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
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.
>>21980I 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 have no problem with the furries. there's a lot of overlap between the two fandoms. pic related
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".
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.
>>21985No 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"
>>21986This 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.
>>21988Wait a minute.
Was OP banned for this thread? At /sp/?
>>21991Why not let the degenerate to explain himself?
>>21993I mean OP, the furry apologizer.
>>21994I don't think he's a shill.
>>21990It 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.
>>21990No, 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
>>21995If he is who I think he is, then I agree, he is not a shill but a disturbed man.
>>21996The gall you have.
>>21997>don't tell furries they're furries they might lose their shitNoted.
>>21995Ill 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
So yeah, I argue that horsefuckers are a "degree" of furry.
Change my mind.
>>22002Picrel response.
You want to drag everypony to your level. It won't happen.
>>21987>>21986Furry
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
[YouTube] Furries | Down the Rabbit Hole
[Embed] for a decent history of the early furry fandom
>>22004Also a fair point.
>>22001>Ill invite - both to not hijack and for aesthetics - to the Cozy Pub threadSorry but the momentum is happening here. Perhaps if you would not abandon your thread and keep it alive instead the situation would be different.
>>22006Heavens 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.
>>22007Well, my view... I might be mistaken, is to encourage the shitstorm, no matter where or when, just let the post counting to increase.
>>22007Even 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"?
>>21996>>21988Can 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.
>>22012Well, 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.
>>22010The 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
>>22011Oh 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.
>>22014You are going a bit too far. One thing is shared goals, but a different one is to partake in perversion.
>>22016>partake in perversionNot 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 outAhem. I might one of them and I'm not going anywhere.
Just saying.
>>22020That'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.
>>22021>When it's probably better to let go of your british husbandoKeep guessing identities.
>>22016Uhm, 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.
>>22015>I left>Is still here, adding nothing of valueThe 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.
>>22021You're starting to sound like him now. Like him and HCL
>>22021Bruh, the time for Lotus-bashing is nigh, but not ITT. Stave your rage
>>22022No 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.
>>22026How long have I been living rent free in your head, alongside Nigel?
>>22024So 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.
>>22024Do you ladies need a room?
>>22027Not 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
>>22029Hey, you're still here? Good to see ya!
>>22028Oh 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>>22029Anyways, Nigel affairs are handled by Elway, and I do not stop him.
>>22032>Oh but I'm done trying to make this place more appealingI'm curious. How exactly you did it?
>>22027>Horsefuckers are not drug-addicts, nor pedophiles, nor communists, neither homosexualsWe have all of those things too though.
>>22036>We have all of those things too though.Not here that I'm aware of.
>>22035Nigger, post furry or non-furry
With respect
>>22036This 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
>>22033Not asking you for anything tho. In fact, it would be quite helpful if they were to stay. Let's see if it was all worth it.
>>22035You should be more concerned about the rest of the post. Till next time.
>>22038>B-but it is not all of themI know where that is going.
>>22040You 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.
>>22041>AJ killer? >He was a horsefuckerA brony bullied by forced non-White diversity.
>>22041>the AJ killerThe AJ Vigilante.
/)
>>22042That 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 poniesThere is a reason exists Ponerpics and Derpibooru. Both field different human species.
>>22045Yes, 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.
>ponerpicsNigger 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!
>>22047>It IS bad to want to fuck animals (except horses, apparently)Horses are white, so it's okay to fuck them.
>>22048*stares silently, judgingly*
>>22049I stand by my statement.
>>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
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'
>>22054It's not zoophilia though. Horses are white.
>>22055I give your mental gymnastics a 7/10
>>22054Does anypony have that edit of the orange Anon plowing Aryanne from behind and saying "I strongly disavow and condemn homosexuality"?
>>22054>I know alot of y'all are being ironicDo you know where you are?
>>22058I think I have something like that. The problem is that has not been renamed to find it. Sorry.
>>22061Based and redpilled
>>22054We are /mlpol/: we can do BOTH.
>>22059Do you know who you're talking to?
>>22064No anon, you cant. In the best case, thats doublethink.
>>22066>Come on everypony, here come the mares
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
>>22066I love this opening.
>Im not a furry, furries are degenerate
>proceeds to spew degeneracy
>>22070>In the entirety of my interactions with horsefuckers, about 6 years total, I have met ONE unironic horsefucker>my interactions with horsefuckersWTF
>>22066You 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.
>>22099Except 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.
>>22101You 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?
>>22102Uhm, you mean aside from the OP?
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.
>>22104Wouldn'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 poniesOn 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
>>22103The 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?
>>22104Are 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?
>>22099Lmao, imagine being a clopper in 2023.
>>22109Where do you think you are?
>>22105No, that would make them fans of furry content. Did u miss the part about self-identification?
>ppl dont identify bronies as furriesIn ignorance
>>22106>on what basis do you hurr nurrBy the definition. Dont take my word for it, look it up.
>all that historical shitPredates the establishment of furries,as being a thing.
Wanna know what DOESNT predate the establishment of furries being a thing?
Mlp
>>22107See this post
>>22108The 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.
>>22112What 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 furriesWhy 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".
>>22112How 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?
>>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 1Nice feet.
>image 2Nice hooves.
If you can't tell the difference between these two types of characters and the audience they appeal to, you are literally retarded.
>>22113I 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.
>>22114No, the definition is GENERAL.
>>22115Pony content IS furry content. Until you can argue that pony content doesnt involve anthropomorphized animals, ur in the detention box.
>>22116More or less
>>22117Oh 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".
>>22119Wew, 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.
>>22121Uh, 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
>>22122Oof, up to 3+. Better luck next time sport
>>22123That doesn't make them anthros in the way furries are generally attributed. They're distinctly different.
>>22118>pony content doesnt involve anthropomorphized animalsThey literally aren't. They are just horses, with cutesy features like thick legs and big eyes. They have no human features
And in today's edition of "didnt read/comprehend what I said" we have (you)
>Thinking that "furry" doesn't mean, at mimimum, giving human physical features to animals
>>22128No. I read it. I just reject the premise that furries own the entire archetype of anthropomorphization since their conception.
>>22131Then fight the internet
>>22132That's what I'm doing.
>>22138Thats exactly how trans ppl feel, you'll have good company.
>>22139I wouldn't know. I'm not a tranny.
Are you?
>>22141No, but transfags seem to think they can defy objective reality in a comparable manner.
They think how they identify changes things
>>22142That's a silly generalization to make. You're silly.
>>22144Oh? 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
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
>>22147Egyptians did so spiritually, so youre still wrong
>>22149Is this what youve reduced yourself to?
In YOUR words, is this what God wants of you?
>>22148Anubis is literally an anthro dog
>>22145I 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".
>>22147I 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.
>>22152What are you even saying?
>>22154And? Is there a furry Anubis cult? Or are you being lazy and suggesting that anyone who costumes as a dog is ipsofacto worshipping anubis?
>>22155So, you wouldnt be adverse to the suggestion that horse-based furries are derivative of epona worship?
>>22161Much vetter numbers. Still a wibbler, tho
>>22155You cannot argue that the Egyptian god Kek, god of primordial chaos, does not have a significant influence over the Brony fandom
>>22157I 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.
>>22163Wooh, seems Ive hit a nerve. Not even stix can make a reply that quick. Pupper? Is that you? Nevermind, youre irrelevant
>>22148I 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.
>>22164Kek only has relevance because ppl think it does
This goes the same for what people define as furry, which has yet to be contested
>>22158What does that have to do with the guy posting YouTube videos?
What's that have to do with god?
>>22168>only has relevance because ppl think it doesSame goes for any deity/idol.
>>22168Kek 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 furryWhich is a subset of Egyptian godhood
>>22170Well, that depends.
What is gonna happen when i post? Is it gonna be well thought conjecture and hypothesis?
>>22172Yeah. Egyptians did it first, therefore furries are an offshoot of them.
>>22175Ill gladly prove you wong, but this is clearly not the venue for intellectual exploration, so no
>>22178Then why are you here?
>>22180To 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?
>>22168>which has yet to be contestedWe are literally contesting it right now.
>>22181In your, sorry, Im not perfect
>>22181What are you even talking about?
>>22183Ill give u ti.e to catch up
>>22185I told you to shut uo
>>22189Post more Epona vids
>>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.
>>22194Are you gonna stop? I know "all your carefully crafted arguments will be summary ignored" is a rule, but at least TRY
>>22196You didn't even refute his argument. You flat out refused to.
What is your point?
>>22157>Is there a furry Anubis cult?Probably, actually.
>>22181>Still not accepting our Egyptian forebearers>>22196>asking me to repeat myselfCertainly. 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.
>>22112Ponies 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.
>>22201>Furfaggotry existed before MLP.Actually no. See
>>22204Ponies are older.
>>22203Weird that youre cool with adult setting on furaffinity.
I know most wont get the reference, but classic
>Reads OPSo all people should entirely totally trust NPC definitions as is got it.
>last thirty to fifty minutesThat happened I guess.
>>22108Here's a (You) Bronco post anon.
>>22204When did the mlp fandom start tho?
>>22200Even 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".
>>22209The day the product launched.
Also, nice touch with the video response bot. Totally lends credibility
>>22213Nobody cares but you.
>>22212Wow, youre precious
>>22213Credibility for what?
>>22222Checked.
That was easy.
>>22222Erhmagherd he got trips! This completely sublimates objective reality! Ponies are saved cuz a faggot on a board made a post with numbers!
Now who is irrationally superstitious?
>>22222This.
Quids tell no lies
>>22226>Still denying that furries are Egyptian
>>22226Basically, it's more trusteorthy than how NPC definitions are generated.
>>22218Is this "Stix" in the room with you right now?
>>22228Kek has blessed us with truth speaking digits
>>22236So, you believe in digits?
>>22228We believe in meme magic here.
>>22239Sure you do. Is that a yes, tho?
>>22237You don't?
Kek has blessed us.
>>22236On 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.
>>22 →>>22245A lie with numbers? That is your blessing? Are you such a waif?
>>22247You keep using that word. I don't believe you know what it means.
>>22249Which 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)?
Actually congratulations on getting a thread to somewhat mimic channel type threads.
What else is missing that is desirable?
>>22226Oh 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.
>>22252Only 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).
>>22255You didn't refute my arguments either.
You won't, because you can't.
>>22254Youre likenable to troons, theres been no contest
>>22258>no contestIn your mind.
>Bots are nao allowed here
Nice precedent, I'll consider it in the future.
>>22261That's a dumb comparison. You can compare anything to troons if you do that kind of logical leap. What's the point then?
>>22263He's literally just posting links.
>>22265I can claim to be doing the same thing, lel.
Lest anyone wonder how mlpol became what it is
>>22268I do like ponies tho.
>>22267Oooooh nooooo! He might spam for 15 minutes. I'm sooooo scared!
>>22273Not like that.
>>22269Eh, maybe you should've stayed. Bit out of the loop from I can gather from u.
>>22255You point has already been refuted scholastically using your own logic. See
>>22112It'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
Fun
>>22275Funny, its apparently okay sometimes
>>22275I dunno, I'm always lurking and you guys do seem to be pretty slow.
>>22263>Multiple people are against me! It must be bots!Imagine losing an argument to literal bots this badly
>>22277So, 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?
>>22280Uh huh.
What's your point?
>>22281>pretends there isnt a youtube botNigga please
>>22287Eh, I might buy he's actually posting links. With flappy's playlists and all that.
>>22282Your saying that because people worship horse icons, that's somehow comparable to unrelated furry suits?
>>22285Nothing at all, I wouldn't do anything that's not on everyone's best interests.
>>22290No, 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
>>22289Yeah. He was even able to respond with requests for epona vids. That's not bot behavior.
He's just shitposting to trigger OP.
>>22292But why those terms?
>>22295What difference does it make if it's a bot or not?
>>22297>is objectively stupid
>>22282 [YouTube] So you're saying compilation - Dr. Jordan Peterson & Cathy Newman
[Embed] 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.
>>22292There 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.
>>22300Yes those terms are objectively stupid that's my point.
>>22299Do you know where you are?
That used to mean something, once
>>22305Cry harder, faggot.
Requesting rick roll but pony ai cover.
>>22307Finally, some honesty!
>>22305Furbooru?
Really now, what difference does it make? It's not a valid argument, you shouldn't take it too seriously anyways.
>>22292Egyptian 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
>>22307"Its fine that theres no integrity to the site, so long as Im in charge"
Isnt that right?
>>22308Can't find the AI version right now. Have this.
[YouTube] Derp Astley: Derp Roll'd
[Embed]
>>22312Does that involve wanting to fug lolicon ponies?
>>22312I am willing to accept that both bronies and furries and are separate offshoots of mankind's tendency towards animism and anthropomorphizing concepts.
>>22313I'm not in charge. I'm calling you a faggot.
>>22318An acceptable compromise.
Congrats, you win.
Except, youre still here
>>22319Sure you arent, and who cares?
>>22322You, apparently.
Cry harder.
>>22324No, I just want you to feel validated, since logical reason escapes you.
I will credit, assigning a bot to me doubles the post count off me. Clever
>>22327He is literally just posting links.
Tell him to stop then, just to prove he can
>>22318Animism 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.
>>22315... I think that may be an innovation of the pony subculture
>>22334>Thus horsefuckery is technically be both an off shoot of Animism, Christianity, Natsoc ideals and the purity of an unsullied peoplesBased, redpilled and true.
>>22334Oh 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
>>22336Thank 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.
My point being to be of the horsefuckers is also to be genuinely human.
Bot! Post Griffonia Delenda Est!
>>22342Sorry,gotta have my ids to get the bot to ejaculate on command
>>22339Imagine being this triggered over some YouTube links
>>22341You will only ever be a cute pony
>>22345Aww....
>>22341The horse is an extension of the man.
>>22347You 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.
>>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?
>>22355God took unicorns away as punishment for eating the funny fruit.
>>22358Neigh. In the heart of God they roam in reverence. So enter God's heart once more in purity.
>>22355But anon, the great hope is to go join your waifu in Equestria
>>22362Equestria is in the new creation of all things. Without pain or death.
>>223605 seconds after an unequivocabme lapse
Clearly not a bot, mods wouldnt use such things
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.
>>22366Lauren also said he regretted it at some point lol.
>>22368Being 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.
>>22368Does 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.
>>22372>Her endorsement of bronies is to be expected, after all, emasculating men is at least one of the prime goals of feminismYou 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.
>>22371>>22372She 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.
>>22375A 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.
>>22377Hunh it got late fast going down memory lane.
Good morning, good evening and good night!
>>22377Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.
>>22374If fax and logic is the same as "smearing" to you. Maybe you should work at the ADL. You fit the profile quite nicely.
Whatever happened to the (you)Tube spammer? Did the furfag bit your tongue?
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 biologyThis 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 realityAgain, 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 MLPThis 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 animalsAgain, 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.
>>22303This, ffs.
>>22387I 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.
>>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?
>>22395............................................................................................................................................yeeeeeeeeah. Everything about this looks legit, all right.
>>22395No bias here, lol.
>>22395>>22396Actually, 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.
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.
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.
>>22401Yeah, "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 thatUh, 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 umbrellaFurry 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 birdBird 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.
>>22404Yes, 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.
>>22405Pony 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.
>>22406According 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 fundingThe same people say that boys who pick up dolls once in their childhood should be put on HRT and cut their penises off.
>>22409Citation?
>>22407Pedantic 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.
>>22408How can you have not seen the movie?
>>22411We are not fans of Capper.
>>22410I 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.
>>22405So 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.
>>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.
>>22415Sorry I missed your post.
Here's a (You) because you've nailed it.
>>22416Also horsepussy. Forgot to say that but it's picture number two.
>>22415I...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.
>>22419>Funny that you mention the Magic of Friendship thoughI literally did not mention it.
>>22420>>22420So 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.
>>22432>when realizing that ponies are furryThey're not.
>>22433>If I keep saying it, it'll come true
>>22434That's been you in this thread.
>>22432>The point has been to emphasize that nothing necessarily changes when realizing that ponies are furryThey 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.
>>21980There 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.
>>22436To 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.
>>22446Again, 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.
>>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 criteriaNon-pony internet normies do not define us.
>>22450What this Anon said.
>>22448>honestThat faggots are the end all be all of definitions. Stop trying to force retardation here that's retarded.
>personas that you identify with/asNo.
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 [Embed]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 [Embed]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 personaLike,... 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.
>>22453Identification 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.
>>22452>their opinion - regardless of attempted scholarship - is invalidYes. 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 legitimacyI don't care who you compare us to. You're full of shit.
>I demand you see me this wayI don't care what normies see me as. That ship sailed a decade ago. It is you who brought up the discussion.
>>22454Just because furries like roleplay doesn't make anyone who's ever roleplayed a furry.
>>22455But it isnt. There are some yes, who persist in the perpetuity of their
fursona charachter, but notably many dont. Theyre still BOTH personas, that the individual habituates.
>>22456>If ur not like me, you cant know meAgain, the troon assertion is validated
>you brought up the discussionSorry for being real in your safespace, then
>>22457Not 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
>>22458You 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.
>>22459>That's a rather small minority.I would say a tiny, microscopical minority.
>>22459>pony randomlol
>using the verifiable definition of words to establish concepts is soul-less generalizingSo 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 roleplayEver 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.
>>22466Pony 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)
>>22467>It's common to be either a furry or a weeb without displaying any of the stereotypical behaviors of either groupNo. 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.
>>22468This
Nu furry and nu brony.
>>22458The 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 showI'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 definitionIs 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>gatekeepingWow, I thought you "werent" a furry
>>22469Precisely what a weeb in denial would say
>>22470Oh, 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.
>>22472You 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 furryFurries 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 sayMost people in first world countries born after the 80s have seen and enjoyed multiple anime. That doesn't make them all weebs.
>>22473>but yeah you could describe them as niche furriesOkay, I see that practically everything is furry to you.
>>22474>they come into obscure furry boards centered on poniesFTFY
>proselytizeDivesting people of their ignorance (if they can stomach it,...) is never proselytizing, but you've already shown remarkable intellectual honesty so no surprise there.
>>22475Do they then identify as a fan of anime?
>>22476In that Furry is the all-encompassing term
How's y'all's
fursona doing?
Sorry, meant to say 'waifu'
>>22473>White or Black africans are a subcategory of AfricanAfrican 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 AfricansHeck, 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.
>>22473The country of Africa represents animation. The farmers have made something of the land.
>You literally just proved my pointThat the words you proclaim are true are lacking in nearly every metric.
>Divesting people of their ignoranceHad 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 termKeep 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.
>>22478A 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.
>>22482Wrong. 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.
>>22483Then all characters are fursonas.
Once again you're incorrect stop being dumb to do a little trolling.
>>22484No, 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.
>>22485>A fursona is a character, nothing more.
>>22486Yes, 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.
>>22483Fursona = "furry persona"
"Persona" means personalized character.
>>22487>has already been well establishedNo. You've just been repeating your own assertions.
>>22488Not 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.
>>22489So 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 [Embed] >>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.
>>22492Sure 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 furryThere 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 egyptiansNo, 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)
>>22492>furries>"an international queer art movement,">video of cannibal furriesMore satanic cannot get, I guess.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Heres some SHORT references for y'all
https://youtube.com/shorts/nXHqLLSKsRQ?si=qo5ym41IVS20gLvj [Embed]>What is a furry[YouTube] what is a fursona? #furry #fursona #furryfandom #fursuiter
[Embed]>What is a fursonaYou'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?'
I should clarify, the niche 'literally who' refers to the comic artist,, not the videographer
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!
>>22491>you cant refute themWe refuted them in multiple ways you've yet to address.
>>22472Also, 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.
>>22498As 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 ^_~
>>22500You 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.
>>22501If (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
>>22500Sorry you couldn't make your point and have to step away. Better luck next time.
>>22502You 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.
>>22500>its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furriesGood.
Keep away from us as well.
>>22502Just reflecting back what you dish out.
>>22505I 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 haveNo 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.
>>22508A couple Anons even refuted your arguments using the same information you presented in the "furry science" link.
>>22509>>22510Oh, but I HAVE. I often havent made the refutations in direct responses, but I've done so over time if you've been paying attention; including the alleged refutations based on furscience.
I guess y'all are thicker than I initially assumed.
>>22511Fine. 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
>>22512Thats 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.
>>22513If the point is one that you apply to yourself, that makes it inherently subjective. You cannot be "in denial" of a subjective aspect.
>>22513No. 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.
>>22515You are right, theyre furries in denial
(at least, he horsefuckers ITT, so far)
>>22514Is 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?
>>22516How can you be in denial of something that is dependent on your personal acceptance of it? That's an oxymoron.
>>22518The 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.
>>22519Ask 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
>>22518You 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.
>>22520Your source says nothing about being "in denial" is says not to label a person as furry unless they decide it for themselves.
>>22512Wow. It's like he didn't even read the source before posting it.
>>22521So, 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?)
>>22523You 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.
>>22524No, 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
>>22525Troons are denying what's in their pants.
Furry is a question of identity.
>>22526So, whats in their actions?
>>22512>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourselfYup. So simple as that.
>>22524>"tomboys"Degenerate all the same. Much like horstruckers. Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.
Here's the image summary of the thread. Sort of disappointed I was hoping it'd be more mentally stimulating. Good game.
>>22534>first pic>ponified memeKEK
>>22532>Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.WTF
I missed that one.
>>22538>>22537I figured he already destroyed whatever he wanted to try to do and let bygones be bygones.
>>22512Both 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.
>>22532Not me btw, in case y'all,... nevermind, you cant put 2 and 2 together anyway
>>22539What 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.
>>22532You 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 soVery 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.
>DegeneratesThe 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.
>>22405Now this OP faggot.
Oh, wait this is just virtue signaling and blog posting.
>>22432Mhmm, not virtue signaling or blog posting. At all.
Just exchanging the IQ of the room for feel good posts.
>>22447It'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 furryThat's been disproven multiple times. So let's see your next point.
>Just be the furfag pleaseThat'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 leaveRegularly 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 ^_~
>>22563>deny biologyYou 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 gladlyAnd 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 hereWeird of you to say that when you've been arguing about this long.
>>22563So... 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.
>>22563>intellectual integrity of postersNigger, 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 ignoranceSo 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.
>>22543>source?!So sad it has come to this.
>>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.
>>22570Yes, "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 upWe did look it up, multiple times. All the sources reviewed say that it's self-identified.
>>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.
>>22525>the evidenceWhat evidence? All the evidence you've shown us says the opposite.
>Day 4752 of FiM ponies being a type of anthropomorphic animal.
>Still no end in sight
>>22582>Day 10 of OP being a cum-guzzling, yiffing, delusional faggot>Still no end in sight
>>22584You sound thirsty.
>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
>>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 soWow. How insightful and persuasive.
>>22588At least its honest
>>22590
>deleting his shitty post
You can tell what my prompt was, cuz the AI repeats it in affirmation. Cry moar, ur a fuery
>>22591>You can tell what my prompt wasThen post the prompt(s)
>>22587I 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?"
>>22593>doxingIf posting question is doxing the answer to questions would be doxing too as ChatGPT is likely saving both if anything, which I highly doubt they are.
>>22594Most likely.
>>22594Quite 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.
>>22595Theres 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?
>>22589It'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.
>>22593How 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 faithYou 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.
>>22598To 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
>>22601>ID imagesThen crop the image.
>>22600And 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
>>22601So, the not disagreed with you.
What's your point?
>>22604Wanna try thay again?
>>22606Thank you stix. Moves out of your parent's house yet? Maybe gotten your own bank account? I hope so, you're what, 25 now?
>>22603Fandoms 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.
>>22609Wrong. Im saying Muslims and Christians are Abrahamic
>>22610Speaking intelligibly
>>22611May as well say Muslims and Christians are Vedic too, if ague references to 4000 yo texts is your criteria.
Nothing says rage/failure like posting random video links
Dont worry, Ill be back when Stix has stopped wetting himself
>>22613>>22605>literally misspelled a word in his reply>"speak intelligibly">can't infer that "b" is next to "n".You're wasting my time.
>>22619And yet, my meaning was clear, while yours was what now?
>>22596>I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshotYou could crop the screenshot. It wouldn't be hard.
>>22621"bot"
What is your point?
>>22623I 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
>>22624The 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,....
>>22625>he left the image data in the fileLmao, how does anyone fuck up this badly?
>>22629Right on time ^_~
There, you have the prompt data
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.
>>22634Just as troons can self identify as wtfe
>>22635You've completely missed the point.
Did you even read the post?
>>22637Did you miss where the bot was being sensitive to horsefuckers feelings?
(not just the bot either, furscience - for all their aggregation of useful data, they too cater to feelings and inclusion)
>>22611Nobody 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.
>>22638And what are we supposed to take from that? It's a bot.
>>22640So 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?
>>22644As long as youre willing to agree that men can be women, sure!
>>22645You never addressed how the biological science is congruent with the social non-definition.
>>22647Because it boils down to self identity
Leave it to a christian to spam nonsense when he has no argument,....
For those not staff, this is how staff (Stix, at least) 'argues'
>>22645I 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?
>>22656Do I agree that men identifying as women is legitimate?
Absolutely not
>>22587One last time, cuz this constant YT spam is,... well par for the course
>>22645No, I don't, because that's a question of biology.
You've yet to give a single scientific definition of "furry".
>>22650Are (You) saying that men and women is a question of self-identification? Last I checked, being a woman wasn't a fandom.
>>22650Since when is biology self-identity?
>>22661We can continue when you check your boy
>>22663>check your boyWhat does that even mean?
>>22665Check the staff with the YT spam
>>22666How am I supposed to check that?
Do you still think it's only Lotus arguing with you here?
>>22670No, but he IS here
>>22663>We can continue whenAre 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?
>>22671That's none of our business.
>>22675Oh, okay then. So long.
>>22677>implyingIt was nice that some of y'all tried to legitimately engage
>>22678I thought you were done posting until the spam stopped?
>>22680I 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
(something something, staff will not target users, something something)
>>22681So 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)
>>22688Who 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.
>>22691No, I really don't see how anything is being encouraged.
>>22690Are 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?
>>22694It'll be on the overboard forever because you keep bumping it, and we don't have proper bump limits for some reason.
>>22694>effectively diedWhy are you here then?
>>22693>no matter where or when, just let the posting count increaseAlex, what is "manufactured relevance"
>>22698Nobody cares about numbers.
>>22697To rub your noses in the fact that youre furries, since it bothers you so much
>>22702Where did you get the definition of the word "furry" that is so undeniable we must accept it?
>>22702We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
>>22705testingFrom a variety of furry and non-furry sources
omg, has Stix finally stopped shitting the bed?Alright, lets go back then!
>>22587Heres where we left off, more or less
>>22707All the sources you gave said it was self-identified.
Is it only you who says it isn't?
>>22709Yes, 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
Here we go,... goodnight all, Ill bother you later
>>22711So 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 troonsTroons drink water too. That's irrelevant.
>>22711That just means your sources contradict you.
<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 muchSeems 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.
>>22753That'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.
>>22757>Horsefuckers aren't furriesCongratulations.
>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.
>>22759Meanwhile the flat earth thread got its bump limit erased. Talk about hypocrisy.
>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....
>>22764That'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.
>>22757Horsefuckers 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.
that’s because it hit the natural bump limit, retard, learn how imageboards work
>>22769No, 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.
Total furry apologist death.
>>22777(you) just love to posture don't you?