02c286d86df9216a2bcc6a6d6efe12-1.jpg)
>>22105
No, that would make them fans of furry content. Did u miss the part about self-identification?
>ppl dont identify bronies as furries
In ignorance
>>22106
>on what basis do you hurr nurr
By the definition. Dont take my word for it, look it up.
>all that historical shit
Predates the establishment of furries,as being a thing.
Wanna know what DOESNT predate the establishment of furries being a thing?
Mlp
>>22107
See this post
>>22108
The criteria being, establishment of concept. Also, weak attempt at broncoposting. You wanna know who has a bronco brand on both sides of her ass, and who THEN got those brands tattooed so the colors are correct?
Adeline did. It took 2 different sessions under an anti-magic screen, but nigger look lively, shes a cow who has matching bronco.cutie marks on both sides. Cuz you know why? As much as she has contempt for many in the periphery, she absolutely loves Mlpol and the Denver Broncos. You wanna know who DOESNT love Mlpol and the Denver Broncos? Jews, for starters.
No, that would make them fans of furry content. Did u miss the part about self-identification?
>ppl dont identify bronies as furries
In ignorance
>>22106
>on what basis do you hurr nurr
By the definition. Dont take my word for it, look it up.
>all that historical shit
Predates the establishment of furries,as being a thing.
Wanna know what DOESNT predate the establishment of furries being a thing?
Mlp
>>22107
See this post
>>22108
The criteria being, establishment of concept. Also, weak attempt at broncoposting. You wanna know who has a bronco brand on both sides of her ass, and who THEN got those brands tattooed so the colors are correct?
Adeline did. It took 2 different sessions under an anti-magic screen, but nigger look lively, shes a cow who has matching bronco.cutie marks on both sides. Cuz you know why? As much as she has contempt for many in the periphery, she absolutely loves Mlpol and the Denver Broncos. You wanna know who DOESNT love Mlpol and the Denver Broncos? Jews, for starters.
File (): 23544E072677FE1DA204ED436C48B8F6-138836.jpg (135.6 KB, 1080x1349, 3c5b99b5c1ad783b1f66ea53bf9234fd.jpg)
>>22112
What you're missing is that furries are just a recent subset of worship of the Egyptian gods of Anubis, Heh, Kek, Tefnut, Set and others. They came first.
What you're missing is that furries are just a recent subset of worship of the Egyptian gods of Anubis, Heh, Kek, Tefnut, Set and others. They came first.
>>22112
>By the definition.
The definition is vague, and has no exact parameters.
>Predates the establishment of furries
Why does it matter that it predates them? If it's "by the definition" timeline shouldn't matter. You're moving the goalpost.
Also several sportsball teams were post "furry fandom".
>By the definition.
The definition is vague, and has no exact parameters.
>Predates the establishment of furries
Why does it matter that it predates them? If it's "by the definition" timeline shouldn't matter. You're moving the goalpost.
Also several sportsball teams were post "furry fandom".
>>22112
How is a fan of "furry content" different from a fan of pony content in terms of self-identification?
A pokemon fan is a fanatic for Pokemon. A pony fan is a fantastic for ponies.
How is a fan of "furry content" different from a fan of pony content in terms of self-identification?
A pokemon fan is a fanatic for Pokemon. A pony fan is a fantastic for ponies.
>>22112
>Predates the establishment of furries,as being a thing.
>Wanna know what DOESNT predate the establishment of furries being a thing?
So, what you're saying is that all instances of anthropomorphic animals before the "furry fandom" are non-furry by seniority, but all instances of anthropomorphism after the fact are furry by-default?
>Predates the establishment of furries,as being a thing.
>Wanna know what DOESNT predate the establishment of furries being a thing?
So, what you're saying is that all instances of anthropomorphic animals before the "furry fandom" are non-furry by seniority, but all instances of anthropomorphism after the fact are furry by-default?
File (): 02D2A0A7FF26E35F8B67010D50026697-207837.jpg (203.0 KB, 707x1000, 1568603578054.jpg)
File (): F8C17D5A23BBC00CEA8E1F5BDE370626-3736529.gif (3.6 MB, 3600x4000, 2631942.gif)
>>22101
>This is due to the fact that furries were objectively defined long before MLP even came out. You can criticize the overly generalized definition of furries all you want - plenty do - but that doesnt change the fact that all MLP activity - whether the individual self-identifies AS a furry - is furry in nature.
I think you're working from a flawed definition of what a "furry" is, either that or I am. My understanding is that a furry is someone who identifies as an animal, either in the sense that they literally believe themselves to be an animal "on all levels except physical, I am a wolf. *barks*", or as part of an elaborate role-playing fantasy or sexual kink. The furry "fandom" isn't related to any particular media franchise, but they have a general interest in any media franchise that involves animal characters.
Bronies, or horsefuckers, or whatever the preferred term is these days, are a group of people specifically interested in MLP and its world. There is plenty of crossover since it stands to reason that MLP would appeal to furries along with just about any other cartoon that features animal characters, but most of the bronies I've encountered don't fit the definition of being furries.
Examples:
>image 1
Nice feet.
>image 2
Nice hooves.
If you can't tell the difference between these two types of characters and the audience they appeal to, you are literally retarded.
>This is due to the fact that furries were objectively defined long before MLP even came out. You can criticize the overly generalized definition of furries all you want - plenty do - but that doesnt change the fact that all MLP activity - whether the individual self-identifies AS a furry - is furry in nature.
I think you're working from a flawed definition of what a "furry" is, either that or I am. My understanding is that a furry is someone who identifies as an animal, either in the sense that they literally believe themselves to be an animal "on all levels except physical, I am a wolf. *barks*", or as part of an elaborate role-playing fantasy or sexual kink. The furry "fandom" isn't related to any particular media franchise, but they have a general interest in any media franchise that involves animal characters.
Bronies, or horsefuckers, or whatever the preferred term is these days, are a group of people specifically interested in MLP and its world. There is plenty of crossover since it stands to reason that MLP would appeal to furries along with just about any other cartoon that features animal characters, but most of the bronies I've encountered don't fit the definition of being furries.
Examples:
>image 1
Nice feet.
>image 2
Nice hooves.
If you can't tell the difference between these two types of characters and the audience they appeal to, you are literally retarded.
>>22113
I wont contest that there may be furries who iconographically view... specific (or general) furries as... being consistent with pagan/polytheistic dynamics,... but Im gonna need a citation.
And then, breakdown the demographics of who believes this shit versus practice.
Cuz lets not pretend that it isn't 10 to 1 (or worse) ppl who claim to be christian versus are.
>>22114
No, the definition is GENERAL.
>>22115
Pony content IS furry content. Until you can argue that pony content doesnt involve anthropomorphized animals, ur in the detention box.
>>22116
More or less
>>22117
Oh wow, you're exceedingly wrong.
The ppl who identify as having been an animal in a previous life are known as Therians. The ppl who identify as being an animal in an incorrect body (not u like certain transgenders,... we'll get to that) are referred to as Otherkin.
Literally speaking, from the definitive meanings of the word:
Bronies are a specific term pertaining to a specific aubset of fandom that is WELL within the established definition of what is "furry".
I wont contest that there may be furries who iconographically view... specific (or general) furries as... being consistent with pagan/polytheistic dynamics,... but Im gonna need a citation.
And then, breakdown the demographics of who believes this shit versus practice.
Cuz lets not pretend that it isn't 10 to 1 (or worse) ppl who claim to be christian versus are.
>>22114
No, the definition is GENERAL.
>>22115
Pony content IS furry content. Until you can argue that pony content doesnt involve anthropomorphized animals, ur in the detention box.
>>22116
More or less
>>22117
Oh wow, you're exceedingly wrong.
The ppl who identify as having been an animal in a previous life are known as Therians. The ppl who identify as being an animal in an incorrect body (not u like certain transgenders,... we'll get to that) are referred to as Otherkin.
Literally speaking, from the definitive meanings of the word:
Bronies are a specific term pertaining to a specific aubset of fandom that is WELL within the established definition of what is "furry".
>>22119
Wew, you got a 2 minute response time! Better grt those numbers down, I was at sub 30 seconds
Wew, you got a 2 minute response time! Better grt those numbers down, I was at sub 30 seconds
>>22118
>Until you can argue that pony content doesnt involve anthropomorphized animals, ur in the detention box.
Ponies are barely anthropomorphized at all. They have human-like personalities, but their bodies are fully pony. They're closer to xenos/aliens than anthros.
>Until you can argue that pony content doesnt involve anthropomorphized animals, ur in the detention box.
Ponies are barely anthropomorphized at all. They have human-like personalities, but their bodies are fully pony. They're closer to xenos/aliens than anthros.
>>22121
Uh, did you miss the whole speaking fluent english, havig things like libraries and shops and vendors, witch-doctors even?
Do horses have those?
Oh wait, no
Uh, did you miss the whole speaking fluent english, havig things like libraries and shops and vendors, witch-doctors even?
Do horses have those?
Oh wait, no
Anonymous
No.22126
>>22123
That doesn't make them anthros in the way furries are generally attributed. They're distinctly different.
That doesn't make them anthros in the way furries are generally attributed. They're distinctly different.
Anonymous
No.22127
File (): A1A64EEAC7B278499A1E565F7D6C4C6D-142536.gif (139.2 KB, 240x240, 1498289733392.gif)
>>22118
>pony content doesnt involve anthropomorphized animals
They literally aren't. They are just horses, with cutesy features like thick legs and big eyes. They have no human features
>pony content doesnt involve anthropomorphized animals
They literally aren't. They are just horses, with cutesy features like thick legs and big eyes. They have no human features
File (): E3E0D0406C415EA77390FDB8D0F602F5-43869.png (42.8 KB, 720x444, Screenshot_20231017-221129~2.png)
And in today's edition of "didnt read/comprehend what I said" we have (you)
Anonymous
No.22130
>Thinking that "furry" doesn't mean, at mimimum, giving human physical features to animals
>>22128
No. I read it. I just reject the premise that furries own the entire archetype of anthropomorphization since their conception.
No. I read it. I just reject the premise that furries own the entire archetype of anthropomorphization since their conception.
>>22141
No, but transfags seem to think they can defy objective reality in a comparable manner.
They think how they identify changes things
No, but transfags seem to think they can defy objective reality in a comparable manner.
They think how they identify changes things
File (): E01F93FEBE8A115789FF7DF54C6151C4-626302.gif (611.6 KB, 498x382, mlp-my-little-pony.gif)
>>22144
Oh? People pretending that their personal perception that defies objective reality is different in vases of bronies who arent furries versus transgenders who are abominations? Do tell. Tell me about how your refusal to accept being a furry is different from their refusal to accept biology. Go on
Oh? People pretending that their personal perception that defies objective reality is different in vases of bronies who arent furries versus transgenders who are abominations? Do tell. Tell me about how your refusal to accept being a furry is different from their refusal to accept biology. Go on
File (): A4D35F4255CB57C9D31C9C553401BEF7-6801280.png (6.5 MB, 4000x2250, Furries Worship Anubis.png)
File (): 8B78A79BCA5CFE63ACC07AB4137F8F63-409945.png (400.3 KB, 800x480, More.png)
File (): D34E3EDD12AEEEE10FA4905968D3BFA5-767958.png (750.0 KB, 955x616, Discord Fears Anubis.png)
File (): 519EEFBE72528637259A763C44356000-249747.jpg (243.9 KB, 538x388, Still more.jpeg)
Anyways, we've already established that the Ancient Egyptians were the first to anthropomorphize animals. So furries and bronies are just subsets of the Egyptian religion
File (): 23E29181B761BED2CCD97F1B3768C72F-228079.jpg (222.7 KB, 939x1390, sculpture-of-celtic-goddess-epona-FD84AM.jpg)
>>22145
I think the better comparison is trannies trying to say everything revolves around trannies (Trixie, Minecraft Bee, Samus, etc) is like furries hell-bent on calling anything that even vaguely references anthropomorphic animals "furry".
>>22147
I am willing to compromise and say that bronies are actually a subsect of Roman/Celtic Epona-worshippers, as our cultural practices, beliefs, and rituals line up.
Also note how Epona is depicted as either a woman or a sapient mare, but never a grotesque hybrid. Ponies are the same vein.
I think the better comparison is trannies trying to say everything revolves around trannies (Trixie, Minecraft Bee, Samus, etc) is like furries hell-bent on calling anything that even vaguely references anthropomorphic animals "furry".
>>22147
I am willing to compromise and say that bronies are actually a subsect of Roman/Celtic Epona-worshippers, as our cultural practices, beliefs, and rituals line up.
Also note how Epona is depicted as either a woman or a sapient mare, but never a grotesque hybrid. Ponies are the same vein.
>>22154
And? Is there a furry Anubis cult? Or are you being lazy and suggesting that anyone who costumes as a dog is ipsofacto worshipping anubis?
And? Is there a furry Anubis cult? Or are you being lazy and suggesting that anyone who costumes as a dog is ipsofacto worshipping anubis?
>>22155
So, you wouldnt be adverse to the suggestion that horse-based furries are derivative of epona worship?
So, you wouldnt be adverse to the suggestion that horse-based furries are derivative of epona worship?
>>22155
You cannot argue that the Egyptian god Kek, god of primordial chaos, does not have a significant influence over the Brony fandom
>>22157
I mean yeah. Furries are based around Anthropomorphized animals, and the Egyptians were the first to do so en masse.
>anyone who costumes as a dog is ipsofacto worshipping anubis?
Not necessarily Anubis is actually a Jackal, and Set, for example, is also a caniform. There are many Egyptian gods. I would, however, consider him to be the first furry husbando. And while he likely isn't the first fursona, he certainly perfected it.
You cannot argue that the Egyptian god Kek, god of primordial chaos, does not have a significant influence over the Brony fandom
>>22157
I mean yeah. Furries are based around Anthropomorphized animals, and the Egyptians were the first to do so en masse.
>anyone who costumes as a dog is ipsofacto worshipping anubis?
Not necessarily Anubis is actually a Jackal, and Set, for example, is also a caniform. There are many Egyptian gods. I would, however, consider him to be the first furry husbando. And while he likely isn't the first fursona, he certainly perfected it.
>>22163
Wooh, seems Ive hit a nerve. Not even stix can make a reply that quick. Pupper? Is that you? Nevermind, youre irrelevant
Wooh, seems Ive hit a nerve. Not even stix can make a reply that quick. Pupper? Is that you? Nevermind, youre irrelevant
Anonymous
No.22167
File (): 1651E8BDAE1B509E0086396C2A7ED68A-2554829.gif (2.4 MB, 596x499, Aryanne_Words.gif)
File (): 842B88DFD1963BE2935484EC9FF4358C-13328.jpg (13.0 KB, 250x235, epona2.jpg)
>>22148
I spiritually want to marry a mare and venerate her as the ideal of feminine beauty and motherly compassion, just like my ancestors did. Your argument is invalid.
I spiritually want to marry a mare and venerate her as the ideal of feminine beauty and motherly compassion, just like my ancestors did. Your argument is invalid.
>>22164
Kek only has relevance because ppl think it does
This goes the same for what people define as furry, which has yet to be contested
Kek only has relevance because ppl think it does
This goes the same for what people define as furry, which has yet to be contested
>>22158
What does that have to do with the guy posting YouTube videos?
What's that have to do with god?
What does that have to do with the guy posting YouTube videos?
What's that have to do with god?
>>22168
Kek was one of the first anthropomorphizations, and thus the founder of anthropomorphization. Saint Christopher the Dog-headed of the Christians, The Lion King, Bluey, My Little Pony, and the furry fandom all owe their existence to those who came before.
>What people define as furry
Which is a subset of Egyptian godhood
Kek was one of the first anthropomorphizations, and thus the founder of anthropomorphization. Saint Christopher the Dog-headed of the Christians, The Lion King, Bluey, My Little Pony, and the furry fandom all owe their existence to those who came before.
>What people define as furry
Which is a subset of Egyptian godhood
>>22170
Well, that depends.
What is gonna happen when i post? Is it gonna be well thought conjecture and hypothesis?
Well, that depends.
What is gonna happen when i post? Is it gonna be well thought conjecture and hypothesis?
>>22175
Ill gladly prove you wong, but this is clearly not the venue for intellectual exploration, so no
Ill gladly prove you wong, but this is clearly not the venue for intellectual exploration, so no
>>22180
To allow you the opportunity toseehow waifishly insufficient you are, i. your piny dreams and concepts.
You WASTE in your excess.
And you pretend sovereignty.
Need I go on?
To allow you the opportunity toseehow waifishly insufficient you are, i. your piny dreams and concepts.
You WASTE in your excess.
And you pretend sovereignty.
Need I go on?
Anonymous
No.22193
>>22178
>I can totally prove this argument that refutes the theory put forward in this thread wrong. But this thread, which is entirely about proving a theory that this argument completely refutes, isn't the right venue for that.
>I can totally prove this argument that refutes the theory put forward in this thread wrong. But this thread, which is entirely about proving a theory that this argument completely refutes, isn't the right venue for that.
Anonymous
No.22195
>>22194
Are you gonna stop? I know "all your carefully crafted arguments will be summary ignored" is a rule, but at least TRY
Are you gonna stop? I know "all your carefully crafted arguments will be summary ignored" is a rule, but at least TRY
Anonymous
No.22198
File (): 4104A1FA0026DD7325D03A94CC9E547A-197620.png (193.0 KB, 346x502, 1678336.png)
>>22181
>Still not accepting our Egyptian forebearers
>>22196
>asking me to repeat myself
Certainly. The logic is straightforward. Bronies, furries, disney films, Bluey, Celts, parts of the Christian religion, etc, have as a part of their essence the attribution of human characteristics and features to animals. This idea is inspired by those who came before. The ancient Egyptian religion was the first to anthropomorphize animals on a large scale, including in art. Thus, furries and bronies both are simply the offshoots of the ancient egyptian religion.
>Still not accepting our Egyptian forebearers
>>22196
>asking me to repeat myself
Certainly. The logic is straightforward. Bronies, furries, disney films, Bluey, Celts, parts of the Christian religion, etc, have as a part of their essence the attribution of human characteristics and features to animals. This idea is inspired by those who came before. The ancient Egyptian religion was the first to anthropomorphize animals on a large scale, including in art. Thus, furries and bronies both are simply the offshoots of the ancient egyptian religion.
Alright, Ive said my peace
Y'all are a bunch of delusional and denialistic furfsgs. Live and deal.
I wont try to combat the bots (both living [stix] and otherwise [who knows?])
Furfaggotry existed before MLP.
Bury this post, ur still a furfag.
Deny it, you're just like a transgender.
Hate yourself all you want. You are the thing you're trying yo hate.
And theres plenty of people who want to lime you for what and who you are, once you stop hating them cuz of fucking labels.
Y'all are a bunch of delusional and denialistic furfsgs. Live and deal.
I wont try to combat the bots (both living [stix] and otherwise [who knows?])
Furfaggotry existed before MLP.
Bury this post, ur still a furfag.
Deny it, you're just like a transgender.
Hate yourself all you want. You are the thing you're trying yo hate.
And theres plenty of people who want to lime you for what and who you are, once you stop hating them cuz of fucking labels.
>>22112
Ponies pre-dates furries.
Mlp first launched in 1982. The term furry fandom was only first used in 1983. This means that there were pony fans (mostly women and girls) for a whole year before furries became a distinct thing.
Ponies pre-dates furries.
Mlp first launched in 1982. The term furry fandom was only first used in 1983. This means that there were pony fans (mostly women and girls) for a whole year before furries became a distinct thing.
>>22203
Weird that youre cool with adult setting on furaffinity.
I know most wont get the reference, but classic
Weird that youre cool with adult setting on furaffinity.
I know most wont get the reference, but classic
Anonymous
No.22208
File (): B949CE998B57A90B0A1126C0C76C2B1A-36595.jpg (35.7 KB, 604x397, 088A16C74DF6DBC0AC1F272E31BC681B-36577.jpg)
File (): D81C788C63A6F66052D459CA81C32D3B-102185.jpg (99.8 KB, 640x803, 1569474026273-0.jpg)
File (): 164D17B24B0E6CF07966769FF4DE90C1-290320.png (283.5 KB, 1019x817, 164D17B24B0E6CF07966769FF4DE90C1-290320.png)
File (): 2CC1E2F759BEE8A4AC93BF77E739DDB0-2741190.png (2.6 MB, 995x3511, 2CC1E2F759BEE8A4AC93BF77E739DDB0-2741190.png)
File (): 4387E1D77A0C9558DDC8000D0EE5CC48-191550.png (187.1 KB, 800x600, 4387E1D77A0C9558DDC8000D0EE5CC48-191550.png)
>Reads OP
So all people should entirely totally trust NPC definitions as is got it.
>last thirty to fifty minutes
That happened I guess.
>>22108
Here's a (You) Bronco post anon.
So all people should entirely totally trust NPC definitions as is got it.
>last thirty to fifty minutes
That happened I guess.
>>22108
Here's a (You) Bronco post anon.
Anonymous
No.22211
>>22200
Even the Egyptians were just practitioners of animism that have been prevalent since the dawn of man. It's only in 1983 (after ponies were already a thing), that people said the concept of anthropomorphic animals are "furry".
Even the Egyptians were just practitioners of animism that have been prevalent since the dawn of man. It's only in 1983 (after ponies were already a thing), that people said the concept of anthropomorphic animals are "furry".
Also, nice touch with the video response bot. Totally lends credibility
Anonymous
No.22224
Anonymous
No.22225
File (): E98A1B738A2BA17A0474DB6E5DF8D78E-88683.png (86.6 KB, 2000x1000, E98A1B738A2BA17A0474DB6E5DF8D78E-88683.png)
File (): 47C9FF30ABACA30DCFCBADAB8CD63084-284905.png (278.2 KB, 600x689, 1578112354343.png)
>>22222
Erhmagherd he got trips! This completely sublimates objective reality! Ponies are saved cuz a faggot on a board made a post with numbers!
Erhmagherd he got trips! This completely sublimates objective reality! Ponies are saved cuz a faggot on a board made a post with numbers!
Anonymous
No.22227
Anonymous
No.22229
Anonymous
No.22231
Anonymous
No.22235
File (): 0F66B0544F45C5D6403376F706241483-55574.jpg (54.3 KB, 500x500, jelly_2999.jpg)
Anonymous
No.22246
File (): E74809A4A875A825D492D56C8320D687-28172.jpg (27.5 KB, 845x634, B4792E08D97E0A2C4EFA551AA22AA092-28154.jpg)
>>22236
On account of following a higher being now I have to disagree slightly and say it's divine sovereignty of the Almighty.
Who can and does use proxies to submit HIS message.
On account of following a higher being now I have to disagree slightly and say it's divine sovereignty of the Almighty.
Who can and does use proxies to submit HIS message.
File (): 281D17C322753489749CB4F99D3874A2-427062.jpg (417.1 KB, 1124x1136, Wukb4TA.jpg)
>>22249
Which word?
Castigate all you want, you know what I have said is objectively true. And still, you regail.
Any more from y'all, and your pre programmed bot (cuz notjing says "youre wrong like a prompted youtube link)?
Which word?
Castigate all you want, you know what I have said is objectively true. And still, you regail.
Any more from y'all, and your pre programmed bot (cuz notjing says "youre wrong like a prompted youtube link)?
File (): 0EB0A6643ABECCA7E419538B98404077-305725.jpg (298.6 KB, 1000x1250, 1535518.jpeg)
Anonymous
No.22253
File (): 392A17C131B5FD9B4395627CF5DE8A37-81571.jpg (79.7 KB, 962x1024, E46B3F5313179DC04B147D86486610DB-81553.jpg)
File (): B3263F7A70F4421E3D2BC5D55B4B28DE-2510366.png (2.4 MB, 1559x688, B3263F7A70F4421E3D2BC5D55B4B28DE-2510366.png)
File (): 08B614B41B5FC0222664817ADF087589-134213.png (131.1 KB, 1280x720, 1584155494863.png)
Actually congratulations on getting a thread to somewhat mimic channel type threads.
What else is missing that is desirable?
What else is missing that is desirable?
>>22226
Oh shut the fuck up, you stupid nigger.
You're sitting here refusing to engage arguments because this thread is "not the venue" for them, and getting buttrustled over YouTube links, and comparing people who disagree to troons. Now you're getting triggered over some of us in this thread having fun checking dubs like a healthy image board should? Blow it out your ass.
Oh shut the fuck up, you stupid nigger.
You're sitting here refusing to engage arguments because this thread is "not the venue" for them, and getting buttrustled over YouTube links, and comparing people who disagree to troons. Now you're getting triggered over some of us in this thread having fun checking dubs like a healthy image board should? Blow it out your ass.
>>22252
Only when you refute my points scholastically. You're all a bunch of liars (and thieves, but we'll focus on your dereliction of truth for the moment).
Only when you refute my points scholastically. You're all a bunch of liars (and thieves, but we'll focus on your dereliction of truth for the moment).
>Bots are nao allowed here
Nice precedent, I'll consider it in the future.
Nice precedent, I'll consider it in the future.
Anonymous
No.22264
>>22261
That's a dumb comparison. You can compare anything to troons if you do that kind of logical leap. What's the point then?
That's a dumb comparison. You can compare anything to troons if you do that kind of logical leap. What's the point then?
File (): 791962D4E58B9A98D771F15AFF8FFC09-64126.jpg (62.6 KB, 1010x1081, dfsz16r-b609a898-7d6f-457d-a171-e39ecb286613.jpg)
Anonymous
No.22276
File (): C93BB242D02EA1BDEDEAA1B9324C7FFD-736973.png (719.7 KB, 788x855, 522657.png)
>>22255
You point has already been refuted scholastically using your own logic. See >>22112
It's established that one group predating another has a causal relationship towards the existence of the later group. It's also established that the Ancient Egyptians were the first to raise anthropomorphization to the level of fandom. Thus, furries are an offshoot of the egyptians
You point has already been refuted scholastically using your own logic. See >>22112
It's established that one group predating another has a causal relationship towards the existence of the later group. It's also established that the Ancient Egyptians were the first to raise anthropomorphization to the level of fandom. Thus, furries are an offshoot of the egyptians
>>22263
>Multiple people are against me! It must be bots!
Imagine losing an argument to literal bots this badly
>Multiple people are against me! It must be bots!
Imagine losing an argument to literal bots this badly
>>22277
So, youre saying that because people worshipped (incl sacrifice) ppl to animal icons, that thats somehow comparable to people dressing in unrelated furry suits?
Is it the suit that makes them the same?
So, youre saying that because people worshipped (incl sacrifice) ppl to animal icons, that thats somehow comparable to people dressing in unrelated furry suits?
Is it the suit that makes them the same?
Anonymous
No.22283
File (): 2BEED59DD14DF83FBB5178B5D4B14247-960905.jpg (938.4 KB, 1920x1920, a809cb.jpg)
>>22282
Your saying that because people worship horse icons, that's somehow comparable to unrelated furry suits?
Your saying that because people worship horse icons, that's somehow comparable to unrelated furry suits?
Anonymous
No.22291
>>22290
No, Im using the defined terms. Look them up.
Furry = Person interested in anthropomorphic animals OR a genre that includes anthropomorphic animals
I didnt write the shit, but shit was written, and thats what peiple see
No, Im using the defined terms. Look them up.
Furry = Person interested in anthropomorphic animals OR a genre that includes anthropomorphic animals
I didnt write the shit, but shit was written, and thats what peiple see
>>22289
Yeah. He was even able to respond with requests for epona vids. That's not bot behavior.
He's just shitposting to trigger OP.
Yeah. He was even able to respond with requests for epona vids. That's not bot behavior.
He's just shitposting to trigger OP.
Anonymous
No.22298
Anonymous
No.22302
File (): 0B1F816510AA2342DA054318382C47F0-105653.jpg (103.2 KB, 387x350, Set_speared_Apep.jpg)
>>22282
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA&pp=ygUQc28geW91cidlIHNheWluZw%3D%3D
I'm saying that the Egyptians anthropomorphized animals, made them into literal gods, and then made art of them. They are the origin of anthropomorphizing fandom, of which furries, bronies, and all others are but an offshoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA&pp=ygUQc28geW91cidlIHNheWluZw%3D%3D
I'm saying that the Egyptians anthropomorphized animals, made them into literal gods, and then made art of them. They are the origin of anthropomorphizing fandom, of which furries, bronies, and all others are but an offshoot.
>>22292
There are no defined terms. There is no authority on deciding what a furry is or isn't. It appears in no dictionary. Your "definition" is cobbled together from wiki articles and your personal biases, and has gaping holes in it as you refuse to apply it to various spiritual practices that date back to the dawn of man.
Ponies are a fandom independent from furries. They have key differences in their depictions. They are no more furry than Egyptians are.
There are no defined terms. There is no authority on deciding what a furry is or isn't. It appears in no dictionary. Your "definition" is cobbled together from wiki articles and your personal biases, and has gaping holes in it as you refuse to apply it to various spiritual practices that date back to the dawn of man.
Ponies are a fandom independent from furries. They have key differences in their depictions. They are no more furry than Egyptians are.
File (): 1511FF4294D05DD33790EFEA2EBCB59C-115994.jpg (113.3 KB, 1000x1226, 155314D5BAFAA68F5F3C34ADD2005B98-115976.jpg)
Requesting rick roll but pony ai cover.
Anonymous
No.22310
>>22305
Furbooru?
Really now, what difference does it make? It's not a valid argument, you shouldn't take it too seriously anyways.
Furbooru?
Really now, what difference does it make? It's not a valid argument, you shouldn't take it too seriously anyways.
File (): 7E66BE640CC44B35C308359D14BF297A-665920.jpg (650.3 KB, 1167x889, Kmt_obelisk.jpg)
>>22292
Egyptian god appreciator = Person who thinks that depicting animals as having human traits is pretty great, including furries, Celts, Christians, Disney fans, Bronies, and so forth
Egyptian god appreciator = Person who thinks that depicting animals as having human traits is pretty great, including furries, Celts, Christians, Disney fans, Bronies, and so forth
>>22312
I am willing to accept that both bronies and furries and are separate offshoots of mankind's tendency towards animism and anthropomorphizing concepts.
I am willing to accept that both bronies and furries and are separate offshoots of mankind's tendency towards animism and anthropomorphizing concepts.
I will credit, assigning a bot to me doubles the post count off me. Clever
Anonymous
No.22332
File (): 1CBE76185A2460DC1E23BE866A2DE5B9-751103.gif (733.5 KB, 498x280, laugh-mlp.gif)
>>22318
Animism seems to be the longest and oldest contender world wide.
Thus horsefuckery is technically be both an off shoot of Animism, Christianity, Natsoc ideals and the purity of an unsullied peoples.
Animism seems to be the longest and oldest contender world wide.
Thus horsefuckery is technically be both an off shoot of Animism, Christianity, Natsoc ideals and the purity of an unsullied peoples.
Anonymous
No.22335
File (): AE9DAEAED4F1D6BFD0EF48E6FE7EB560-83821.jpg (81.9 KB, 1080x1080, 6748753.jpg)
Anonymous
No.22336
Anonymous
No.22337
>>22334
>Thus horsefuckery is technically be both an off shoot of Animism, Christianity, Natsoc ideals and the purity of an unsullied peoples
Based, redpilled and true.
>Thus horsefuckery is technically be both an off shoot of Animism, Christianity, Natsoc ideals and the purity of an unsullied peoples
Based, redpilled and true.
Anonymous
No.22338
>>22334
Oh and sci-fi and fantasy due to the world not being Earth as it is known. Bringing it into the fold of myth and legend.
Which I think people who tell, listen to and create based off of stories are the actual core group which all these seem to fall into.
Oh and sci-fi and fantasy due to the world not being Earth as it is known. Bringing it into the fold of myth and legend.
Which I think people who tell, listen to and create based off of stories are the actual core group which all these seem to fall into.
l>>22336
Thank you for - in this one instance - your honesty.
It was bad enough that it may have been a bot.
Far worse that it was one guy.
Dont think so?
Look up manufactured consensus.
Thats literally what drives this site.
And if you doubt, look at the response times. Its ALMOST like someone had a vested interest in obfuscating anything I said EVEN BEFORE they knew what I would say.
Very telling.
Thank you for - in this one instance - your honesty.
It was bad enough that it may have been a bot.
Far worse that it was one guy.
Dont think so?
Look up manufactured consensus.
Thats literally what drives this site.
And if you doubt, look at the response times. Its ALMOST like someone had a vested interest in obfuscating anything I said EVEN BEFORE they knew what I would say.
Very telling.
File (): 3F745DF80721567F3F39C2D97E56EFDF-291421.png (284.6 KB, 720x720, 3F745DF80721567F3F39C2D97E56EFDF-291421.png)
My point being to be of the horsefuckers is also to be genuinely human.
Bot! Post Griffonia Delenda Est!
Anonymous
No.22350
File (): DDB4045B86C7F9445F61422330075F15-153589.png (150.0 KB, 731x497, 835258.png)
File (): 81508616CECBFC07B42EBDD91E2886ED-5895258.mov (5.6 MB, Resolution:568x320 Length:00:01:58, mbjevwlyitg_111.mp4) [play once] [loop]
Anonymous
No.22352
Anonymous
No.22353
Anonymous
No.22354
>>22347
You still haven't refuted several of the arguments in this thread, and yet you expect others to take you seriously.
You still haven't refuted several of the arguments in this thread, and yet you expect others to take you seriously.
When God created Man and all the creatures, He saw how much the bonds could be between them all.
So woman was made as the companion unlike any other.
Equestrian ponies can't fully exist as they should be in this corrupted world.
Thus the ever lasting hope of Jesus Christ and God and The Holy Spirit. For true bonds beyond imagination.
So woman was made as the companion unlike any other.
Equestrian ponies can't fully exist as they should be in this corrupted world.
Thus the ever lasting hope of Jesus Christ and God and The Holy Spirit. For true bonds beyond imagination.
Anonymous
No.22357
>>22339
>Look up manufactured consensus. Thats literally what drives this site.
Hitted the nail in the head. Good thing anyone with a three finger forehead can atleast participate with some success. Can you finally guess what I meant?
>Look up manufactured consensus. Thats literally what drives this site.
Hitted the nail in the head. Good thing anyone with a three finger forehead can atleast participate with some success. Can you finally guess what I meant?
>>22356
Did you read the above post? Not above mine, above yours?
https://youtube.com/shorts/5xU7JSN8cVc?si=QXZ0qtzDESWqE4YU
Did you read the above post? Not above mine, above yours?
https://youtube.com/shorts/5xU7JSN8cVc?si=QXZ0qtzDESWqE4YU
Anonymous
No.22361
File (): 8D97F4F00635CBE47BE257FEFF8A4991-445555.png (435.1 KB, 1000x1423, 1644215.png)
File (): 0C877FA8231995AED0935392F0BF3D49-107359.gif (104.8 KB, 250x178, 0C877FA8231995AED0935392F0BF3D49-107359.gif)
Hasbro did not advertise to furries, they advertised to girls to sell cute things doing cute stuff.
Lauren Faust did not advertise to furries, she wanted a series that had meaning and depth.
Adults found what was lacking in clown world, it wasn't furries. It's the longing people desire for a plethora in a living breathing story.
People love the characters.
Lauren Faust did not advertise to furries, she wanted a series that had meaning and depth.
Adults found what was lacking in clown world, it wasn't furries. It's the longing people desire for a plethora in a living breathing story.
People love the characters.
Anonymous
No.22367
File (): 107B2114CC83D600A9A6106A70DC3360-53128.jpg (51.9 KB, 736x827, 29edf274eb0b8e6ebfd07c90964eefaa.jpg)
Anonymous
No.22370
>>22368
Being kicked out with many people desperately wanting more and the whole vision turned to dust sucks.
Hasbro did her dirty. So to did some fanatics.
Her gift to help dashed by Hasbro as they went their way.
What else could be expected.
Being kicked out with many people desperately wanting more and the whole vision turned to dust sucks.
Hasbro did her dirty. So to did some fanatics.
Her gift to help dashed by Hasbro as they went their way.
What else could be expected.
>>22368
Does it matter? She's still a loonie feminist. Her endorsement of bronies is to be expected, after all, emasculating men is at least one of the prime goals of feminism.
Does it matter? She's still a loonie feminist. Her endorsement of bronies is to be expected, after all, emasculating men is at least one of the prime goals of feminism.
Anonymous
No.22373
>>22372
>Her endorsement of bronies is to be expected, after all, emasculating men is at least one of the prime goals of feminism
You are a fully manipulative piece of work.
She endorsed the audience, the fans, and after all, the customers. You attempt to smear bronies, and horsefuckers is kaput.
>Her endorsement of bronies is to be expected, after all, emasculating men is at least one of the prime goals of feminism
You are a fully manipulative piece of work.
She endorsed the audience, the fans, and after all, the customers. You attempt to smear bronies, and horsefuckers is kaput.
>>22372
>after all, emasculating men is at least one of the prime goals of feminism.
Feels batman
Who can say she didn't do a good job? From the looks of it I mean.
>after all, emasculating men is at least one of the prime goals of feminism.
Feels batman
Who can say she didn't do a good job? From the looks of it I mean.
Anonymous
No.22376
>>22371
>>22372
She wanted a series for girls that had some backbone and meat.
It happened that people on average enjoy something with higher qualities.
Does her political and social beliefs detract from the story? Luckily no.
Because a girl show that had depth and would be useful in someway is the purpose.
It wasn't a furry show about furries doing furry things bragging about being furry.
The show was itself. Furries happen to also be a subset of people who do/did happen to come across the show.
>>22375
A symptom of clown world manifesting.
The show itself on its own seemed to show an alternative to clown world.
That upholding godly values do matter. Personally, communally, nationally and further beyond.
>>22372
She wanted a series for girls that had some backbone and meat.
It happened that people on average enjoy something with higher qualities.
Does her political and social beliefs detract from the story? Luckily no.
Because a girl show that had depth and would be useful in someway is the purpose.
It wasn't a furry show about furries doing furry things bragging about being furry.
The show was itself. Furries happen to also be a subset of people who do/did happen to come across the show.
>>22375
A symptom of clown world manifesting.
The show itself on its own seemed to show an alternative to clown world.
That upholding godly values do matter. Personally, communally, nationally and further beyond.
Anonymous
No.22378
File (): 471FB05D5B96E329ED68F4551BDFB782-292679.png (285.8 KB, 2560x1920, 471FB05D5B96E329ED68F4551BDFB782-292679.png)
Anonymous
No.22380
>>22374
If fax and logic is the same as "smearing" to you. Maybe you should work at the ADL. You fit the profile quite nicely.
If fax and logic is the same as "smearing" to you. Maybe you should work at the ADL. You fit the profile quite nicely.
Anonymous
No.22384
Obedient like a puppy, how cute. Goodnight ladies.
>>22145
>Tell me about how your refusal to accept being a furry is different from their refusal to accept biology
This argument is extremely silly. Biological sex is something that exists and can be proven. A person is either male or female, and it can easily be proven which one a given individual is. “Furries” and “bronies” don’t exist objectively, they are concepts that were created in the human imagination and have no existence beyond whatever definition humans give those terms. One is only a “furry” or a “brony” if they self-identify as such.
>>22226
>This completely sublimates objective reality
Again, we are dealing with abstract concepts, not objective reality. I can’t tell if you’re a troll or just an absolute retard.
>>22201
>Furfaggotry existed before MLP
This does not prove a connection between the two.
>>22255
> Only when you refute my points scholastically.
You’re essentially arguing that one arbitrarily defined fandom is equal to another arbitrarily defined fandom because of some arbitrary definition you’ve settled on as fact. There is no way to refute your points scholastically because we are dealing with purely subjective concepts and you won’t accept any definition for these concepts other than the one you’ve arbitrarily settled on. You are an extremely silly person.
>Furry = Person interested in anthropomorphic animals OR a genre that includes anthropomorphic animals
Again, this is a purely arbitrary definition that you have settled on. “Furry” is an abstract, amorphous term. You present no arguments as to why this definition should be accepted over any others.
>>22303
This, ffs.
>Tell me about how your refusal to accept being a furry is different from their refusal to accept biology
This argument is extremely silly. Biological sex is something that exists and can be proven. A person is either male or female, and it can easily be proven which one a given individual is. “Furries” and “bronies” don’t exist objectively, they are concepts that were created in the human imagination and have no existence beyond whatever definition humans give those terms. One is only a “furry” or a “brony” if they self-identify as such.
>>22226
>This completely sublimates objective reality
Again, we are dealing with abstract concepts, not objective reality. I can’t tell if you’re a troll or just an absolute retard.
>>22201
>Furfaggotry existed before MLP
This does not prove a connection between the two.
>>22255
> Only when you refute my points scholastically.
You’re essentially arguing that one arbitrarily defined fandom is equal to another arbitrarily defined fandom because of some arbitrary definition you’ve settled on as fact. There is no way to refute your points scholastically because we are dealing with purely subjective concepts and you won’t accept any definition for these concepts other than the one you’ve arbitrarily settled on. You are an extremely silly person.
>Furry = Person interested in anthropomorphic animals OR a genre that includes anthropomorphic animals
Again, this is a purely arbitrary definition that you have settled on. “Furry” is an abstract, amorphous term. You present no arguments as to why this definition should be accepted over any others.
>>22303
This, ffs.
Anonymous
No.22389
File (): 28DDF2925162775DC12611AF932C673D-63472.png (62.0 KB, 793x793, 1697623891.png)
>>22387
I can't stress this point enough. To say that Mareschizos are furry "by definition" is absurd because the definition is not set in stone. OP did not present any authoritative source for this definition; the most he came up with was a screenshot from the first results on "Google".
Because there is no actual formal definition to the Internet-slang term that is the "furry fandom", the only real qualifying factor is self-identification. A significant portion of mareschizos do not self-identify as furries: this should be enough evidence alone that they are not furries.
I can't stress this point enough. To say that Mareschizos are furry "by definition" is absurd because the definition is not set in stone. OP did not present any authoritative source for this definition; the most he came up with was a screenshot from the first results on "Google".
Because there is no actual formal definition to the Internet-slang term that is the "furry fandom", the only real qualifying factor is self-identification. A significant portion of mareschizos do not self-identify as furries: this should be enough evidence alone that they are not furries.
Anonymous
No.22394
>>22392
>cant comprehend timestamps
You guys are batting 1000. You were more compelling when pretending that Lotus stealing a gets has any meaning. Remember the waifu thief days?
>cant comprehend timestamps
You guys are batting 1000. You were more compelling when pretending that Lotus stealing a gets has any meaning. Remember the waifu thief days?
>>22395
............................................................................................................................................yeeeeeeeeah. Everything about this looks legit, all right.
............................................................................................................................................yeeeeeeeeah. Everything about this looks legit, all right.
>>22395
>>22396
Actually, I take that back. There's actually some useful info here.
https://furscience.com/whats-a-furry/
>The term furry describes a diverse community of fans, artists, writers, gamers, and role players.
>Most furries create for themselves an anthropomorphized animal character (fursona) with whom they identify and can function as an avatar within the community.
>Furry fandom is an inclusive term that describes the community of furries that span online, local, and international settings.
>Some furries wear elaborate costumes (called fursuits) or paraphernalia such as animal ears or tails, or represent themselves as anthropomorphic animals in online communities such as Second Life.
>Most furries represent themselves and interact with the fandom using fursonas that represent idealized versions of themselves—usually more outgoing, sociable, extraverted and confident than themselves.
Emphasis mine. This description actually illustrates the differences between bronies and furries pretty clearly.
The furry "fandom" is not really a fandom in the traditional sense, ie a group of fans focused on a particular media property or fictional universe. Being a furry is more like a second identity: the person creates an alternate animal persona that represents an idealized version of themselves. The "fandom" is the broader community of people doing the same thing, and the act of engaging with each other while assuming these character roles. It's basically an elaborate role-play involving animal personas.
The MLP fandom has nothing the fuck to do with any of that. MLP is a conventional fandom, ie a group of fans that focus on the MLP media franchise (specifically the G4 franchise), and the fictional universe of that media. The MLP fandom has more in common with other conventional fandoms (Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc) than it does with the furry "fandom."
The furry fandom is inwardly focused: "I have this animal identity, and this is who I am, and I like to interact with other people who have similar identities."
The MLP fandom is outwardly focused: "I like this cartoon series, its characters, and the fictional setting of its universe."
There is definitely some overlap: there are bronies who like to role-play and whatnot, some have their own self-insert OCs, and some seem to take it pretty seriously, ie "I identify as a pony." There are also furries who enjoy MLP and have pony-fursonas the same way that there are furries who like old Disney movies and draw their fursonas from those.
However, overlap does not equal dependency. The overwhelming majority of bronies, at least based on my (at this point extensive) experience, do not have pony personas or consider themselves to be ponies irl. Some do, but it's hardly a requirement for joining the fandom. Meanwhile, the furry fandom is centered around the personas that the individual participants create for themselves. These can be drawn from any number of different media properties/universes, or they can be products of the creator's imagination. Some furries like MLP, but it's not a requirement.
Thus, my original Venn diagram >>22099 was correct. There are furries, there are bronies, and there are furries who are also bronies. Separate concepts, separate categories.
>>22396
Actually, I take that back. There's actually some useful info here.
https://furscience.com/whats-a-furry/
>The term furry describes a diverse community of fans, artists, writers, gamers, and role players.
>Most furries create for themselves an anthropomorphized animal character (fursona) with whom they identify and can function as an avatar within the community.
>Furry fandom is an inclusive term that describes the community of furries that span online, local, and international settings.
>Some furries wear elaborate costumes (called fursuits) or paraphernalia such as animal ears or tails, or represent themselves as anthropomorphic animals in online communities such as Second Life.
>Most furries represent themselves and interact with the fandom using fursonas that represent idealized versions of themselves—usually more outgoing, sociable, extraverted and confident than themselves.
Emphasis mine. This description actually illustrates the differences between bronies and furries pretty clearly.
The furry "fandom" is not really a fandom in the traditional sense, ie a group of fans focused on a particular media property or fictional universe. Being a furry is more like a second identity: the person creates an alternate animal persona that represents an idealized version of themselves. The "fandom" is the broader community of people doing the same thing, and the act of engaging with each other while assuming these character roles. It's basically an elaborate role-play involving animal personas.
The MLP fandom has nothing the fuck to do with any of that. MLP is a conventional fandom, ie a group of fans that focus on the MLP media franchise (specifically the G4 franchise), and the fictional universe of that media. The MLP fandom has more in common with other conventional fandoms (Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc) than it does with the furry "fandom."
The furry fandom is inwardly focused: "I have this animal identity, and this is who I am, and I like to interact with other people who have similar identities."
The MLP fandom is outwardly focused: "I like this cartoon series, its characters, and the fictional setting of its universe."
There is definitely some overlap: there are bronies who like to role-play and whatnot, some have their own self-insert OCs, and some seem to take it pretty seriously, ie "I identify as a pony." There are also furries who enjoy MLP and have pony-fursonas the same way that there are furries who like old Disney movies and draw their fursonas from those.
However, overlap does not equal dependency. The overwhelming majority of bronies, at least based on my (at this point extensive) experience, do not have pony personas or consider themselves to be ponies irl. Some do, but it's hardly a requirement for joining the fandom. Meanwhile, the furry fandom is centered around the personas that the individual participants create for themselves. These can be drawn from any number of different media properties/universes, or they can be products of the creator's imagination. Some furries like MLP, but it's not a requirement.
Thus, my original Venn diagram >>22099 was correct. There are furries, there are bronies, and there are furries who are also bronies. Separate concepts, separate categories.
Anonymous
No.22399
Does anybody have that "Anons vs Bronies vs Furries" triangular chart meme that distinguishes three separate but coexisting factions of the MLP fandom? It was posted to this site years ago.
File (): 356048C6EF05CBBA58A5C1DB20684A36-1920876.png (1.8 MB, 1500x1491, u05ngamsgs501.png)
File (): 1349D9ADA1F5A28513B864160F884E70-1079345.jpg (1.0 MB, 3200x2560, oh8uGVS9fusOKhXeL_WYQhrr_fHcz0XxSjFh9i4tM-0.jpg)
File (): D6DCFAA4E1BAC540F5DAF3B7F437C321-98721.png (96.4 KB, 640x636, pKcM-9LQL5lWopSfoIZpmQCueQz2QcHsJbCNWBDJr6M.png)
Even furries don't agree on what the definition of a furry is, but by the most conventional puridt understanding, pony fans are still not furry. Pony fans are furry-adjacent, with some overlap.
Anonymous
No.22402
>>22401
Yeah, "pony is furry-adjacent" I think I could accept, but not "pony is a subset of furry" as OP seems to be arguing.
Incidentally I feel like there's a political-quadrant meme in there somewhere.
Yeah, "pony is furry-adjacent" I think I could accept, but not "pony is a subset of furry" as OP seems to be arguing.
Incidentally I feel like there's a political-quadrant meme in there somewhere.
>>22398
>Most furries create for themselves an anthropomorphized animal character (fursona) with whom they identify and can function as an avatar within the community.
Most, with a notable exception amongst many of the individual factions, including (but not limited to) My Little Pony.
Literally, you're effectively trying to argue that Star wars ISN'T science fiction, because Star Wars fans behave differently than Star Trek fans.
If you cant see the fallacy in that, theres really no hope for you. Having a fursona (whether pony or not) is its self a subset of the "fandom" (which you accurately depict as not a fandom in the traditional sense, but more of an umbrella classification), just as people who exclusivrly center around MLP are a subset of the greater umbrella.
Dont cry to me, blame the internet for deciding these are the terms.
>but muh feels! People don't decide things like that
Uh, yeah, they really do. When the aggregate decides something is called 'something', that becomes objective. A penguin is still a bird, even if they dont behave like most birds.
>Most furries create for themselves an anthropomorphized animal character (fursona) with whom they identify and can function as an avatar within the community.
Most, with a notable exception amongst many of the individual factions, including (but not limited to) My Little Pony.
Literally, you're effectively trying to argue that Star wars ISN'T science fiction, because Star Wars fans behave differently than Star Trek fans.
If you cant see the fallacy in that, theres really no hope for you. Having a fursona (whether pony or not) is its self a subset of the "fandom" (which you accurately depict as not a fandom in the traditional sense, but more of an umbrella classification), just as people who exclusivrly center around MLP are a subset of the greater umbrella.
Dont cry to me, blame the internet for deciding these are the terms.
>but muh feels! People don't decide things like that
Uh, yeah, they really do. When the aggregate decides something is called 'something', that becomes objective. A penguin is still a bird, even if they dont behave like most birds.
>>22403
>Most, with a notable exception amongst many of the individual factions, including (but not limited to) My Little Pony.
Give me another major fandom example besides ponies.
>Literally, you're effectively trying to argue that Star wars ISN'T science fiction, because Star Wars fans behave differently than Star Trek fans.
Science Fiction is a genre, not a fandom.
Also, if you look at the world-building for Star Wars, and the literary archetypes, Star Wars is much closer to a fantasy franchise than it is science fiction (supernatural magic/faith system, balance between good and evil, sword fights, all the planets breath the same air for some reason). It merely uses science fiction aesthetics on a story that could effectively be told in medieval times. It speaks very little of the scientific meta-concepts and technologies presented in the field and instead simply borrows futuristic spaceman aesthetics to depict a fantastic world with little basis in science or even speculative science.
A lot of Star Wars fans actually say this.
>greater umbrella
Furry is no more of a "greater umbrella" than Egyptian animism is. There isn't even a dictionary definition of "furry", but a lot of the traits attributes to furries, even those described in the site you linked, do not apply to most pony fans.
>When the aggregate decides something is called 'something', that becomes objective.
Who is this "aggregate" you speak of? Is it the furry fandom hell-bent on assimilating pony fans? Or is it uninformed normies who have barely any background knowledge of what it means to have built this fandom for the past decade? Was there a poll involved?
Also, that's bullshit. Just be because 60% of the Western world validates troons as "real women" doesn't make them women.
>Penguin is still a bird
Bird is a scientific term, not a loosely-defined internet-slang term.
What you're saying is that a penguin is a reptile; and even though the most of conventional biology prefers to refer to birds as "avian reptiles", that doesn't mean that birds are not a separate and distinct class of animals than reptiles are.
>Most, with a notable exception amongst many of the individual factions, including (but not limited to) My Little Pony.
Give me another major fandom example besides ponies.
>Literally, you're effectively trying to argue that Star wars ISN'T science fiction, because Star Wars fans behave differently than Star Trek fans.
Science Fiction is a genre, not a fandom.
Also, if you look at the world-building for Star Wars, and the literary archetypes, Star Wars is much closer to a fantasy franchise than it is science fiction (supernatural magic/faith system, balance between good and evil, sword fights, all the planets breath the same air for some reason). It merely uses science fiction aesthetics on a story that could effectively be told in medieval times. It speaks very little of the scientific meta-concepts and technologies presented in the field and instead simply borrows futuristic spaceman aesthetics to depict a fantastic world with little basis in science or even speculative science.
A lot of Star Wars fans actually say this.
>greater umbrella
Furry is no more of a "greater umbrella" than Egyptian animism is. There isn't even a dictionary definition of "furry", but a lot of the traits attributes to furries, even those described in the site you linked, do not apply to most pony fans.
>When the aggregate decides something is called 'something', that becomes objective.
Who is this "aggregate" you speak of? Is it the furry fandom hell-bent on assimilating pony fans? Or is it uninformed normies who have barely any background knowledge of what it means to have built this fandom for the past decade? Was there a poll involved?
Also, that's bullshit. Just be because 60% of the Western world validates troons as "real women" doesn't make them women.
>Penguin is still a bird
Bird is a scientific term, not a loosely-defined internet-slang term.
What you're saying is that a penguin is a reptile; and even though the most of conventional biology prefers to refer to birds as "avian reptiles", that doesn't mean that birds are not a separate and distinct class of animals than reptiles are.
By now y'all have prolly wondered:
Whats the point of all this insistance?
Ill quote furscience:
>Despite a history of bullying and significant social stigma, our research shows that furries benefit from fandom participation and interaction with like-minded others in a recreational environment, which is associated with greater self-esteem and greater life satisfaction. Despite negative stereotypes that pathologize or seek to “explain” furries in clinical terms, furries do not significantly differ from a control group (general population) with regard to their self-esteem, psychological well-being, or relationship satisfaction and, in fact, furries were more likely than the control group to have a better-developed, more coherent and stable identity.
This wont mean anything to those of you who were /mlp/ prior to /mlpol/, but for those who were JUST /pol/,....
Theres a wealth of more or less like-minded people you have allowed yourself to remain ignorant of because of stigma based on the undeserved reputation created by a few bad actors. Theres no question that there are notorious furries, as I referenced previously; pedos, faggots, degenerates, etc. I wont ever say that there arent furries who are observably degenerate. I assert that degeneracy is a result of probability when analyzing a large population; there is inevitable deviation (read: deviants) from what is conventional.
I dont expect most to be willing to admit or explore it; I'm a particular case and I split no hairs about that, in that my fursona is also a tulpa (with all the associate considerations, spanning from mind-virus to habitual proclivity). You do you, just try to be honest and objective about it.
Whats the point of all this insistance?
Ill quote furscience:
>Despite a history of bullying and significant social stigma, our research shows that furries benefit from fandom participation and interaction with like-minded others in a recreational environment, which is associated with greater self-esteem and greater life satisfaction. Despite negative stereotypes that pathologize or seek to “explain” furries in clinical terms, furries do not significantly differ from a control group (general population) with regard to their self-esteem, psychological well-being, or relationship satisfaction and, in fact, furries were more likely than the control group to have a better-developed, more coherent and stable identity.
This wont mean anything to those of you who were /mlp/ prior to /mlpol/, but for those who were JUST /pol/,....
Theres a wealth of more or less like-minded people you have allowed yourself to remain ignorant of because of stigma based on the undeserved reputation created by a few bad actors. Theres no question that there are notorious furries, as I referenced previously; pedos, faggots, degenerates, etc. I wont ever say that there arent furries who are observably degenerate. I assert that degeneracy is a result of probability when analyzing a large population; there is inevitable deviation (read: deviants) from what is conventional.
I dont expect most to be willing to admit or explore it; I'm a particular case and I split no hairs about that, in that my fursona is also a tulpa (with all the associate considerations, spanning from mind-virus to habitual proclivity). You do you, just try to be honest and objective about it.
>>22404
Yes, and by way of a team of actual researchers, years of study and analysis, and even government funding, Furry is now a specific (though also generalized, just as bird is when factoring for the multitude of varieties of) term.
Yes, and by way of a team of actual researchers, years of study and analysis, and even government funding, Furry is now a specific (though also generalized, just as bird is when factoring for the multitude of varieties of) term.
>>22405
Pony fans do not benefit from being conflated with furries.
Furries poach our content creators.
Furries show up to our conventions and shit up the place with mountains of non-pony furshit.
Ponies flood our booru sites with anthroshit and furry versions of pony OCs (or, more often, furry OCs with a handful of pony sites) with barely any relation to ponies.
Furries demand furry content in pony spaces, eventually disenfranchising and replacing ponies in those spaces.
Furries try to oust Anons from sites, forums and conventions that we ourselves created, and then seethe and dilate when we make our own purist ones.
Furries switch their pony PfPs to furshit as soon as ponies stop being popular.
Furries relentlessly conflate us with themselves and try to annex us into their stupid fandom.
Furries tell us what we are and how we should behave, without taking the time to understand the nuances and differences that distinguish us.
Furries want us to be furries instead of Anons/bronies/mareschizos, just so that they can have more faggots and content in their own fandom, not for the benefit of pony content.
Furries are the biggest menace to the pony fandom and the greatest perpetrators of active decline and erasure of what we've built (as opposed to passive apathy and natural decline in popularity), and proactively try to cause collapse of the pony fandom on Twitter/boorus/boards so that the fandom will die, thinking after it's dead that we'll have no choice but to join them.
We are not furries. We don't want to be furries. We had no hard feelings for furries UNTIL furries started insisting that we are the same as them.
Pony fans do not benefit from being conflated with furries.
Furries poach our content creators.
Furries show up to our conventions and shit up the place with mountains of non-pony furshit.
Ponies flood our booru sites with anthroshit and furry versions of pony OCs (or, more often, furry OCs with a handful of pony sites) with barely any relation to ponies.
Furries demand furry content in pony spaces, eventually disenfranchising and replacing ponies in those spaces.
Furries try to oust Anons from sites, forums and conventions that we ourselves created, and then seethe and dilate when we make our own purist ones.
Furries switch their pony PfPs to furshit as soon as ponies stop being popular.
Furries relentlessly conflate us with themselves and try to annex us into their stupid fandom.
Furries tell us what we are and how we should behave, without taking the time to understand the nuances and differences that distinguish us.
Furries want us to be furries instead of Anons/bronies/mareschizos, just so that they can have more faggots and content in their own fandom, not for the benefit of pony content.
Furries are the biggest menace to the pony fandom and the greatest perpetrators of active decline and erasure of what we've built (as opposed to passive apathy and natural decline in popularity), and proactively try to cause collapse of the pony fandom on Twitter/boorus/boards so that the fandom will die, thinking after it's dead that we'll have no choice but to join them.
We are not furries. We don't want to be furries. We had no hard feelings for furries UNTIL furries started insisting that we are the same as them.
>>22406
According to a handful of furries.
Also, as Anon pointed out >>22398 there are many factors that distinguish pony fans from furries.
And that doesn't even count the biggest one: the general absence of therianthrope figures (beast-headed men), as the pony fandom is almost entirely centered around ponies with sapient minds and otherwise equine bodies.
According to a handful of furries.
Also, as Anon pointed out >>22398 there are many factors that distinguish pony fans from furries.
And that doesn't even count the biggest one: the general absence of therianthrope figures (beast-headed men), as the pony fandom is almost entirely centered around ponies with sapient minds and otherwise equine bodies.
>>22406
>by way of a team of actual researchers, years of study and analysis, and even government funding
The same people say that boys who pick up dolls once in their childhood should be put on HRT and cut their penises off.
>by way of a team of actual researchers, years of study and analysis, and even government funding
The same people say that boys who pick up dolls once in their childhood should be put on HRT and cut their penises off.
>>22409
Citation?
>>22407
Pedantic I'll admit, but while your points are clear and concise, there's a sense of entitlement to your prose that suggests ownership and mandate. No one owns content creators, and if they decide to branch in non-pony directions, should they not be entitled to do so?
Has it occurred to you that a decline in Pony content might be related to the the idea that MLP is a subset of furries, in that content creators want to reach a larger audience? Not to mention the greater fiduciary incentive to producing content for a fandom that has a reputation for being "oddly well financed"? You almost had me going with the appeals to emotion ngl, but while you are entitled to have hard feelings about how random hypothetical boogieman-furries shat in your cereal, the fact that you're mad about it is only a result of your own refusal to acknowledge that as I have outlined: ponies are under the furry umbrella.
Citation?
>>22407
Pedantic I'll admit, but while your points are clear and concise, there's a sense of entitlement to your prose that suggests ownership and mandate. No one owns content creators, and if they decide to branch in non-pony directions, should they not be entitled to do so?
Has it occurred to you that a decline in Pony content might be related to the the idea that MLP is a subset of furries, in that content creators want to reach a larger audience? Not to mention the greater fiduciary incentive to producing content for a fandom that has a reputation for being "oddly well financed"? You almost had me going with the appeals to emotion ngl, but while you are entitled to have hard feelings about how random hypothetical boogieman-furries shat in your cereal, the fact that you're mad about it is only a result of your own refusal to acknowledge that as I have outlined: ponies are under the furry umbrella.
Anonymous
No.22413
File (): 667B0974E6CF09FDA6CC4C98D1B25504-19027.jpg (18.6 KB, 256x256, 2ger-1570665003-451071-medium.jpeg)
>>22410
I can see I'm wasting my time here. You have repeatedly failed to refute or even acknowledge over a dozen arguments in this thread that have showed key distinctions between the factions and challenged to your obtusely vague definitions. You keep repeating yourself and talking past us instead of addressing the arguments. I'm done here.
I can see I'm wasting my time here. You have repeatedly failed to refute or even acknowledge over a dozen arguments in this thread that have showed key distinctions between the factions and challenged to your obtusely vague definitions. You keep repeating yourself and talking past us instead of addressing the arguments. I'm done here.
File (): EFCBCF223F34E203F19AE429BB3768EF-286371.jpg (279.7 KB, 1024x1024, embarrassed.jpg)
>>22405
So in other words, what this is really about is that (You) are a furry, and you want to talk all of us into joining you. So, instead of just doing what a normal person would do, ie making a thread to extol what you perceive as the many virtues of furfaggotry and seeing if you get any takers, you cook up this load of convoluted sophistry and feed it to us in an effort to mind-rape us into believing that we're all furries already.
If you're a furry and you have a fursona and whatever the fuck that's your own affair, I honestly don't give a shit and don't have a problem with it. If you want to try to convince others to join you in a 12 hour yiffing session, or whatever you people do for recreation, that's your own affair and I don't have a problem with it. Mind you, I'm not interested and I won't be joining you, but within reason I don't care that much what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors on their own time. But for fuck's sake, at least argue in good faith and be honest about what you're trying to do.
So in other words, what this is really about is that (You) are a furry, and you want to talk all of us into joining you. So, instead of just doing what a normal person would do, ie making a thread to extol what you perceive as the many virtues of furfaggotry and seeing if you get any takers, you cook up this load of convoluted sophistry and feed it to us in an effort to mind-rape us into believing that we're all furries already.
If you're a furry and you have a fursona and whatever the fuck that's your own affair, I honestly don't give a shit and don't have a problem with it. If you want to try to convince others to join you in a 12 hour yiffing session, or whatever you people do for recreation, that's your own affair and I don't have a problem with it. Mind you, I'm not interested and I won't be joining you, but within reason I don't care that much what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors on their own time. But for fuck's sake, at least argue in good faith and be honest about what you're trying to do.
File (): 6FDC4877A85A5CCE1BB2A43C9A8E629D-183178.jpg (178.9 KB, 1016x970, 10154687DE3513CA794B93659E384C6C-183160.jpg)
File (): 56365D2B33CECA501B74C0546CE04A7B-5533469.png (5.3 MB, 2850x4050, 56365D2B33CECA501B74C0546CE04A7B-5533469.png)
File (): DE3C50F2B39F2556E894CFE77E69C447-524597.png (512.3 KB, 750x742, 1570826438984.png)
File (): 99972B07E7A7A89BBFF40FBE101A734B-386858.png (377.8 KB, 931x1024, 1582124664012.png)
File (): 2C6A1E8FB8A6E02B62BC43182A6EC477-921851.png (900.2 KB, 4000x4000, 2C6A1E8FB8A6E02B62BC43182A6EC477-921851.png)
>>22410
>furries left mlp alone when it's no longer trendy.
How shocking.
MareFair shows what happens in a non-furry ran, Anon based convention.
>>22405
>Research shows furries are more well adjusted than NPCs.
Wow. I'm very impressed. It's like having something more than the latest news hour as a personality is more useful.
>OP insisting that Horsefuckers must be furries.
<Why?
>Anons in politics totally absolutely ignore fringe groups and weridos.
<On /mlpol/
Mnmmm nah, that's fucking retarded. Do you even understand what makes /mlp/ or /pol/ or /mlpol/ or Anons in aggregate who use these places?
That the majority are retards or useful idiots, that some small group doesn't know that there are other small groups?
That setting aside differences and there are many and varied for common ideals and desires is foreign?
No, this is to get a rise out of people. By trying to assimilate ponies into furry-stuff to force a common ground you miss the point.
/mlp/ and at that time and year /pol/ Anons had fundamental common ideals that the show also happened to show and demonstrate.
Saying ponies are furries to reach political anons is asinine.
Why is that asinine?
You're missing the point of shared commonalities. About the magic of Friendship, family, statesmanship, society and interpersonal relationships.
Furries, don't have that shared foundation. They are people who like anthropomorphic designs.
Good for them.
But your pushing of horsefuckers are furries so horsefuckers should search for furries specifically misses the point.
Politics isn't all about anthropomorphic design.
Ponies aren't all about anthropomorphic design.
Horsefuckers aren't all about anthropomorphic design.
Furries, they're all about the anthropomorphic design and from that ground attempt to extend to other areas.
>You do you, just try to be honest and objective about it.
You should.
Ask your Tulpa on how to be less of a fag and ask the right questions.
Protip the most fundamental common ground of horsefuckers is freedom of speech and to freely associate or disassociate.
>furries left mlp alone when it's no longer trendy.
How shocking.
MareFair shows what happens in a non-furry ran, Anon based convention.
>>22405
>Research shows furries are more well adjusted than NPCs.
Wow. I'm very impressed. It's like having something more than the latest news hour as a personality is more useful.
>OP insisting that Horsefuckers must be furries.
<Why?
>Anons in politics totally absolutely ignore fringe groups and weridos.
<On /mlpol/
Mnmmm nah, that's fucking retarded. Do you even understand what makes /mlp/ or /pol/ or /mlpol/ or Anons in aggregate who use these places?
That the majority are retards or useful idiots, that some small group doesn't know that there are other small groups?
That setting aside differences and there are many and varied for common ideals and desires is foreign?
No, this is to get a rise out of people. By trying to assimilate ponies into furry-stuff to force a common ground you miss the point.
/mlp/ and at that time and year /pol/ Anons had fundamental common ideals that the show also happened to show and demonstrate.
Saying ponies are furries to reach political anons is asinine.
Why is that asinine?
You're missing the point of shared commonalities. About the magic of Friendship, family, statesmanship, society and interpersonal relationships.
Furries, don't have that shared foundation. They are people who like anthropomorphic designs.
Good for them.
But your pushing of horsefuckers are furries so horsefuckers should search for furries specifically misses the point.
Politics isn't all about anthropomorphic design.
Ponies aren't all about anthropomorphic design.
Horsefuckers aren't all about anthropomorphic design.
Furries, they're all about the anthropomorphic design and from that ground attempt to extend to other areas.
>You do you, just try to be honest and objective about it.
You should.
Ask your Tulpa on how to be less of a fag and ask the right questions.
Protip the most fundamental common ground of horsefuckers is freedom of speech and to freely associate or disassociate.
>>22415
I...um... what? I wont claim that that wasnt a perspective based on a perception of what I said, but that was an astonishing interpretation and not at all what this has been about. Funny that you mention the Magic of Friendship though, in that you instinctively interpret exposition and sharing of ideas and concepts as being ego-motivated and whatever else you wont to interpret.
I...um... what? I wont claim that that wasnt a perspective based on a perception of what I said, but that was an astonishing interpretation and not at all what this has been about. Funny that you mention the Magic of Friendship though, in that you instinctively interpret exposition and sharing of ideas and concepts as being ego-motivated and whatever else you wont to interpret.
>>22420
>>22420
So you didn't. I guess that didnt factor in your attempts to spin this as being some sort of ego-driven membership drive.
The point has been to emphasize that nothing necessarily changes when realizing that ponies are furry, nor need the behaviors of the individual other than to realize that there is a significant number of decent, wholesome people pervading throughout, excluded from realization by individual hangups and semantics about terminology.
Nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.
>>22420
So you didn't. I guess that didnt factor in your attempts to spin this as being some sort of ego-driven membership drive.
The point has been to emphasize that nothing necessarily changes when realizing that ponies are furry, nor need the behaviors of the individual other than to realize that there is a significant number of decent, wholesome people pervading throughout, excluded from realization by individual hangups and semantics about terminology.
Nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.
File (): 0C8D8B7E5871E8A14DECB59D0AB6FA0D-369318.png (360.7 KB, 1000x1000, 2cef0a.png)
Anonymous
No.22437
File (): 9812683A85E256ABC107B95EF52FCDE6-719978.png (703.1 KB, 3350x4272, 1493312562-49775.png)
>>22432
>The point has been to emphasize that nothing necessarily changes when realizing that ponies are furry
They are not. There is nothing to realize. We've been over this multiple times.
>there is a significant number of decent, wholesome people pervading throughout, excluded from realization by individual hangups and semantics about terminology.
Fine, but what you're failing to realize is that this doesn't change anything. We're not furries, we don't want to become furries, and no amount of mental gymnastics from you is going to change that. If you're a furry, then fine. If there are furries who are decent and wholesome people, then fine. That doesn't mean we're going to join them. Just because there are good and wholesome people in a fandom does not mean I'm going to join that fandom if I'm not interested in the thing that they are fans of. There are probably decent and wholesome people in the Harry Potter fandom, that doesn't mean I'm going to dress up in a Hogwarts robe and play wizards with them.
The MLP fandom is about liking MLP. I like MLP, so I am in that fandom. The furry fandom is about making up an animal persona for yourself and larping as that persona. I am not interested in that, so I am not in that fandom. No matter how much you want to try and contort the matter, I'm afraid it really is that simple.
>The point has been to emphasize that nothing necessarily changes when realizing that ponies are furry
They are not. There is nothing to realize. We've been over this multiple times.
>there is a significant number of decent, wholesome people pervading throughout, excluded from realization by individual hangups and semantics about terminology.
Fine, but what you're failing to realize is that this doesn't change anything. We're not furries, we don't want to become furries, and no amount of mental gymnastics from you is going to change that. If you're a furry, then fine. If there are furries who are decent and wholesome people, then fine. That doesn't mean we're going to join them. Just because there are good and wholesome people in a fandom does not mean I'm going to join that fandom if I'm not interested in the thing that they are fans of. There are probably decent and wholesome people in the Harry Potter fandom, that doesn't mean I'm going to dress up in a Hogwarts robe and play wizards with them.
The MLP fandom is about liking MLP. I like MLP, so I am in that fandom. The furry fandom is about making up an animal persona for yourself and larping as that persona. I am not interested in that, so I am not in that fandom. No matter how much you want to try and contort the matter, I'm afraid it really is that simple.
File (): 9247810DD1D0B541576FE35748BF7BB0-21031.jpg (20.5 KB, 628x676, 1541770276520.jpg)
>>21980
There is not a single reason for a horsefucker to join a furry community, as communities are first people and then a common interest, and not a common interest and then people.
With this, I mean, both communities have similarities in what they like; that does not mean they enjoy each-other's company.
The furry fandom is big and old, thanks to this, it has built around itself a terrible reputation.
Bronies have a terrible reputation too, and that is as close as a 'furry horsefucker' you will get. I believe many 'bronies' converted to furry after the 'mlp fad' was over. I also know many 'new fandom' people are furries.
A man born a man can never fully become a woman, such as a horsefucker born horsefucker can never fully become a furry.
There is not a single reason for a horsefucker to join a furry community, as communities are first people and then a common interest, and not a common interest and then people.
With this, I mean, both communities have similarities in what they like; that does not mean they enjoy each-other's company.
The furry fandom is big and old, thanks to this, it has built around itself a terrible reputation.
Bronies have a terrible reputation too, and that is as close as a 'furry horsefucker' you will get. I believe many 'bronies' converted to furry after the 'mlp fad' was over. I also know many 'new fandom' people are furries.
A man born a man can never fully become a woman, such as a horsefucker born horsefucker can never fully become a furry.
>>22436
To the contrary, the arguments against have been spurious, fallacious, and semantic. Im not the one trying to split a hair to say there are two separate hairs.
>>22442
>that doesn't mean I'm going to dress up in a Hogwarts robe and play wizards with them.
Well duh, no one is suggesting you do so in a fursuit, etc. either. This is predominantly about my insistance that ponies are within the furry umbrella, and the ignorant refusal to accept that as legitimate, for increasingly individual and dubious justifications. I get it, no one wants to see themselves as HAVING BEEN doing furry-related ever since,... but you have been.
>>22446
Again, horsefuckery has always been in the furry fandom
To the contrary, the arguments against have been spurious, fallacious, and semantic. Im not the one trying to split a hair to say there are two separate hairs.
>>22442
>that doesn't mean I'm going to dress up in a Hogwarts robe and play wizards with them.
Well duh, no one is suggesting you do so in a fursuit, etc. either. This is predominantly about my insistance that ponies are within the furry umbrella, and the ignorant refusal to accept that as legitimate, for increasingly individual and dubious justifications. I get it, no one wants to see themselves as HAVING BEEN doing furry-related ever since,... but you have been.
>>22446
Again, horsefuckery has always been in the furry fandom
Quick follow-up/reiteration.
The Harry Potter comparison was fallacious, in that its not even minimally associable to MLP, excepting very loose fantasy references. Having said, just because MLP has always been furry doesnt change anything. Its not like upon realizing it you HAVE to start doing what tje majority of furries do, nor the minoroty. For example, fursuits are among the minority. Having a fursona isnt, but alot of y'all have personas that you identify with/as. Ever had a DnD character?
Literally nothing changes EXCEPT being willing to be honest and acknowledge that MLP has ALWAYS been furry content, in that the internet has decided thats the criteria.
The Harry Potter comparison was fallacious, in that its not even minimally associable to MLP, excepting very loose fantasy references. Having said, just because MLP has always been furry doesnt change anything. Its not like upon realizing it you HAVE to start doing what tje majority of furries do, nor the minoroty. For example, fursuits are among the minority. Having a fursona isnt, but alot of y'all have personas that you identify with/as. Ever had a DnD character?
Literally nothing changes EXCEPT being willing to be honest and acknowledge that MLP has ALWAYS been furry content, in that the internet has decided thats the criteria.
>>22448
>Having a fursona isnt, but alot of y'all have personas that you identify with/as.
Most of us don't.
>Ever had a DnD character?
Piles of them, most of which dead. Hardly any qualify as "personas".
>the internet has decided thats the criteria
Non-pony internet normies do not define us.
>Having a fursona isnt, but alot of y'all have personas that you identify with/as.
Most of us don't.
>Ever had a DnD character?
Piles of them, most of which dead. Hardly any qualify as "personas".
>the internet has decided thats the criteria
Non-pony internet normies do not define us.
Anonymous
No.22451
File (): 63CE2AB09C75823E5BD7DEA9689B84AC-21838.jpg (21.3 KB, 288x450, A1B8F65A4DB22F0CE46751506C2E54C1-21820.jpg)
File (): C5CADE73C672EE0F04A1BF92FF9462BA-814513.png (795.4 KB, 1300x1180, C5CADE73C672EE0F04A1BF92FF9462BA-814513.png)
File (): F0787E5FE282286D2B8DC6C87593C1AD-168805.jpg (164.8 KB, 1080x1080, 96B32750CABB2E4538DE7DD7A557CC24-168787.jpg)
>>22450
What this Anon said.
>>22448
>honest
That faggots are the end all be all of definitions. Stop trying to force retardation here that's retarded.
>personas that you identify with/as
No.
You're thinking of furries, that's their shtick.
That's sort of the whole point that makes furries a furry. Is that commonplace engagement with 'fursonas'.
There are whole other groups fully about personas, but that's not housefuckers.
Let's put this another way that'll seep into your dense head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFQQALduhzA
Fans of Japanese Animation are fans. They enjoy the shows.
However there are also weebs. Are people who have sets of behaviors common to that category.
That is to say a weeb can be a fan of Japanese Animation.
Fans of Japanese Animation can be a weeaboo.
People who enjoy Japan's history don't have to be a weeb.
Here's some more educational material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKfvkIAdyAY
Horsefuckers are fundamentally different from furries.
Furries can be bronies. Bronies can be furries.
Here's some esoteric knowledge. Horsefuckers isn't the same as a brony.
What this Anon said.
>>22448
>honest
That faggots are the end all be all of definitions. Stop trying to force retardation here that's retarded.
>personas that you identify with/as
No.
You're thinking of furries, that's their shtick.
That's sort of the whole point that makes furries a furry. Is that commonplace engagement with 'fursonas'.
There are whole other groups fully about personas, but that's not housefuckers.
Let's put this another way that'll seep into your dense head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFQQALduhzA
Fans of Japanese Animation are fans. They enjoy the shows.
However there are also weebs. Are people who have sets of behaviors common to that category.
That is to say a weeb can be a fan of Japanese Animation.
Fans of Japanese Animation can be a weeaboo.
People who enjoy Japan's history don't have to be a weeb.
Here's some more educational material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKfvkIAdyAY
Horsefuckers are fundamentally different from furries.
Furries can be bronies. Bronies can be furries.
Here's some esoteric knowledge. Horsefuckers isn't the same as a brony.
>>22450
>a DnD character isnt a persona
Like,... uhm. Okay, you're a waste of time.
For those with the capacity for comprehension;
Persona: a role or character adopted by an author, actor, etc. or in a game.
"Bowie burned through one persona after another"
>Non-pony internet normies do not define us.
Again, thats leftist tranny-speak. It doesnt look it, but you're trying to argue that not only your subjective impression of yourself is 100% correct, unbiased, viable, and legitimate, but ALSO that people you DONT 'authorize' (for biased and self-servimg reasons), their opinion - regardless of attempted scholarship - is invalid, because you say so.
Im not accusing you of bein born a man but claiming to be a woman an expecting everyone to respect it, Im sayin your argument is on par with theirs and has equal legitimacy. "I demand you see me this way, I dont care what people putside my 'niche' say about it". Helluva hill to die on
>a DnD character isnt a persona
Like,... uhm. Okay, you're a waste of time.
For those with the capacity for comprehension;
Persona: a role or character adopted by an author, actor, etc. or in a game.
"Bowie burned through one persona after another"
>Non-pony internet normies do not define us.
Again, thats leftist tranny-speak. It doesnt look it, but you're trying to argue that not only your subjective impression of yourself is 100% correct, unbiased, viable, and legitimate, but ALSO that people you DONT 'authorize' (for biased and self-servimg reasons), their opinion - regardless of attempted scholarship - is invalid, because you say so.
Im not accusing you of bein born a man but claiming to be a woman an expecting everyone to respect it, Im sayin your argument is on par with theirs and has equal legitimacy. "I demand you see me this way, I dont care what people putside my 'niche' say about it". Helluva hill to die on
>>22448
>Ever had a DnD character?
Have you ever made an character in an computer RPG game? Creating one does not mean you identify as that character. It only means you made a character to play with and try out different tactics and game mechanics with. It is not an identity, it is a character distinct from yourself. Same as in DnD. If you identify as that charachter you need help.
>Ever had a DnD character?
Have you ever made an character in an computer RPG game? Creating one does not mean you identify as that character. It only means you made a character to play with and try out different tactics and game mechanics with. It is not an identity, it is a character distinct from yourself. Same as in DnD. If you identify as that charachter you need help.
>>22453
Identification need not apply. If you are willing to get etymologically technical, regardless of how in-synch OR divergent the persona is from (you), performing as an alternate personality (the route word of persona) is all there is to it.
Theres a reason RPGs are hugely embraced by furries, and while I dont know the specific demographics, theres easily as many furries who have one sole fursona as there are who have a few, a handful, or a dozen. Describing a fursona as a self-insert isnt inaccurate in SOME cases, but theres a not-insignificant percent that doesnt identify with their fursonas at ALL, but are invested toward them.
You know, like horsefuckers and fixating on the mane 6 (not a criticism).
Identification need not apply. If you are willing to get etymologically technical, regardless of how in-synch OR divergent the persona is from (you), performing as an alternate personality (the route word of persona) is all there is to it.
Theres a reason RPGs are hugely embraced by furries, and while I dont know the specific demographics, theres easily as many furries who have one sole fursona as there are who have a few, a handful, or a dozen. Describing a fursona as a self-insert isnt inaccurate in SOME cases, but theres a not-insignificant percent that doesnt identify with their fursonas at ALL, but are invested toward them.
You know, like horsefuckers and fixating on the mane 6 (not a criticism).
>>22452
>Persona: a role or character adopted by an author, actor, etc. or in a game.
A Fursona is a recurring self-insert character.
A d&d chart that you play as for one adventure and then retire is just a character.
>Persona: a role or character adopted by an author, actor, etc. or in a game.
A Fursona is a recurring self-insert character.
A d&d chart that you play as for one adventure and then retire is just a character.
>>22452
>their opinion - regardless of attempted scholarship - is invalid
Yes. They do not define us.
For what reason should I accept definitions from people who don't even know our fandom?
>your argument is on par with theirs and has equal legitimacy
I don't care who you compare us to. You're full of shit.
>I demand you see me this way
I don't care what normies see me as. That ship sailed a decade ago. It is you who brought up the discussion.
>their opinion - regardless of attempted scholarship - is invalid
Yes. They do not define us.
For what reason should I accept definitions from people who don't even know our fandom?
>your argument is on par with theirs and has equal legitimacy
I don't care who you compare us to. You're full of shit.
>I demand you see me this way
I don't care what normies see me as. That ship sailed a decade ago. It is you who brought up the discussion.
>>22455
But it isnt. There are some yes, who persist in the perpetuity of theirfursona charachter, but notably many dont. Theyre still BOTH personas, that the individual habituates.
>>22456
>If ur not like me, you cant know me
Again, the troon assertion is validated
>you brought up the discussion
Sorry for being real in your safespace, then
>>22457
Not my allegation Anyone can roleplay without being a furry.
But, its hard to roleplay as a furry animal (ponies for example) and LEGITIMATELY claim to not be furry
But it isnt. There are some yes, who persist in the perpetuity of their
>>22456
>If ur not like me, you cant know me
Again, the troon assertion is validated
>you brought up the discussion
Sorry for being real in your safespace, then
>>22457
Not my allegation Anyone can roleplay without being a furry.
But, its hard to roleplay as a furry animal (ponies for example) and LEGITIMATELY claim to not be furry
>>22458
You know, I can see clear as day that you've only been associated with the pony random for 6 years (only joined after the fandom was declining; didn't witness how it was built), but I'm starting to question how long you've even been a furry. You seem to have a lot of blatant disregard for the specific parameters and traits of BOTH fandoms, favoring soulless generalist definitions based on the first result on jewgle.
>its hard to roleplay as a furry animal (ponies for example)
Most pony fans don't roleplay as ponies. That's a rather small minority.
You know, I can see clear as day that you've only been associated with the pony random for 6 years (only joined after the fandom was declining; didn't witness how it was built), but I'm starting to question how long you've even been a furry. You seem to have a lot of blatant disregard for the specific parameters and traits of BOTH fandoms, favoring soulless generalist definitions based on the first result on jewgle.
>its hard to roleplay as a furry animal (ponies for example)
Most pony fans don't roleplay as ponies. That's a rather small minority.
Anonymous
No.22460
Anonymous
No.22465
>>22459
>pony random
lol
>using the verifiable definition of words to establish concepts is soul-less generalizing
So sorry that Oxford refutes your personal truth. Maybe if you asked yourself the question "What of I have it wrong?" and did some honest investigation, you could avoid struggling to call someone a doodie-head on the internet because their words get your panties twisted.
>most pony fans don't roleplay
Ever heard of Pony Town, as but one example? Here's a better example:
How many pony fans have a dedicated/declared waifu? How is individually identifying with - to the degree of feeling 'correct' in prescribing what said waifu would say, do, think, etc. - not a form of roleplay?
>pony random
lol
>using the verifiable definition of words to establish concepts is soul-less generalizing
So sorry that Oxford refutes your personal truth. Maybe if you asked yourself the question "What of I have it wrong?" and did some honest investigation, you could avoid struggling to call someone a doodie-head on the internet because their words get your panties twisted.
>most pony fans don't roleplay
Ever heard of Pony Town, as but one example? Here's a better example:
How many pony fans have a dedicated/declared waifu? How is individually identifying with - to the degree of feeling 'correct' in prescribing what said waifu would say, do, think, etc. - not a form of roleplay?
Imo, pony fans have more on common with anime fans than they do with furries. More common origins on imageboards too.
>>22466
Pony fans are furries. Anime fans are weebs. It's common to be either a furry or a weeb without displaying any of the stereotypical behaviors of either group, and is the norm if you look at the statistics. What is NOT the case is trying to divide the group into subgroups to then claim that theres separation. Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
Pony fans are furries. Anime fans are weebs. It's common to be either a furry or a weeb without displaying any of the stereotypical behaviors of either group, and is the norm if you look at the statistics. What is NOT the case is trying to divide the group into subgroups to then claim that theres separation. Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
>>22467
>What is NOT the case is trying to divide the group into subgroups to then claim that theres separation.
-T. Nu furry (Thinks neko == furry)
>What is NOT the case is trying to divide the group into subgroups to then claim that theres separation.
-T. Nu furry (Thinks neko == furry)
>>22467
>It's common to be either a furry or a weeb without displaying any of the stereotypical behaviors of either group
No. Weeb is defined by its behavior. A person who watches and enjoys anime is not necessarily a weeb.
>It's common to be either a furry or a weeb without displaying any of the stereotypical behaviors of either group
No. Weeb is defined by its behavior. A person who watches and enjoys anime is not necessarily a weeb.
>>22467
>Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
Furry is not the entire concept of anthropomorphization. Otherwise Egyptians and Hindus and cave-painters would all also be furries.
>Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
Furry is not the entire concept of anthropomorphization. Otherwise Egyptians and Hindus and cave-painters would all also be furries.
>>22458
The point is your appeals to authority are lacking, they have no nuance. They can't have nuance else fitting what bronies, horsefuckers and furries falls apart.
Those nuances mean lumping everybody in one group is disastrous.
Consider Africans. Black and white Africans. They're both African, live in the same areas*. *For a time.
What could possibly be the difference? You should already know.
Those little details matter.
But good enough for gubbermemt work right?
So why so much pushback about a tiny minuscule detail about this?
Because the truth matters.
Horsefuckers aren't furries, it's an orange to purple distinction. While red might be in both that's a higher more fundamental color.
Red is character design, the history of western animation cartooning, the medium of media.
Yellow is the desired traits one wishes to see in the world, and possibly themselves.
Blue is extraversion of themselves.
What I'm getting at is the projection is typically furry. A social coloration.
Horsefuckers aren't that. It's not about signaling anything it's about the fundamentals.
The how and why are different. The what is blurred, because for some things the how and why don't matter that much.
Conventions have events spiraling quickly out of hand with each and every nudge.
Consider Trotcon 23 to Mare Fair.
Both could technically be considered pony centric.
Trotcon features everything else G5 and all that.
Mare Fair: HERE LIES MLP:FIM NEVER GOT A THIRD SEASON
>We know the ride will never end.
>we'll just rewatch it all again!
>we won't leave for another show
I'd describe mare schizo chads as a surgical knife made cleaver and a cleaver made surgical knife.
Furries are rolling pins.
Nothing wrong in and of being a rolling pin, but a surgical cleaver and chopping surgery blade aren't a rolling pin.
You don't put rolling pins in a knife block. You don't hone a rolling pin.
>>22467
>Pony fans are furries. Anime fans are weebs.
You're missing the point repeatedly. You're conflating groups that make no sense historically or chronologically.
Anime fan existed before weebs.
Japanese nationalists existed before weebs.
Cartoon fans existed before furries.
Fans of good morals existed before furries.
Fans of good stories existed before furries.
Fans of characterized anthropomorphism existed before furries.
Furries are about the anthropomorphism in a group all about it. It would make sense then that they would claim all anthropomorphic things as their own. And say so widely and broadly.
Normal fags don't think of the implications.
Horsefuckers don't derive from furries. Made of common elements of ideals, stories, morals, art style.
Had MLP:FIM not done stylized mythical miniature horses and kept everything else the same.
Horsefuckers would still be in that other MLP:FIM, because of all the other factors which in this case matter more.
At most you could claim due to some similar origins they are cousins.
>What is NOT the case is trying to divide the group into subgroups to then claim that theres separation.
I'm claiming the conception of Horsefuckers make it a different family who share great grandparents with furries.
>Muh definition
Is absolute garbage it doesn't have enough truth in it to be unassailable and ability to provide good things.
People standing up for truth because even the little parts matter and so does the bigger parts.
Horsefuckers arn't furries. If you use garbage definitions and say that's the gold standard to measure everything by. Have fun, but nobody will trade with you except empty platitudes to have you stop wasting time trying to buy stuff with monopoly counterfeit money.
The point is your appeals to authority are lacking, they have no nuance. They can't have nuance else fitting what bronies, horsefuckers and furries falls apart.
Those nuances mean lumping everybody in one group is disastrous.
Consider Africans. Black and white Africans. They're both African, live in the same areas*. *For a time.
What could possibly be the difference? You should already know.
Those little details matter.
But good enough for gubbermemt work right?
So why so much pushback about a tiny minuscule detail about this?
Because the truth matters.
Horsefuckers aren't furries, it's an orange to purple distinction. While red might be in both that's a higher more fundamental color.
Red is character design, the history of western animation cartooning, the medium of media.
Yellow is the desired traits one wishes to see in the world, and possibly themselves.
Blue is extraversion of themselves.
What I'm getting at is the projection is typically furry. A social coloration.
Horsefuckers aren't that. It's not about signaling anything it's about the fundamentals.
The how and why are different. The what is blurred, because for some things the how and why don't matter that much.
Conventions have events spiraling quickly out of hand with each and every nudge.
Consider Trotcon 23 to Mare Fair.
Both could technically be considered pony centric.
Trotcon features everything else G5 and all that.
Mare Fair: HERE LIES MLP:FIM NEVER GOT A THIRD SEASON
>We know the ride will never end.
>we'll just rewatch it all again!
>we won't leave for another show
I'd describe mare schizo chads as a surgical knife made cleaver and a cleaver made surgical knife.
Furries are rolling pins.
Nothing wrong in and of being a rolling pin, but a surgical cleaver and chopping surgery blade aren't a rolling pin.
You don't put rolling pins in a knife block. You don't hone a rolling pin.
>>22467
>Pony fans are furries. Anime fans are weebs.
You're missing the point repeatedly. You're conflating groups that make no sense historically or chronologically.
Anime fan existed before weebs.
Japanese nationalists existed before weebs.
Cartoon fans existed before furries.
Fans of good morals existed before furries.
Fans of good stories existed before furries.
Fans of characterized anthropomorphism existed before furries.
Furries are about the anthropomorphism in a group all about it. It would make sense then that they would claim all anthropomorphic things as their own. And say so widely and broadly.
Normal fags don't think of the implications.
Horsefuckers don't derive from furries. Made of common elements of ideals, stories, morals, art style.
Had MLP:FIM not done stylized mythical miniature horses and kept everything else the same.
Horsefuckers would still be in that other MLP:FIM, because of all the other factors which in this case matter more.
At most you could claim due to some similar origins they are cousins.
>What is NOT the case is trying to divide the group into subgroups to then claim that theres separation.
I'm claiming the conception of Horsefuckers make it a different family who share great grandparents with furries.
>Muh definition
Is absolute garbage it doesn't have enough truth in it to be unassailable and ability to provide good things.
People standing up for truth because even the little parts matter and so does the bigger parts.
Horsefuckers arn't furries. If you use garbage definitions and say that's the gold standard to measure everything by. Have fun, but nobody will trade with you except empty platitudes to have you stop wasting time trying to buy stuff with monopoly counterfeit money.
>>22467
>gatekeeping
Wow, I thought you "werent" a furry
>>22469
Precisely what a weeb in denial would say
>>22470
Oh, but it is, asfar as interest groups go. Egyptians and Hindus have a religious component, designed to convey wisdom, understanding, and how to correctly orient themselves in the world, but yeah you could describe them as niche furries.
>>22472
You literally just proved my point: White or Black africans are a subcategory of Africans. Just as say, Horsefuckers and Fursuiters are separate subcategories of Furry.
I know its easy to get distracted by all those trees, but thats the forest you're trying to niggle out of.
Dont worry, Ill read the rest when I get a moment
>gatekeeping
Wow, I thought you "werent" a furry
>>22469
Precisely what a weeb in denial would say
>>22470
Oh, but it is, asfar as interest groups go. Egyptians and Hindus have a religious component, designed to convey wisdom, understanding, and how to correctly orient themselves in the world, but yeah you could describe them as niche furries.
>>22472
You literally just proved my point: White or Black africans are a subcategory of Africans. Just as say, Horsefuckers and Fursuiters are separate subcategories of Furry.
I know its easy to get distracted by all those trees, but thats the forest you're trying to niggle out of.
Dont worry, Ill read the rest when I get a moment
>>22473
>I thought you "werent" a furry
Furries don't gatekeep. They come into obscure pony boards and proselytize their fandom to people who didn't ask for it.
>I thought you "werent" a furry
Furries don't gatekeep. They come into obscure pony boards and proselytize their fandom to people who didn't ask for it.
>>22473
>what a weeb in denial would say
Most people in first world countries born after the 80s have seen and enjoyed multiple anime. That doesn't make them all weebs.
>what a weeb in denial would say
Most people in first world countries born after the 80s have seen and enjoyed multiple anime. That doesn't make them all weebs.
File (): 621491300615B065441C049B9C14B436-2299774.gif (2.2 MB, 498x399, my-little-pony-eye-roll.gif)
>>22473
>but yeah you could describe them as niche furries
Okay, I see that practically everything is furry to you.
>but yeah you could describe them as niche furries
Okay, I see that practically everything is furry to you.
Anonymous
No.22477
>>22474
>they come into obscure furry boards centered on ponies
FTFY
>proselytize
Divesting people of their ignorance (if they can stomach it,...) is never proselytizing, but you've already shown remarkable intellectual honesty so no surprise there.
>>22475
Do they then identify as a fan of anime?
>>22476
In that Furry is the all-encompassing term
How's y'all'sfursona doing?
>they come into obscure furry boards centered on ponies
FTFY
>proselytize
Divesting people of their ignorance (if they can stomach it,...) is never proselytizing, but you've already shown remarkable intellectual honesty so no surprise there.
>>22475
Do they then identify as a fan of anime?
>>22476
In that Furry is the all-encompassing term
How's y'all's
>>22473
>White or Black africans are a subcategory of African
African is a geographic location, not an identity, fandom or even group association. No white African denies being African, even though calling them African may be misleading to those who expect someone black.
However, if you ask a white African his race/ethnicity, he'd tell you he's racially Anglo or Dutch Afrikaanz.
>t. Descended from white Africans
Heck, a lot of the various types of niggers in Africa don't even like how others group them all together as niggers. West Africans Bantus (the niggers that American slaves came from), are not Kalahari Bushmen (who aren't even blacks but red, and are only like 4 ft tall); the Bantus in fact all but exterminated the Bushmen. Abyssinian (Ethiopians; basically look like whites with black skin) don't like being considered the same race as the big-lipped, chimpanzee-skulled Bantus. These groups all consider themselves to be different races; it is only outsiders who consider them one group, only for the purpose of separating "white" from "colored".
Of course, as a non-nigger outsider, I wouldn't care about calling them all "niggers", as even though they reject being called the same race, but I also wouldn't go up to them insisting that they should all call themselves the same thing under the "umbrella term" and accept my vague definitions of what is black; because despite them being niggers I still have a shred of respect for people who recognize the independence of their race.
>White or Black africans are a subcategory of African
African is a geographic location, not an identity, fandom or even group association. No white African denies being African, even though calling them African may be misleading to those who expect someone black.
However, if you ask a white African his race/ethnicity, he'd tell you he's racially Anglo or Dutch Afrikaanz.
>t. Descended from white Africans
Heck, a lot of the various types of niggers in Africa don't even like how others group them all together as niggers. West Africans Bantus (the niggers that American slaves came from), are not Kalahari Bushmen (who aren't even blacks but red, and are only like 4 ft tall); the Bantus in fact all but exterminated the Bushmen. Abyssinian (Ethiopians; basically look like whites with black skin) don't like being considered the same race as the big-lipped, chimpanzee-skulled Bantus. These groups all consider themselves to be different races; it is only outsiders who consider them one group, only for the purpose of separating "white" from "colored".
Of course, as a non-nigger outsider, I wouldn't care about calling them all "niggers", as even though they reject being called the same race, but I also wouldn't go up to them insisting that they should all call themselves the same thing under the "umbrella term" and accept my vague definitions of what is black; because despite them being niggers I still have a shred of respect for people who recognize the independence of their race.
Anonymous
No.22480
>>22473
The country of Africa represents animation. The farmers have made something of the land.
>You literally just proved my point
That the words you proclaim are true are lacking in nearly every metric.
>Divesting people of their ignorance
Had you used something that has more truth in it that could have been useful. Instead you're suckered into the veneer of fools gold.
>Do they then identify as a fan of anime?
They qualify as people who happened to experienced something.
>In that Furry is the all-encompassing term
Keep using worthless paper nobody will trade with. Then when you crow about how you were right that nobody will bother trading, it's that you're offering valueless trades.
The country of Africa represents animation. The farmers have made something of the land.
>You literally just proved my point
That the words you proclaim are true are lacking in nearly every metric.
>Divesting people of their ignorance
Had you used something that has more truth in it that could have been useful. Instead you're suckered into the veneer of fools gold.
>Do they then identify as a fan of anime?
They qualify as people who happened to experienced something.
>In that Furry is the all-encompassing term
Keep using worthless paper nobody will trade with. Then when you crow about how you were right that nobody will bother trading, it's that you're offering valueless trades.
Anonymous
No.22481
File (): 34E65A88449BA65E62C8DB78ED394A26-2165541.png (2.1 MB, 2000x2000, 1579569736441-0.png)
File (): D1AB088944C619707E5BD695D1C70A63-44924.jpg (43.9 KB, 680x531, CE5682BA08629CF4240ACE7FF8EAB4F4-44906.jpg)
File (): 3842204F85C5C0A6CA3F9B4742C6BD43-22335.jpg (21.8 KB, 280x280, 6597566.jpg)
>>22478
A Waifu is not a fursona
A fursona is a personalized character; usually a self-insert.
A Waifu is often just a character from a piece of media. It is almost never a self-insert (except among the /ptfg/ trannies who wants to be one Fluttershy).
They can overlap, but they are not the same.
A Waifu is not a fursona
A fursona is a personalized character; usually a self-insert.
A Waifu is often just a character from a piece of media. It is almost never a self-insert (except among the /ptfg/ trannies who wants to be one Fluttershy).
They can overlap, but they are not the same.
>>22482
Wrong. A fursona is a character, nothing more. I reiterate that people in some cases have dozens of fursonas, and its become increasingly prevalent to purchase ("adopt") premade fursonas without any involvement of the purchaser.
A waifu is a character that one adopts, and ostensibly role-plays with on a quasi-internal level. Different facets on the same stone.
Wrong. A fursona is a character, nothing more. I reiterate that people in some cases have dozens of fursonas, and its become increasingly prevalent to purchase ("adopt") premade fursonas without any involvement of the purchaser.
A waifu is a character that one adopts, and ostensibly role-plays with on a quasi-internal level. Different facets on the same stone.
>>22483
Then all characters are fursonas.
Once again you're incorrect stop being dumb to do a little trolling.
Then all characters are fursonas.
Once again you're incorrect stop being dumb to do a little trolling.
>>22484
No, all animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities are furry. For example, theres the Fox and the Hound; foxes and a doggo who speak to eachother in english, or the Lion King where all manner of animals speak English to one another. Then there's Robin Hood (the fox one), where bipedal animals speak and interact like humans (with the exception of snek) or Zootopia, where likewise is true. My Little Pony is somewhere between those examples, but no less furry.
No, all animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities are furry. For example, theres the Fox and the Hound; foxes and a doggo who speak to eachother in english, or the Lion King where all manner of animals speak English to one another. Then there's Robin Hood (the fox one), where bipedal animals speak and interact like humans (with the exception of snek) or Zootopia, where likewise is true. My Little Pony is somewhere between those examples, but no less furry.
>>22486
Yes, that is how I responded to the assertion that a fursona is a personalized character. The emphasis of being an anthropomorphic animal has already been well established, if you have been paying attention.
Yes, that is how I responded to the assertion that a fursona is a personalized character. The emphasis of being an anthropomorphic animal has already been well established, if you have been paying attention.
Anonymous
No.22490
>>22488
Not at all, there is nothing implicit or explicit about the term Persona that implies personalization, even though the etymology is similar. When you play Dark Souls, you are playing a persona. If for some reason that persona was an anthropomorphic animal, THEN it would be furry.
Not at all, there is nothing implicit or explicit about the term Persona that implies personalization, even though the etymology is similar. When you play Dark Souls, you are playing a persona. If for some reason that persona was an anthropomorphic animal, THEN it would be furry.
>>22489
So you admit that you observed the specification, and that you're being disingenuous. You may not like my assertions, but outside logical fallacies, you cant refute them
So you admit that you observed the specification, and that you're being disingenuous. You may not like my assertions, but outside logical fallacies, you cant refute them
>>22467
>Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
No it isn't.
For instance, take this actual furry's video here. He ultimately defines furries as "an international queer art movement," or something to that effect. He doesn't even mention anthropomorphic animals in his definition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovu8VK3NeX4&pp=ygUjcGx1c2ggZG9lc24ndCBrbm93IHdoYXQgZnVycmllcyBhcmU%3D
>>22448
>MLP has ALWAYS been furry content, in that the internet has decided thats the criteria.
Literally no it doesn't. Most people on the internet don't think bronies are furries, and no one except you thinks that every single children's movie or work of literature that features a talking animal is furry.
>>22473
>Egyptians and Hindus have a religious component, designed to convey wisdom, understanding, and how to correctly orient themselves in the world, but yeah you could describe them as niche furries.
*Furries are niche Egyptians
ftfy
>>22485
>No, all animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities are furry. For example, theres the Fox and the Hound; foxes and a doggo who speak to eachother in english, or the Lion King where all manner of animals speak English to one another. Then there's Robin Hood (the fox one), where bipedal animals speak and interact like humans (with the exception of snek) or Zootopia, where likewise is true. My Little Pony is somewhere between those examples, but no less furry.
Is this a troll post? These things are blatantly not furry, and most of the things you named existed long before the furry fandom.
In any case, you've been equivocating the meaning of the term "anthropomorphic." As applied to furries, it means what the great term literally translates to: human form. It means animals given a human shape. But you've been using a different and broader definition of the term to try to force disney characters to be furry - the meaning of an animal given any kind of human quality. But that isn't what the term "anthropomophic" means as applied to furries.
>Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
No it isn't.
For instance, take this actual furry's video here. He ultimately defines furries as "an international queer art movement," or something to that effect. He doesn't even mention anthropomorphic animals in his definition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovu8VK3NeX4&pp=ygUjcGx1c2ggZG9lc24ndCBrbm93IHdoYXQgZnVycmllcyBhcmU%3D
>>22448
>MLP has ALWAYS been furry content, in that the internet has decided thats the criteria.
Literally no it doesn't. Most people on the internet don't think bronies are furries, and no one except you thinks that every single children's movie or work of literature that features a talking animal is furry.
>>22473
>Egyptians and Hindus have a religious component, designed to convey wisdom, understanding, and how to correctly orient themselves in the world, but yeah you could describe them as niche furries.
*Furries are niche Egyptians
ftfy
>>22485
>No, all animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities are furry. For example, theres the Fox and the Hound; foxes and a doggo who speak to eachother in english, or the Lion King where all manner of animals speak English to one another. Then there's Robin Hood (the fox one), where bipedal animals speak and interact like humans (with the exception of snek) or Zootopia, where likewise is true. My Little Pony is somewhere between those examples, but no less furry.
Is this a troll post? These things are blatantly not furry, and most of the things you named existed long before the furry fandom.
In any case, you've been equivocating the meaning of the term "anthropomorphic." As applied to furries, it means what the great term literally translates to: human form. It means animals given a human shape. But you've been using a different and broader definition of the term to try to force disney characters to be furry - the meaning of an animal given any kind of human quality. But that isn't what the term "anthropomophic" means as applied to furries.
Anonymous
No.22493
>>22492
Sure bud, Im gonna sit through an hour long video where a guy objects to a comic about cannibalization, HOPING to find what you claim is a point.
No, Im gonna revert to the wealth of demographics provided by furscience. Nice try tho.
>furry movies arent furry
There wasnt that classification before, thats true. There is now though. You're welcome to try and establish a different term. Good luck. (Fun fact, I used those specific examples because they are some of the most commonly cited examples of media that led furries to being furries)
>Furries are niche egyptians
No, Egyptians worshipped/exalted specific deified individuals who were reported to have animalistic traits some of the time (reported as appearing human at some instances, and animal-headed at others). For one, there is a degree of religious prescription in that. For two, depending on how literally one interprets the stories, these were figurative and considered iconographical, but still subject to worship. I mean, if you wanna get THAT general, then in that they were deified constructs, Jesus was a furry (except not, cuz not animal, but definitely furry adjacent, if youre gonna spin furries as Egyptian).
Anthropomorphic ANIMALS. Animals, being a specific and intrinsic aspect to the equation, yes; furries are animals that display one or more degrees of human form, be it social, physiological, etc.
Glad you joined the discussion L (kek, never made that connection before)
Sure bud, Im gonna sit through an hour long video where a guy objects to a comic about cannibalization, HOPING to find what you claim is a point.
No, Im gonna revert to the wealth of demographics provided by furscience. Nice try tho.
>furry movies arent furry
There wasnt that classification before, thats true. There is now though. You're welcome to try and establish a different term. Good luck. (Fun fact, I used those specific examples because they are some of the most commonly cited examples of media that led furries to being furries)
>Furries are niche egyptians
No, Egyptians worshipped/exalted specific deified individuals who were reported to have animalistic traits some of the time (reported as appearing human at some instances, and animal-headed at others). For one, there is a degree of religious prescription in that. For two, depending on how literally one interprets the stories, these were figurative and considered iconographical, but still subject to worship. I mean, if you wanna get THAT general, then in that they were deified constructs, Jesus was a furry (except not, cuz not animal, but definitely furry adjacent, if youre gonna spin furries as Egyptian).
Anthropomorphic ANIMALS. Animals, being a specific and intrinsic aspect to the equation, yes; furries are animals that display one or more degrees of human form, be it social, physiological, etc.
Glad you joined the discussion L (kek, never made that connection before)
Anonymous
No.22494
>>22492
>furries
>"an international queer art movement,"
>video of cannibal furries
More satanic cannot get, I guess.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
>furries
>"an international queer art movement,"
>video of cannibal furries
More satanic cannot get, I guess.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Anonymous
No.22495
Heres some SHORT references for y'all
https://youtube.com/shorts/nXHqLLSKsRQ?si=qo5ym41IVS20gLvj
>What is a furry
https://youtube.com/shorts/Fz_1COj4s2o?si=g3QwMGkb4SMe6lwn
>What is a fursona
You'll notice that the individuals represented have both been Guests of Honor at one or more furry conventions (not to mention their followings on YT, Insta, etc), rather than being a niche 'literally who?'
https://youtube.com/shorts/nXHqLLSKsRQ?si=qo5ym41IVS20gLvj
>What is a furry
https://youtube.com/shorts/Fz_1COj4s2o?si=g3QwMGkb4SMe6lwn
>What is a fursona
You'll notice that the individuals represented have both been Guests of Honor at one or more furry conventions (not to mention their followings on YT, Insta, etc), rather than being a niche 'literally who?'
Anonymous
No.22496
I should clarify, the niche 'literally who' refers to the comic artist,, not the videographer
Anonymous
No.22497
Fuck it, Ive got a moment.
The videographer talking about the cannibal comic, he described the furry fandom based on his experiences with it. I wont contest theres a strong LGBTQ+ presence among furries (likewise can be said of horsefuckers and/or 'bronies'), but thats an intrinsically biased analysis. Why?
Because people tend to gravitate toward aspects of a mass grouping that conform to their expectations and preference, and away from the antithesis.
This is why individuals ITT can make claims about what the Pony fandom 'is' in defiance of numerous examples that defy their attempted classification.
The problem is, outside due diligence one can make the mistake of assuming that their experience is endemic of the whole. This is why I assert furscience as a source, because they have done the legwork of taking a mass of samples and perspectives and aggregated them into a general consensus. When I say "Ponies are furry", Im not speaking from the perspective of opinion, Im speaking the results of analysis of the data. Yes, I can be observed to make generalizations, I dont shy away from that; In the same sense that "everyone from 4chan is a weeb", everyone who is a horsefucker/ponyfag (Im shocked at how often people refer to the group as 'bronies') is a furry.
Call yourself 'adjacent' if it makes you less bothered. Split your hairs; I said before, you do you. But, I'll gladly mete any denialism with rhetoric, facts, and references, for any who want to argue the point.
>tl;dr This exercise ends the moment y'all resign yourself to the fact that you can't win the argument, even if you can't likewise lose it
Later furries!
The videographer talking about the cannibal comic, he described the furry fandom based on his experiences with it. I wont contest theres a strong LGBTQ+ presence among furries (likewise can be said of horsefuckers and/or 'bronies'), but thats an intrinsically biased analysis. Why?
Because people tend to gravitate toward aspects of a mass grouping that conform to their expectations and preference, and away from the antithesis.
This is why individuals ITT can make claims about what the Pony fandom 'is' in defiance of numerous examples that defy their attempted classification.
The problem is, outside due diligence one can make the mistake of assuming that their experience is endemic of the whole. This is why I assert furscience as a source, because they have done the legwork of taking a mass of samples and perspectives and aggregated them into a general consensus. When I say "Ponies are furry", Im not speaking from the perspective of opinion, Im speaking the results of analysis of the data. Yes, I can be observed to make generalizations, I dont shy away from that; In the same sense that "everyone from 4chan is a weeb", everyone who is a horsefucker/ponyfag (Im shocked at how often people refer to the group as 'bronies') is a furry.
Call yourself 'adjacent' if it makes you less bothered. Split your hairs; I said before, you do you. But, I'll gladly mete any denialism with rhetoric, facts, and references, for any who want to argue the point.
>tl;dr This exercise ends the moment y'all resign yourself to the fact that you can't win the argument, even if you can't likewise lose it
Later furries!
Anonymous
No.22499
>>22472
Also, I went back and read your diatribe. Not impressed. I wont fixate on each and every logical fallacy (numerous nat they are), instead I'll say simply: they didnt USED to be call weebs, but they are now.
Also, I went back and read your diatribe. Not impressed. I wont fixate on each and every logical fallacy (numerous nat they are), instead I'll say simply: they didnt USED to be call weebs, but they are now.
>>22498
As I just said, Im not gonna address every/all fallacy, and if you dont know that its a fallacy, its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries; we have enough disingenuous troublemakers as is ^_~
As I just said, Im not gonna address every/all fallacy, and if you dont know that its a fallacy, its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries; we have enough disingenuous troublemakers as is ^_~
>>22500
You say we "can't refute them", and yet you skip past the refutations. To me, it sounds more like it's you who cannot refute the arguments.
You say we "can't refute them", and yet you skip past the refutations. To me, it sounds more like it's you who cannot refute the arguments.
>>22501
If (you) cant recognize your own logical fallacies, no; Im not going to expend the time and effort to educate you. You (should) know better by now
If (you) cant recognize your own logical fallacies, no; Im not going to expend the time and effort to educate you. You (should) know better by now
>>22502
You won't because you can't. It's so transparent.
You claim to win an argument when ignoring half of the other side's arguments, particularly those that you can't refute. And you expect people to take you seriously.
It's all so tiresome.
You won't because you can't. It's so transparent.
You claim to win an argument when ignoring half of the other side's arguments, particularly those that you can't refute. And you expect people to take you seriously.
It's all so tiresome.
Anonymous
No.22506
>>22500
>its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries
Good.
Keep away from us as well.
>its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries
Good.
Keep away from us as well.
>>22505
I wont because I already have. If y'all stepped outside your carefully guarded ideas of what a 'horsefucker' or 'brony' or wtfe "is" and took a careful look at the wealth of available evidence (including evidence not presented, cuz if I was wrong it would be simple to find furry/non-furry sources to refute) THEN attempted to make an argument, it would be evident.
But you haven't, and you won't.
I'll reiterate: nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.
I wont because I already have. If y'all stepped outside your carefully guarded ideas of what a 'horsefucker' or 'brony' or wtfe "is" and took a careful look at the wealth of available evidence (including evidence not presented, cuz if I was wrong it would be simple to find furry/non-furry sources to refute) THEN attempted to make an argument, it would be evident.
But you haven't, and you won't.
I'll reiterate: nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.
>>22508
>already have
No you didn't.
Scroll up in the thread. There's more then a dozen carefully crafted arguments that you either did not reply to or only replied to part of while ignoring the part that refuted your arguments.
And having already done something has never stopped you from redundantly repeating the same couple lines/points over and over in this threads.
>already have
No you didn't.
Scroll up in the thread. There's more then a dozen carefully crafted arguments that you either did not reply to or only replied to part of while ignoring the part that refuted your arguments.
And having already done something has never stopped you from redundantly repeating the same couple lines/points over and over in this threads.
>>22508
A couple Anons even refuted your arguments using the same information you presented in the "furry science" link.
A couple Anons even refuted your arguments using the same information you presented in the "furry science" link.
>>22511
Fine. Stop being a dumbass.
https://furscience.com/resources/
>Is my child a furry?
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not. Some furries will have fursuits, and others will not. Some will go to conventions or buy furry artwork. None of these is a necessary or sufficient condition to declare someone a furry. Like being a video gamer or a fan of a genre of music or a particular sport team, the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself—typically when your interest in anthropomorphic animal media is an important part of your identity. If your child really enjoys movies or books with talking animals, then they might consider themselves to be a furry. If you’ve always liked Daffy Duck or Disney’s Robin Hood, you might be a furry, too. As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
Fine. Stop being a dumbass.
https://furscience.com/resources/
>Is my child a furry?
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not. Some furries will have fursuits, and others will not. Some will go to conventions or buy furry artwork. None of these is a necessary or sufficient condition to declare someone a furry. Like being a video gamer or a fan of a genre of music or a particular sport team, the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself—typically when your interest in anthropomorphic animal media is an important part of your identity. If your child really enjoys movies or books with talking animals, then they might consider themselves to be a furry. If you’ve always liked Daffy Duck or Disney’s Robin Hood, you might be a furry, too. As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>>22512
Thats been my point from the beginning. But, I also assert that having been made aware of all this (read: nescience is disspelled) one is either a furry, or in denial of being a furry.
Thats been my point from the beginning. But, I also assert that having been made aware of all this (read: nescience is disspelled) one is either a furry, or in denial of being a furry.
>>22513
If the point is one that you apply to yourself, that makes it inherently subjective. You cannot be "in denial" of a subjective aspect.
If the point is one that you apply to yourself, that makes it inherently subjective. You cannot be "in denial" of a subjective aspect.
>>22513
No. Your point is that Horsefuckers, bronies, ect. are furries.
The definition with the source you said is up to your standard.
<As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
So no. Horsefuckers are not furries.
Furries can be bronies or whatever fucking else. But it does not work the other way around.
No. Your point is that Horsefuckers, bronies, ect. are furries.
The definition with the source you said is up to your standard.
<As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
So no. Horsefuckers are not furries.
Furries can be bronies or whatever fucking else. But it does not work the other way around.
Anonymous
No.22517
(at least, he horsefuckers ITT, so far)
>>22514
Is it not logical to observe that a person who is categorically a furry, and has been appraised of what a furry is, is in denial?
Is it not logical to observe that a person who is categorically a furry, and has been appraised of what a furry is, is in denial?
>>22516
How can you be in denial of something that is dependent on your personal acceptance of it? That's an oxymoron.
>>22518
The key factor is self-identification. The interest with some anthro animals, according to the source that YOU provided, is not enough on its own. People who do not identify as furries are categorically not furries.
How can you be in denial of something that is dependent on your personal acceptance of it? That's an oxymoron.
>>22518
The key factor is self-identification. The interest with some anthro animals, according to the source that YOU provided, is not enough on its own. People who do not identify as furries are categorically not furries.
>>22519
Ask yourself. Youve been well appraised by this point, how can (YOU) be in denial?
Self-identification, AFTER a sufficiently thorough explanation is the DIFFERENCE between whether one is a furry or in denial
Ask yourself. Youve been well appraised by this point, how can (YOU) be in denial?
Self-identification, AFTER a sufficiently thorough explanation is the DIFFERENCE between whether one is a furry or in denial
>>22518
You are so full of shit.
You come here and demand that we accept what you consider to be an authoritative source for the definition ("Trust the science!") and then you contradict the very same source when further scrutiny reveals it to be inconsistent with your point.
According to the "furry scientist", we are not furries unless we say so. The fact that we do not say so is proof enough by itself that we are not furries. This, on top of all the other points we've made about the distinguishing factors between ourselves and furries is more than enough proof that we are not.
>>22520
Your source says nothing about being "in denial" is says not to label a person as furry unless they decide it for themselves.
You are so full of shit.
You come here and demand that we accept what you consider to be an authoritative source for the definition ("Trust the science!") and then you contradict the very same source when further scrutiny reveals it to be inconsistent with your point.
According to the "furry scientist", we are not furries unless we say so. The fact that we do not say so is proof enough by itself that we are not furries. This, on top of all the other points we've made about the distinguishing factors between ourselves and furries is more than enough proof that we are not.
>>22520
Your source says nothing about being "in denial" is says not to label a person as furry unless they decide it for themselves.
>>22521
So, you're denying the logical conclusion that someone who presents a variety of furry characteristics can be observed to be a furry?
Because they dont self-identify?
(can you see the troon argument, about to rear it's ugly head?)
So, you're denying the logical conclusion that someone who presents a variety of furry characteristics can be observed to be a furry?
Because they dont self-identify?
(can you see the troon argument, about to rear it's ugly head?)
File (): 6059A468C9F6ACA84BA734B5B7E1CEF3-1259460.gif (1.2 MB, 329x406, caption-3.gif)
>>22523
You are making the troon argument that a girl who cuts her hair short and likes to play sports, or is otherwise nonconformance with the expectations of femininity must actually be a troon, and not just a tomboy, regardless of what she thinks.
The key factor is self identity. All the other characteristics are superficial, as furries do not share them all, and many other people express those characteristics without being furries. Without the key characteristic, none of the other characteristics matter.
You are making the troon argument that a girl who cuts her hair short and likes to play sports, or is otherwise nonconformance with the expectations of femininity must actually be a troon, and not just a tomboy, regardless of what she thinks.
The key factor is self identity. All the other characteristics are superficial, as furries do not share them all, and many other people express those characteristics without being furries. Without the key characteristic, none of the other characteristics matter.
>>22524
No, the troon argument is that "how I identify is more authentic/legitimate than the evidence that suggests Im not what I see myself as"
Like ponyfags pretending to not be furries
No, the troon argument is that "how I identify is more authentic/legitimate than the evidence that suggests Im not what I see myself as"
Like ponyfags pretending to not be furries
Anonymous
No.22529
>>22524
>"tomboys"
Degenerate all the same. Much like horstruckers. Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.
>"tomboys"
Degenerate all the same. Much like horstruckers. Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.
File (): CE0D98147A17B0FE0DD8D4FC58B1B38E-65447.png (63.9 KB, 1057x1280, Overwhelmingvictory.png)
File (): 891BAF24D619B425E2BAF6BC19D99B0B-3152107.jpg (3.0 MB, 4032x3024, NotFurry.jpg)
Here's the image summary of the thread. Sort of disappointed I was hoping it'd be more mentally stimulating. Good game.
File (): AF8CE5517A4C8E5939ECAE7E20ED24C0-618569.png (604.1 KB, 3768x2334, 2717544.png)
File (): 682CA37FE0D4A332DD0B43A9F5751C1A-75128.png (73.4 KB, 1280x720, NanoMarechinesSon.png)
>>22538
>>22537
I figured he already destroyed whatever he wanted to try to do and let bygones be bygones.
>>22512
Both the media MLP:FiM and horsefuckers and I suppose by extension bronies ect ect aren't furry. As detailed in the post using the recommended OP source.
Which means OP is a faggot because he's OP.
>>22537
I figured he already destroyed whatever he wanted to try to do and let bygones be bygones.
>>22512
Both the media MLP:FiM and horsefuckers and I suppose by extension bronies ect ect aren't furry. As detailed in the post using the recommended OP source.
Which means OP is a faggot because he's OP.
>>22532
Not me btw, in case y'all,... nevermind, you cant put 2 and 2 together anyway
>>22539
What furscience lacks is the willingness to be offensive. To their credit (but not of use in this scenario) they make allowances for self-identity and perspective and refuse to either reach and/or assert that one who specifically identifies as a member of a fandom that is observably furry but denies being a furry is thereby in denial. They actively avoid making such claims because they wish to remain as presentable as possible. Im under no such constraints/obligations.
But, keep posting ponies, keep having a waifu that is a pony, and keep pretending that ponies are somehow not furry; at this stage, you have the choice of acknowledging being a furry or pretending to not be. Pretty clear where (you)'re gonna go with it, but Ive done my due diligence.
Not me btw, in case y'all,... nevermind, you cant put 2 and 2 together anyway
>>22539
What furscience lacks is the willingness to be offensive. To their credit (but not of use in this scenario) they make allowances for self-identity and perspective and refuse to either reach and/or assert that one who specifically identifies as a member of a fandom that is observably furry but denies being a furry is thereby in denial. They actively avoid making such claims because they wish to remain as presentable as possible. Im under no such constraints/obligations.
But, keep posting ponies, keep having a waifu that is a pony, and keep pretending that ponies are somehow not furry; at this stage, you have the choice of acknowledging being a furry or pretending to not be. Pretty clear where (you)'re gonna go with it, but Ive done my due diligence.
File (): BC7EC1077E4088CAB49E8D77149D8D51-963701.png (941.1 KB, 774x809, 1538254063239.png)
File (): D977705C7E55847335D9C1DE3C15A954-82084.gif (80.2 KB, 720x480, 1538336682708.gif)
File (): 1A6AE5BF849E63FF39D7C2208A67930C-176612.jpg (172.5 KB, 650x650, 1QJxLkgKJz.jpg)
File (): E2390BD631AC0112388C8BD42C9A56C6-179631.jpg (175.4 KB, 1024x453, 1538401848345.jpg)
File (): BEE990BA73EE7362CFF5E80C437777BC-20754.jpg (20.3 KB, 700x535, 1538321762564.jpg)
>>22532
You don't even understand what a troon even is.
Based on DNA and organs born with an average person knows that is what the DNA and organs are and that they exist and matter.
Troons reject both. An irrefutable biological reality.
Even in the chance of DNA fuckups doesn't account for all of that. The side effects is their mind and body screaming to stop and reverse course. For a sizable proportion. Some are fine with the mutilations and chemical treatments compared to biological directives. That's their high risk choice which in turn may include higher mental aberrations.
As long as they don't force young innocents to chop shit off or drug them or violate them. I'd prefer to leave them to their closets.
...
The same applies to furries or any other group.
>Tomboys are icky cause I said so
Very impressive well cited deduction.
Again you're incorrect.
The generic and upbringing factors means tomboys are normal. Due to the world climate it's hard to categorize what are the largest factors for that occurring.
They don't tend to do that awful shit.
They also have functioning biological imperatives which mean they are less likely than the alphabet bbq groups of doing those awful things.
By hear say and deduction also lies likely to divorce rape however I need better citations.
I do mean tomboys in the full truism and rule of thumb that means.
>Degenerates
The use cases are about those that degrade the moral standings. It's anti-generative.
Which would mean without those it would be a neutral or positive (in effect) spiral.
Surprise surprise, the joke of a union is externally generative providing more moral strandings and protecting from outside factors.
As its a moral generation rather than a headcount accumulator. People on average are better off having interacted with. With moral generation comes the appropriate use cases and error.
>Give up.
No u.
Repost your points with sources if need be, your attempting to argue your point which means you provide your sources to attempt to be convincing.
>>22405
Now this OP faggot.
Oh, wait this is just virtue signaling and blog posting.
>>22432
Mhmm, not virtue signaling or blog posting. At all.
Just exchanging the IQ of the room for feel good posts.
>>22447
It's about making people see reality as it is and the benefits. Golly gee willikers batman. Wowzers if you were good at either you might have gotten somewhere.
The question is whether it's execution, understanding or wisdom or a combination. That which is which you need to work on.
I'd go for all of the above.
There are no direct benefits to being hamfisted into a furry.
You've been blown the fuck out since the start of the thread your self-reported goals are dunked on mostly by your own posts, and then the whole rest of the thread.
I'm not seeing your grand strategy here.
>>22542
>W-well the Science wants to play nice but I don't.
Mhmm.
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not.
Well okay then. Better get started getting that methodology and test parameters.
>Ive done my due diligence.
No. You really haven't. You just walked it shat everywhere and now leaving.
Great job by the way.
Let's see here.
>refuse to either reach and/or assert that one who specifically identifies as a member of a fandom that is observably furry but denies being a furry is thereby in denial.
You need to prove that somehow.
<The furry test.
<Furry in denial theory.
>Pony is furry
That's been disproven multiple times. So let's see your next point.
>Just be the furfag please
That's been debunked.
Aaaannnd...
That's it.
You have nothing what the fuck you double nigger give us some fucking integrity and intellectually engaging fun you fuck.
Go leave in disgrace or stop being a dumbfuck and engage people.
You don't even understand what a troon even is.
Based on DNA and organs born with an average person knows that is what the DNA and organs are and that they exist and matter.
Troons reject both. An irrefutable biological reality.
Even in the chance of DNA fuckups doesn't account for all of that. The side effects is their mind and body screaming to stop and reverse course. For a sizable proportion. Some are fine with the mutilations and chemical treatments compared to biological directives. That's their high risk choice which in turn may include higher mental aberrations.
As long as they don't force young innocents to chop shit off or drug them or violate them. I'd prefer to leave them to their closets.
...
The same applies to furries or any other group.
>Tomboys are icky cause I said so
Very impressive well cited deduction.
Again you're incorrect.
The generic and upbringing factors means tomboys are normal. Due to the world climate it's hard to categorize what are the largest factors for that occurring.
They don't tend to do that awful shit.
They also have functioning biological imperatives which mean they are less likely than the alphabet bbq groups of doing those awful things.
By hear say and deduction also lies likely to divorce rape however I need better citations.
I do mean tomboys in the full truism and rule of thumb that means.
>Degenerates
The use cases are about those that degrade the moral standings. It's anti-generative.
Which would mean without those it would be a neutral or positive (in effect) spiral.
Surprise surprise, the joke of a union is externally generative providing more moral strandings and protecting from outside factors.
As its a moral generation rather than a headcount accumulator. People on average are better off having interacted with. With moral generation comes the appropriate use cases and error.
>Give up.
No u.
Repost your points with sources if need be, your attempting to argue your point which means you provide your sources to attempt to be convincing.
>>22405
Now this OP faggot.
Oh, wait this is just virtue signaling and blog posting.
>>22432
Mhmm, not virtue signaling or blog posting. At all.
Just exchanging the IQ of the room for feel good posts.
>>22447
It's about making people see reality as it is and the benefits. Golly gee willikers batman. Wowzers if you were good at either you might have gotten somewhere.
The question is whether it's execution, understanding or wisdom or a combination. That which is which you need to work on.
I'd go for all of the above.
There are no direct benefits to being hamfisted into a furry.
You've been blown the fuck out since the start of the thread your self-reported goals are dunked on mostly by your own posts, and then the whole rest of the thread.
I'm not seeing your grand strategy here.
>>22542
>W-well the Science wants to play nice but I don't.
Mhmm.
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not.
Well okay then. Better get started getting that methodology and test parameters.
>Ive done my due diligence.
No. You really haven't. You just walked it shat everywhere and now leaving.
Great job by the way.
Let's see here.
>refuse to either reach and/or assert that one who specifically identifies as a member of a fandom that is observably furry but denies being a furry is thereby in denial.
You need to prove that somehow.
<The furry test.
<Furry in denial theory.
>Pony is furry
That's been disproven multiple times. So let's see your next point.
>Just be the furfag please
That's been debunked.
Aaaannnd...
That's it.
You have nothing what the fuck you double nigger give us some fucking integrity and intellectually engaging fun you fuck.
Go leave in disgrace or stop being a dumbfuck and engage people.
>>22543
>That's been spuriously denied multiple times.
Just Like troons deny biology, cuz >muh feels
>Go leave
Regularly and gladly. I dont have alot of time to waste here anymore (not that I used to HAVE the time, tho I did take it because I was still delusional about the intellectual integrity of posters), but you can rest assured Ill make periodic visits to rub your noses in your blatant ignorance ^_~
>That's been spuriously denied multiple times.
Just Like troons deny biology, cuz >muh feels
>Go leave
Regularly and gladly. I dont have alot of time to waste here anymore (not that I used to HAVE the time, tho I did take it because I was still delusional about the intellectual integrity of posters), but you can rest assured Ill make periodic visits to rub your noses in your blatant ignorance ^_~
Anonymous
No.22566
>>22563
>deny biology
You are denying science by contradicting the same "furry science" that (You) posted, which says it's self-identified.
Last I knew, fandoms weren't an established study of science, unlike biology, except maybe as a pet progress for highschool sociology classes; but according to the "scientific" sources that (You) posted, pony fans are still not furries, and yet you arbitrarily assert that they really are and impose yourself as the decider of the definition.
So who's the real science-denying tranny here?
>Regularly and gladly
And yet you're still coming back to redundantly repeat the same dumbass argument. Not using an image board every day is nothing to brag about.
>I dont have alot of time to waste here
Weird of you to say that when you've been arguing about this long.
>deny biology
You are denying science by contradicting the same "furry science" that (You) posted, which says it's self-identified.
Last I knew, fandoms weren't an established study of science, unlike biology, except maybe as a pet progress for highschool sociology classes; but according to the "scientific" sources that (You) posted, pony fans are still not furries, and yet you arbitrarily assert that they really are and impose yourself as the decider of the definition.
So who's the real science-denying tranny here?
>Regularly and gladly
And yet you're still coming back to redundantly repeat the same dumbass argument. Not using an image board every day is nothing to brag about.
>I dont have alot of time to waste here
Weird of you to say that when you've been arguing about this long.
Anonymous
No.22567
>>22563
So... you don't want to engage people?
And you don't want to detail the methodology of the furry test or furry in denial theory or proof of characters being furry or prove in a satisfactory way your OP claims.
But you're leaving because of your feels, because you feel you're done.
Not based on facts or grounded logic. Just tossing shit into the street and see where that smears...
You know what, I'm glad you got all that off your chest. See you whenever and take care.
So... you don't want to engage people?
And you don't want to detail the methodology of the furry test or furry in denial theory or proof of characters being furry or prove in a satisfactory way your OP claims.
But you're leaving because of your feels, because you feel you're done.
Not based on facts or grounded logic. Just tossing shit into the street and see where that smears...
You know what, I'm glad you got all that off your chest. See you whenever and take care.
Anonymous
No.22568
>>22563
>intellectual integrity of posters
Nigger, we are arguing with the same consistent points that we've been making for the past 13 years. In the month we launched this board, we had a thread about this topic and came to the same conclusion that we have now. Go to /mlp/ and they'll tell you the same thing. Check the /mlp/ archives at any point in history and they'll tell you the exact same thing; and I'm sure you'd need to check them because you are by your own admission a newfag to ponies who's only "interacted" with fans for the past 6 years, only since back when season 7 was airing and the fandom was contracting.
(You) are not the first person to tell us this. We've had this discussion many times before and repeatedly come to this conclusion, remaining logically consistent on what we have decided that we are, and yet (You) have the audacity to say that we lack "intellectual integrity" when (You) cannot even provide an authoritative source for the definition of furry that doesn't contradict your own arguments.
>still delusional
(You) certainly must have been delusional about something, because our collective opinion on this matter hasn't changed for the past 13 years; if it took (You) 6 years to see that, then you must've not known this fandom for what it was very well at all to begin with; so yeah, that's pretty delusional.
>blatant ignorance
So funny. What I see is a furry who thinks he's enlightened because he's has finally decided on a very general definition of the word "furry", and is trying to pass it off as fact with no sources other than his own opinion. How insightful. How wise.
>intellectual integrity of posters
Nigger, we are arguing with the same consistent points that we've been making for the past 13 years. In the month we launched this board, we had a thread about this topic and came to the same conclusion that we have now. Go to /mlp/ and they'll tell you the same thing. Check the /mlp/ archives at any point in history and they'll tell you the exact same thing; and I'm sure you'd need to check them because you are by your own admission a newfag to ponies who's only "interacted" with fans for the past 6 years, only since back when season 7 was airing and the fandom was contracting.
(You) are not the first person to tell us this. We've had this discussion many times before and repeatedly come to this conclusion, remaining logically consistent on what we have decided that we are, and yet (You) have the audacity to say that we lack "intellectual integrity" when (You) cannot even provide an authoritative source for the definition of furry that doesn't contradict your own arguments.
>still delusional
(You) certainly must have been delusional about something, because our collective opinion on this matter hasn't changed for the past 13 years; if it took (You) 6 years to see that, then you must've not known this fandom for what it was very well at all to begin with; so yeah, that's pretty delusional.
>blatant ignorance
So funny. What I see is a furry who thinks he's enlightened because he's has finally decided on a very general definition of the word "furry", and is trying to pass it off as fact with no sources other than his own opinion. How insightful. How wise.
File (): 1C3ABEC94AD06C370FA206DEBA322221-28546.jpg (27.9 KB, 500x529, 7DD34641FA8785AA9721B616E59A99BE-28528(2).jpg)
Anonymous
No.22572
>>22570
>>source?!
I expected you to be able and capable of reasoning and doing step by step reasoning. To be capable of explaining your shit.
Let alone reading.
Get some sleep nigger and comeback refreshed not retarded.
>>source?!
I expected you to be able and capable of reasoning and doing step by step reasoning. To be capable of explaining your shit.
Let alone reading.
Get some sleep nigger and comeback refreshed not retarded.
Anonymous
No.22573
>>22570
Yes, "sourse?!", you absolute faggot. You're arguing that we're furries based on the "established" definition, so what backing do you have to say we should accept that definition that supposedly includes us, other than your opinion?
>look it up
We did look it up, multiple times. All the sources reviewed say that it's self-identified.
Yes, "sourse?!", you absolute faggot. You're arguing that we're furries based on the "established" definition, so what backing do you have to say we should accept that definition that supposedly includes us, other than your opinion?
>look it up
We did look it up, multiple times. All the sources reviewed say that it's self-identified.
Anonymous
No.22574
>>22570
>Makes a claim
>Is asked to back up claim
>refuses to back up claim
>Is asked where they heard the information of the claim
>says to "look it up"
Stupid nigger. Of course any of us could look it up ourselves, the reason >we have been asking for your source is so that we can know how (You) came to your conclusion, and/or scrutinize the accuracy of that information, so it can be refuted or accepted.
I've see this petty "look it up yourself" deflection a lot on the internet in the past three ~3, especially from idiots who are too embarrassed to admit that they either made up the claim or heard it from some crappy clickbait tabloid with no actual evidence. It's a pathetic trend.
>Makes a claim
>Is asked to back up claim
>refuses to back up claim
>Is asked where they heard the information of the claim
>says to "look it up"
Stupid nigger. Of course any of us could look it up ourselves, the reason >we have been asking for your source is so that we can know how (You) came to your conclusion, and/or scrutinize the accuracy of that information, so it can be refuted or accepted.
I've see this petty "look it up yourself" deflection a lot on the internet in the past three ~3, especially from idiots who are too embarrassed to admit that they either made up the claim or heard it from some crappy clickbait tabloid with no actual evidence. It's a pathetic trend.
Anonymous
No.22575
>Day 4752 of FiM ponies being a type of anthropomorphic animal.
>Still no end in sight
>Still no end in sight
File (): F0A1FAC9DBD92DD8960483CBF76F4090-139301.png (136.0 KB, 720x922, Screenshot_20231024-041200~2.png)
File (): 15F2AEFDA1EDCDA9C9D1B3F080DB97E4-110090.png (107.5 KB, 720x821, Screenshot_20231024-041831~2.png)
File (): B57EA1219F0883C347C451756C78D9E1-93064.png (90.9 KB, 720x596, Screenshot_20231024-043116~2.png)
>whichbutton.jpg
>Ponyfags can identify as not-furry cuz self-identification matters cuz muh ekwality and inkloosion AND men can identify as women
OR
>Ponyfags are furries
>Ponyfags can identify as not-furry cuz self-identification matters cuz muh ekwality and inkloosion AND men can identify as women
OR
>Ponyfags are furries
File (): B1DA9F9270A6D6E8738067DB76607F35-2447283.gif (2.3 MB, 498x255, my-little-pony-bored.gif)
>>22587
>thinks ChatGPT is somehow a better source than what he posted earlier
>AI is basically just repeating the same points as earlier, contributing nothing to the conversation
>doesn't even post the prompts used
>If you believe X you must also believe Y because I said so
Wow. How insightful and persuasive.
>thinks ChatGPT is somehow a better source than what he posted earlier
>AI is basically just repeating the same points as earlier, contributing nothing to the conversation
>doesn't even post the prompts used
>If you believe X you must also believe Y because I said so
Wow. How insightful and persuasive.
>>22590
>deleting his shitty post
You can tell what my prompt was, cuz the AI repeats it in affirmation. Cry moar, ur a fuery
>deleting his shitty post
You can tell what my prompt was, cuz the AI repeats it in affirmation. Cry moar, ur a fuery
>>22587
I bet the prompt was "If anything that has anthropomorphic characters in it is furry, and if my little pony has anthropomorphic characters, are fans of my little pony furries?"
I bet the prompt was "If anything that has anthropomorphic characters in it is furry, and if my little pony has anthropomorphic characters, are fans of my little pony furries?"
>>22594
Quite literally. The response was a diatribe about identification and respect/inclusion of the individual and so on.
Funny, it had the same response when talking about men who dress in womens clothing and insist theyre women.
Hence the screencap.
>>22595
Theres identifiable information present in the image associated in the account I operate from, so regardless of your "doubts" I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot.
Remember LAST time I posted edited images of myself that pertained to me?
Surely thats not why you're eager, not (you),....
All this, just to obfuscate the principle issue. I wont bother to indicate how many argumentative/logical fallacies, Ill just point them out so people who are presciently aware can take note.
So, are troons operating from legitimacy, or are you arguing in bad faith about not being a furry?
Quite literally. The response was a diatribe about identification and respect/inclusion of the individual and so on.
Funny, it had the same response when talking about men who dress in womens clothing and insist theyre women.
Hence the screencap.
>>22595
Theres identifiable information present in the image associated in the account I operate from, so regardless of your "doubts" I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot.
Remember LAST time I posted edited images of myself that pertained to me?
Surely thats not why you're eager, not (you),....
All this, just to obfuscate the principle issue. I wont bother to indicate how many argumentative/logical fallacies, Ill just point them out so people who are presciently aware can take note.
So, are troons operating from legitimacy, or are you arguing in bad faith about not being a furry?
>>22589
It's predisposed to give you answers that it thinks will please you based on how you worded the prompt. It's not a useful research tool or source of any kind.
It's predisposed to give you answers that it thinks will please you based on how you worded the prompt. It's not a useful research tool or source of any kind.
>>22593
How is posting the prompt doxxing yourself?
You screenshotted the chat, why not screenshot the prompt?
How is posting the prompt doxxing yourself?
You screenshotted the chat, why not screenshot the prompt?
>>22596
>Funny, it had the same response when talking about men who dress in womens clothing and insist theyre women.
>Hence the screencap.
You keep bringing this up.
Male and female are scientific terms. It is a question of biology.
"Furry" is not a scientific term. It's internet slang with no authoritative definer. It is a question of identity.
>bad faith
You are conflating a biological reality (sex) with a loosely-defined abstraction "furry". You know they're not the same. You probably could have come up with a more appropriate comparison, but you chose to bring troons into this because you considered the topic to be politically evocative.
This is the definition of a bad faith argument.
>Funny, it had the same response when talking about men who dress in womens clothing and insist theyre women.
>Hence the screencap.
You keep bringing this up.
Male and female are scientific terms. It is a question of biology.
"Furry" is not a scientific term. It's internet slang with no authoritative definer. It is a question of identity.
>bad faith
You are conflating a biological reality (sex) with a loosely-defined abstraction "furry". You know they're not the same. You probably could have come up with a more appropriate comparison, but you chose to bring troons into this because you considered the topic to be politically evocative.
This is the definition of a bad faith argument.
>>22598
To the contrary, it quite refused to suggest there is any objective criteria in which NOT appealing to feelings, self-identity, inclusion, etc. is viable, excluding criminal law. It was most insistent that social progress - including letting horsefuckers pretend they arent furries - was 'the way'. It ONLY agreed that its feasible to exclude troon identity if one was operating as, say, a nazi.
>>22599
>cant understand that it has ID images that may be specific and personal
To the contrary, it quite refused to suggest there is any objective criteria in which NOT appealing to feelings, self-identity, inclusion, etc. is viable, excluding criminal law. It was most insistent that social progress - including letting horsefuckers pretend they arent furries - was 'the way'. It ONLY agreed that its feasible to exclude troon identity if one was operating as, say, a nazi.
>>22599
>cant understand that it has ID images that may be specific and personal
>>22600
And you keep wanting to insist that your aubjective terms for yourself are any different than the subjective terms that men dressing as women want to apply to themselves. I know you dont WANT to acknowledge the comparison, but EVEN A THOUGHTLESS AI can
And you keep wanting to insist that your aubjective terms for yourself are any different than the subjective terms that men dressing as women want to apply to themselves. I know you dont WANT to acknowledge the comparison, but EVEN A THOUGHTLESS AI can
>>22606
Thank you stix. Moves out of your parent's house yet? Maybe gotten your own bank account? I hope so, you're what, 25 now?
Thank you stix. Moves out of your parent's house yet? Maybe gotten your own bank account? I hope so, you're what, 25 now?
>>22603
Fandoms are subjective because they are social phenomena and questions of identity. Sex is biology, which is objective.
Point to me the objective, scientific definition of "furry". You tried earlier, and your source disagreed with you.
What you're doing is like saying that since Christians are people who accept Christ as the Messiah, all Muslims must be Christians. Muslims would deny this. Christians would say your definition is too vague. The same applies in this situation.
Fandoms are subjective because they are social phenomena and questions of identity. Sex is biology, which is objective.
Point to me the objective, scientific definition of "furry". You tried earlier, and your source disagreed with you.
What you're doing is like saying that since Christians are people who accept Christ as the Messiah, all Muslims must be Christians. Muslims would deny this. Christians would say your definition is too vague. The same applies in this situation.
Anonymous
No.22615
>>22611
May as well say Muslims and Christians are Vedic too, if ague references to 4000 yo texts is your criteria.
May as well say Muslims and Christians are Vedic too, if ague references to 4000 yo texts is your criteria.
>>22596
>I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot
You could crop the screenshot. It wouldn't be hard.
>I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot
You could crop the screenshot. It wouldn't be hard.
>>22623
I cropped the image last time, and a faggot from here uncropped it and made a bunch of fake gay porn because Inpet a deer. No, go fuck yourself
I cropped the image last time, and a faggot from here uncropped it and made a bunch of fake gay porn because Inpet a deer. No, go fuck yourself
>>22624
The bot disagreed that its acceptable to disregard the subjective self-identification of troons who identify as the wrong gender, comparably to horsefuckers who identify as not being furry. Come on Lotus, your reading comprehension isnt THAT bad,....
The bot disagreed that its acceptable to disregard the subjective self-identification of troons who identify as the wrong gender, comparably to horsefuckers who identify as not being furry. Come on Lotus, your reading comprehension isnt THAT bad,....
File (): 1CBE76185A2460DC1E23BE866A2DE5B9-751103.gif (733.5 KB, 498x280, laugh-mlp (1).gif)
File (): 960CC9404A1AD56CB4C572892D771680-150280.png (146.8 KB, 720x895, Screenshot_20231024-043105~2.png)
File (): 064758A28E065ED624A04E42B397CACC-190580.png (186.1 KB, 720x1440, Screenshot_20231024-043116.png)
File (): 8FD8DA31A5F19D071FD91B63730E3C8F-215212.png (210.2 KB, 720x1440, Screenshot_20231024-043105.png)
File (): 4EAE4B1731E1D00626110926B91CDA37-176488.png (172.4 KB, 720x1440, Screenshot_20231024-041831.png)
File (): 980108EEACFD64F14028C99A223AEF79-203115.png (198.4 KB, 720x1440, Screenshot_20231024-041200.png)
Now that hearts have been played, have fun with it. They arent in order, but they paint a pretty clear picture
>>22627
>Lotus.
I am not Lotus.
The not regurgitates whatever it thinks is an appropriate based on freely available public sources and options of random people. Currently, the semi-dominant cultural zeitgeist on the internet is to be sensitive to the feeling of troons, and the bot, wanting to give you an answer you'd like, told you so.
However, it is (You) who asserted that pony fans must go along with the generally accepted colloquial definition of the term "furry," however, as it has been revealed, most of those sources seem to agree that "furry" is a question of self-identification.
>Lotus.
I am not Lotus.
The not regurgitates whatever it thinks is an appropriate based on freely available public sources and options of random people. Currently, the semi-dominant cultural zeitgeist on the internet is to be sensitive to the feeling of troons, and the bot, wanting to give you an answer you'd like, told you so.
However, it is (You) who asserted that pony fans must go along with the generally accepted colloquial definition of the term "furry," however, as it has been revealed, most of those sources seem to agree that "furry" is a question of self-identification.
(not just the bot either, furscience - for all their aggregation of useful data, they too cater to feelings and inclusion)
Anonymous
No.22642
>>22611
Nobody identifies as "Abrahamic". Abrahamic is neither identity, religion or fandom. "Abrahamic" only means "things that reference Abraham".
Furry, however, is in fact a fandom. It is separate from the mere concept of anthropomorphism.
Nobody identifies as "Abrahamic". Abrahamic is neither identity, religion or fandom. "Abrahamic" only means "things that reference Abraham".
Furry, however, is in fact a fandom. It is separate from the mere concept of anthropomorphism.
>>22640
So if all the sources refer to the message of self-identification, then would that mean the consensus is that furry is self-identified?
If so, wouldn't that make us compliant with the generally-accepted definition of not-furry?
So if all the sources refer to the message of self-identification, then would that mean the consensus is that furry is self-identified?
If so, wouldn't that make us compliant with the generally-accepted definition of not-furry?
>>22645
I do.
I don't care either way about trannies or what they call themselves. I just know a male is male and a female is female when it comes to sex. If troons want to get schizo with John Money's definition of "gender", then so be it; just leave me out of it.
So, do you agree?
I do.
I don't care either way about trannies or what they call themselves. I just know a male is male and a female is female when it comes to sex. If troons want to get schizo with John Money's definition of "gender", then so be it; just leave me out of it.
So, do you agree?
>>22663
>We can continue when
Are you implying you're not going to post anymore until he stops spamming? Or are you just using it as an excuse not to answer to the argument?
>We can continue when
Are you implying you're not going to post anymore until he stops spamming? Or are you just using it as an excuse not to answer to the argument?
File (): 4EC1BBFE85D95ED6AF841D00270A46CD-423290.png (413.4 KB, 1036x1044, Screenshot_20230928-210924.png)
>>22680
I didnt say that, I said 'pretty much yes'
As I said in another thread, I do what I want. But, as far as actual discussion, check your boy
I didnt say that, I said 'pretty much yes'
As I said in another thread, I do what I want. But, as far as actual discussion, check your boy
>>22681
So you're just gonna keep making off-topic posts and ignore legitimate arguments while still bumping the thread?
That's basically the same as spam.
So you're just gonna keep making off-topic posts and ignore legitimate arguments while still bumping the thread?
That's basically the same as spam.
(dont worry, staff loves that theres an actual and observable increase in the post xount)
>>22688
Who are you even talking to at this point? It's just three shitposters and Stix here, and you've given up on making legitimate arguments.
Who are you even talking to at this point? It's just three shitposters and Stix here, and you've given up on making legitimate arguments.
>>22690
Are you pretending that this board hasnt effectively died BECAUSE of the crony largesse given by staff? That this thread (outside pruning) wont be on the overboard for fuxking ever?
Are you pretending that this board hasnt effectively died BECAUSE of the crony largesse given by staff? That this thread (outside pruning) wont be on the overboard for fuxking ever?
Anonymous
No.22696
>>22694
It'll be on the overboard forever because you keep bumping it, and we don't have proper bump limits for some reason.
It'll be on the overboard forever because you keep bumping it, and we don't have proper bump limits for some reason.
>>22693
>no matter where or when, just let the posting count increase
Alex, what is "manufactured relevance"
>no matter where or when, just let the posting count increase
Alex, what is "manufactured relevance"
>>22702
Where did you get the definition of the word "furry" that is so undeniable we must accept it?
Where did you get the definition of the word "furry" that is so undeniable we must accept it?
>>22702
We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
omg, has Stix finally stopped shitting the bed?
Alright, lets go back then!
>>22587
Heres where we left off, more or less
Alright, lets go back then!
>>22587
Heres where we left off, more or less
>>22709
Yes, because as was established, both ChatGPT and furries tend to favor people's self-identification, which then allows for men to present themselves as women. Lets take Lia whatshisfuck, the swimmer. You know the one. He is as legitimately NOT a woman as a ponyfag is legitimately NOT a furry
Yes, because as was established, both ChatGPT and furries tend to favor people's self-identification, which then allows for men to present themselves as women. Lets take Lia whatshisfuck, the swimmer. You know the one. He is as legitimately NOT a woman as a ponyfag is legitimately NOT a furry
Anonymous
No.22719
>>22711
So why is it that the part of the source that you agree with is right, but the part of the source you disagree with is wrong?
>muh troons
Troons drink water too. That's irrelevant.
So why is it that the part of the source that you agree with is right, but the part of the source you disagree with is wrong?
>muh troons
Troons drink water too. That's irrelevant.
Anonymous
No.22751
<The discussion recap so far
>OP
<Anons
>Muh troons if you disagree.
>>22702
>To rub your noses in the fact that youre furries, since it bothers you so much
Seems like it's really bothering you though.
<But you haven't proven anything that helps you so far.
>I'm pagon of enlightenment!
>>22706
<We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
<For over 13 years pony frens aren't furries. The debated case still stands that pony and pony frens aren't furry.
>OP
<Anons
>Muh troons if you disagree.
>>22702
>To rub your noses in the fact that youre furries, since it bothers you so much
Seems like it's really bothering you though.
<But you haven't proven anything that helps you so far.
>I'm pagon of enlightenment!
>>22706
<We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
<For over 13 years pony frens aren't furries. The debated case still stands that pony and pony frens aren't furry.
Imagine being an Appul waifu-fag who pretends to represent her virtue, while being entirely dishonest and surreptitious when called out and blasted, such that cant even make an argument and has to resort to random YT vids to try and wipe posts away.
Horsefuckers aren't furries, but they are a walking oxymoron if they adhere to right-wing politics.
>>22753
That's not how that works. More posts don't wipe away posts.
Had you posted things made of more solid truths the outpouring of responses would even surprise the site as a whole.
Instead it's vain repetitions.
Without love does it even matter?
There's still time.
Don't stumble in hypocrisy, act in honesty.
That's not how that works. More posts don't wipe away posts.
Had you posted things made of more solid truths the outpouring of responses would even surprise the site as a whole.
Instead it's vain repetitions.
Without love does it even matter?
There's still time.
Don't stumble in hypocrisy, act in honesty.
Anonymous
No.22760
File (): 0A901787F2FF3E4710BE4F5E0CEFD285-2682098.gif (2.6 MB, 444x400, 0A901787F2FF3E4710BE4F5E0CEFD285-2682098.gif)
>>22757
>Horsefuckers aren't furries
Congratulations.
>but they are a walking oxymoron if they adhere to right-wing politics.
Walking in the truth can be paradoxical to the world. Especially clown world.
But the truth is still the truth.
Core values rise above the mask of politics for that is where the mask of politics is fashioned.
>Horsefuckers aren't furries
Congratulations.
>but they are a walking oxymoron if they adhere to right-wing politics.
Walking in the truth can be paradoxical to the world. Especially clown world.
But the truth is still the truth.
Core values rise above the mask of politics for that is where the mask of politics is fashioned.
>they are a walking oxymoron if they adhere to right-wing politics.
According to the highest level truth The Truth, The Way and The Life, all else is reflections and refractions to demonstrate truth.
A higher level truth is ideal values in varying situations.
Truth confirms the truth.
Politics is about a shadow attempting to encapsulate the whole truth.
Horsefuckers politically are as clearest glass housing a flame. The shadow not able to be in that light. What is seen is what is there.
Yet there's still glass, unseen.
Trying to confine that in any other lower level housing introduces shadows that twist and warp the internal light.
Truly, politically trying to paint everybody in the same stroke is at best a series of rule of thumbs.
Here's some.
>When mirrors that bounce the light back and also have it go through doubling inside light and outside light.
>Others are also light and those doubling mirrors.
>Some are smudged sometimes, and or have specific shapes.
...
>>22764
That's the board because gaming roleplay, don't be a salty. Context matters. Because it's in the smae type of location as /vx/ all share those traits.
According to the highest level truth The Truth, The Way and The Life, all else is reflections and refractions to demonstrate truth.
A higher level truth is ideal values in varying situations.
Truth confirms the truth.
Politics is about a shadow attempting to encapsulate the whole truth.
Horsefuckers politically are as clearest glass housing a flame. The shadow not able to be in that light. What is seen is what is there.
Yet there's still glass, unseen.
Trying to confine that in any other lower level housing introduces shadows that twist and warp the internal light.
Truly, politically trying to paint everybody in the same stroke is at best a series of rule of thumbs.
Here's some.
>When mirrors that bounce the light back and also have it go through doubling inside light and outside light.
>Others are also light and those doubling mirrors.
>Some are smudged sometimes, and or have specific shapes.
...
>>22764
That's the board because gaming roleplay, don't be a salty. Context matters. Because it's in the smae type of location as /vx/ all share those traits.
>>22757
Horsefuckers not being furries is precisely as valid as men deciding to be women. Both ideas have equal merit
Horsefuckers not being furries is precisely as valid as men deciding to be women. Both ideas have equal merit
And in a stunning display of how committed discourse and such this site is, after both spamming YouTube links and flooding the catalog, this thread is bump locked.
Anonymous
No.22772
>>22769
No, dumbass, for the umpteenth time, this is a flawed argument. Furries and horsefuckers are internet slang terms that don’t mean anything on their own, so membership in either group is a matter of pure self identification. Men and women are terms that have objective definitions, and membership is determined biologically. This comparison is silly, and repeating it over and over does not make it any less silly.
No, dumbass, for the umpteenth time, this is a flawed argument. Furries and horsefuckers are internet slang terms that don’t mean anything on their own, so membership in either group is a matter of pure self identification. Men and women are terms that have objective definitions, and membership is determined biologically. This comparison is silly, and repeating it over and over does not make it any less silly.
Anonymous
No.22775
File (): DE78003D568089954B9B6E41E990A67A-2070524.webm (2.0 MB, Resolution:654x480 Length:00:00:27, 1585779.webm) [play once] [loop]
File (): 74A39B5190CB19DAE61DC5A771500D38-370600.jpg (361.9 KB, 1000x750, 2445338.jpg)
Total furry apologist death.