/sp/ - Football

>>22405
So in other words, what this is really about is that (You) are a furry, and you want to talk all of us into joining you. So, instead of just doing what a normal person would do, ie making a thread to extol what you perceive as the many virtues of furfaggotry and seeing if you get any takers, you cook up this load of convoluted sophistry and feed it to us in an effort to mind-rape us into believing that we're all furries already.

If you're a furry and you have a fursona and whatever the fuck that's your own affair, I honestly don't give a shit and don't have a problem with it. If you want to try to convince others to join you in a 12 hour yiffing session, or whatever you people do for recreation, that's your own affair and I don't have a problem with it. Mind you, I'm not interested and I won't be joining you, but within reason I don't care that much what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors on their own time. But for fuck's sake, at least argue in good faith and be honest about what you're trying to do.

>>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.

>>22415
Sorry I missed your post.
Here's a (You) because you've nailed it.

>>22416
Also horsepussy. Forgot to say that but it's picture number two.

>>22415
I...um... what? I wont claim that that wasnt a perspective based on a perception of what I said, but that was an astonishing interpretation and not at all what this has been about. Funny that you mention the Magic of Friendship though, in that you instinctively interpret exposition and sharing of ideas and concepts as being ego-motivated and whatever else you wont to interpret.

>>22419
>Funny that you mention the Magic of Friendship though
I literally did not mention it.

>>22420
>>22420
So you didn't. I guess that didnt factor in your attempts to spin this as being some sort of ego-driven membership drive.
The point has been to emphasize that nothing necessarily changes when realizing that ponies are furry, nor need the behaviors of the individual other than to realize that there is a significant number of decent, wholesome people pervading throughout, excluded from realization by individual hangups and semantics about terminology.
Nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.

>>22432
>when realizing that ponies are furry
They're not.

>>22434
That's been you in this thread.

>>22436
This.

>>22432
>The point has been to emphasize that nothing necessarily changes when realizing that ponies are furry
They are not. There is nothing to realize. We've been over this multiple times.

>there is a significant number of decent, wholesome people pervading throughout, excluded from realization by individual hangups and semantics about terminology.
Fine, but what you're failing to realize is that this doesn't change anything. We're not furries, we don't want to become furries, and no amount of mental gymnastics from you is going to change that. If you're a furry, then fine. If there are furries who are decent and wholesome people, then fine. That doesn't mean we're going to join them. Just because there are good and wholesome people in a fandom does not mean I'm going to join that fandom if I'm not interested in the thing that they are fans of. There are probably decent and wholesome people in the Harry Potter fandom, that doesn't mean I'm going to dress up in a Hogwarts robe and play wizards with them.

The MLP fandom is about liking MLP. I like MLP, so I am in that fandom. The furry fandom is about making up an animal persona for yourself and larping as that persona. I am not interested in that, so I am not in that fandom. No matter how much you want to try and contort the matter, I'm afraid it really is that simple.

>>21980
There is not a single reason for a horsefucker to join a furry community, as communities are first people and then a common interest, and not a common interest and then people.
With this, I mean, both communities have similarities in what they like; that does not mean they enjoy each-other's company.

The furry fandom is big and old, thanks to this, it has built around itself a terrible reputation.
Bronies have a terrible reputation too, and that is as close as a 'furry horsefucker' you will get. I believe many 'bronies' converted to furry after the 'mlp fad' was over. I also know many 'new fandom' people are furries.
A man born a man can never fully become a woman, such as a horsefucker born horsefucker can never fully become a furry.

>>22436
To the contrary, the arguments against have been spurious, fallacious, and semantic. Im not the one trying to split a hair to say there are two separate hairs.
>>22442
>that doesn't mean I'm going to dress up in a Hogwarts robe and play wizards with them.
Well duh, no one is suggesting you do so in a fursuit, etc. either. This is predominantly about my insistance that ponies are within the furry umbrella, and the ignorant refusal to accept that as legitimate, for increasingly individual and dubious justifications. I get it, no one wants to see themselves as HAVING BEEN doing furry-related ever since,... but you have been.
>>22446
Again, horsefuckery has always been in the furry fandom

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 criteria
Non-pony internet normies do not define us.

>>22450
What this Anon said.
>>22448
>honest
That faggots are the end all be all of definitions. Stop trying to force retardation here that's retarded.
>personas that you identify with/as
No.
You're thinking of furries, that's their shtick.
That's sort of the whole point that makes furries a furry. Is that commonplace engagement with 'fursonas'.
There are whole other groups fully about personas, but that's not housefuckers.

Let's put this another way that'll seep into your dense head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFQQALduhzA
Fans of Japanese Animation are fans. They enjoy the shows.
However there are also weebs. Are people who have sets of behaviors common to that category.

That is to say a weeb can be a fan of Japanese Animation.
Fans of Japanese Animation can be a weeaboo.
People who enjoy Japan's history don't have to be a weeb.
Here's some more educational material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKfvkIAdyAY

Horsefuckers are fundamentally different from furries.
Furries can be bronies. Bronies can be furries.
Here's some esoteric knowledge. Horsefuckers isn't the same as a brony.

>>22450
>a DnD character isnt a persona
Like,... uhm. Okay, you're a waste of time.
For those with the capacity for comprehension;
Persona: a role or character adopted by an author, actor, etc. or in a game.
"Bowie burned through one persona after another"
>Non-pony internet normies do not define us.
Again, thats leftist tranny-speak. It doesnt look it, but you're trying to argue that not only your subjective impression of yourself is 100% correct, unbiased, viable, and legitimate, but ALSO that people you DONT 'authorize' (for biased and self-servimg reasons), their opinion - regardless of attempted scholarship - is invalid, because you say so.
Im not accusing you of bein born a man but claiming to be a woman an expecting everyone to respect it, Im sayin your argument is on par with theirs and has equal legitimacy. "I demand you see me this way, I dont care what people putside my 'niche' say about it". Helluva hill to die on

>>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.

>>22453
Identification need not apply. If you are willing to get etymologically technical, regardless of how in-synch OR divergent the persona is from (you), performing as an alternate personality (the route word of persona) is all there is to it.
Theres a reason RPGs are hugely embraced by furries, and while I dont know the specific demographics, theres easily as many furries who have one sole fursona as there are who have a few, a handful, or a dozen. Describing a fursona as a self-insert isnt inaccurate in SOME cases, but theres a not-insignificant percent that doesnt identify with their fursonas at ALL, but are invested toward them.
You know, like horsefuckers and fixating on the mane 6 (not a criticism).

>>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 invalid
Yes. They do not define us.
For what reason should I accept definitions from people who don't even know our fandom?
>your argument is on par with theirs and has equal legitimacy
I don't care who you compare us to. You're full of shit.
>I demand you see me this way
I don't care what normies see me as. That ship sailed a decade ago. It is you who brought up the discussion.

>>22454
Just because furries like roleplay doesn't make anyone who's ever roleplayed a furry.

>>22455
But 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 me
Again, the troon assertion is validated
>you brought up the discussion
Sorry for being real in your safespace, then
>>22457
Not my allegation Anyone can roleplay without being a furry.
But, its hard to roleplay as a furry animal (ponies for example) and LEGITIMATELY claim to not be furry

>>22458
You know, I can see clear as day that you've only been associated with the pony random for 6 years (only joined after the fandom was declining; didn't witness how it was built), but I'm starting to question how long you've even been a furry. You seem to have a lot of blatant disregard for the specific parameters and traits of BOTH fandoms, favoring soulless generalist definitions based on the first result on jewgle.
>its hard to roleplay as a furry animal (ponies for example)
Most pony fans don't roleplay as ponies. That's a rather small minority.

>>22459
>That's a rather small minority.
I would say a tiny, microscopical minority.

>>22459
>pony random
lol
>using the verifiable definition of words to establish concepts is soul-less generalizing
So sorry that Oxford refutes your personal truth. Maybe if you asked yourself the question "What of I have it wrong?" and did some honest investigation, you could avoid struggling to call someone a doodie-head on the internet because their words get your panties twisted.
>most pony fans don't roleplay
Ever heard of Pony Town, as but one example? Here's a better example:
How many pony fans have a dedicated/declared waifu? How is individually identifying with - to the degree of feeling 'correct' in prescribing what said waifu would say, do, think, etc. - not a form of roleplay?

Imo, pony fans have more on common with anime fans than they do with furries. More common origins on imageboards too.

>>22466
Pony fans are furries. Anime fans are weebs. It's common to be either a furry or a weeb without displaying any of the stereotypical behaviors of either group, and is the norm if you look at the statistics. What is NOT the case is trying to divide the group into subgroups to then claim that theres separation. Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.

>>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 group
No. Weeb is defined by its behavior. A person who watches and enjoys anime is not necessarily a weeb.

>>22467
>Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
Furry is not the entire concept of anthropomorphization. Otherwise Egyptians and Hindus and cave-painters would all also be furries.

>>22468
This
Nu furry and nu brony.

>>22458
The point is your appeals to authority are lacking, they have no nuance. They can't have nuance else fitting what bronies, horsefuckers and furries falls apart.
Those nuances mean lumping everybody in one group is disastrous.
Consider Africans. Black and white Africans. They're both African, live in the same areas*. *For a time.
What could possibly be the difference? You should already know.
Those little details matter.
But good enough for gubbermemt work right?
So why so much pushback about a tiny minuscule detail about this?
Because the truth matters.
Horsefuckers aren't furries, it's an orange to purple distinction. While red might be in both that's a higher more fundamental color.
Red is character design, the history of western animation cartooning, the medium of media.
Yellow is the desired traits one wishes to see in the world, and possibly themselves.
Blue is extraversion of themselves.
What I'm getting at is the projection is typically furry. A social coloration.
Horsefuckers aren't that. It's not about signaling anything it's about the fundamentals.
The how and why are different. The what is blurred, because for some things the how and why don't matter that much.
Conventions have events spiraling quickly out of hand with each and every nudge.
Consider Trotcon 23 to Mare Fair.
Both could technically be considered pony centric.
Trotcon features everything else G5 and all that.
Mare Fair: HERE LIES MLP:FIM NEVER GOT A THIRD SEASON
>We know the ride will never end.
>we'll just rewatch it all again!
>we won't leave for another show
I'd describe mare schizo chads as a surgical knife made cleaver and a cleaver made surgical knife.
Furries are rolling pins.

Nothing wrong in and of being a rolling pin, but a surgical cleaver and chopping surgery blade aren't a rolling pin.
You don't put rolling pins in a knife block. You don't hone a rolling pin.
>>22467
>Pony fans are furries. Anime fans are weebs.
You're missing the point repeatedly. You're conflating groups that make no sense historically or chronologically.
Anime fan existed before weebs.
Japanese nationalists existed before weebs.
Cartoon fans existed before furries.
Fans of good morals existed before furries.
Fans of good stories existed before furries.
Fans of characterized anthropomorphism existed before furries.
Furries are about the anthropomorphism in a group all about it. It would make sense then that they would claim all anthropomorphic things as their own. And say so widely and broadly.
Normal fags don't think of the implications.
Horsefuckers don't derive from furries. Made of common elements of ideals, stories, morals, art style.
Had MLP:FIM not done stylized mythical miniature horses and kept everything else the same.
Horsefuckers would still be in that other MLP:FIM, because of all the other factors which in this case matter more.
At most you could claim due to some similar origins they are cousins.
>What is NOT the case is trying to divide the group into subgroups to then claim that theres separation.
I'm claiming the conception of Horsefuckers make it a different family who share great grandparents with furries.
>Muh definition
Is absolute garbage it doesn't have enough truth in it to be unassailable and ability to provide good things.
People standing up for truth because even the little parts matter and so does the bigger parts.
Horsefuckers arn't furries. If you use garbage definitions and say that's the gold standard to measure everything by. Have fun, but nobody will trade with you except empty platitudes to have you stop wasting time trying to buy stuff with monopoly counterfeit money.

>>22467
>gatekeeping
Wow, I thought you "werent" a furry
>>22469
Precisely what a weeb in denial would say
>>22470
Oh, but it is, asfar as interest groups go. Egyptians and Hindus have a religious component, designed to convey wisdom, understanding, and how to correctly orient themselves in the world, but yeah you could describe them as niche furries.
>>22472
You literally just proved my point: White or Black africans are a subcategory of Africans. Just as say, Horsefuckers and Fursuiters are separate subcategories of Furry.
I know its easy to get distracted by all those trees, but thats the forest you're trying to niggle out of.
Dont worry, Ill read the rest when I get a moment

>>22473
>I thought you "werent" a furry
Furries don't gatekeep. They come into obscure pony boards and proselytize their fandom to people who didn't ask for it.

>>22473
>what a weeb in denial would say
Most people in first world countries born after the 80s have seen and enjoyed multiple anime. That doesn't make them all weebs.

>>22473
>but yeah you could describe them as niche furries
Okay, I see that practically everything is furry to you.

>>22474
>they come into obscure furry boards centered on ponies
FTFY
>proselytize
Divesting people of their ignorance (if they can stomach it,...) is never proselytizing, but you've already shown remarkable intellectual honesty so no surprise there.
>>22475
Do they then identify as a fan of anime?
>>22476
In that Furry is the all-encompassing term

How's y'all's fursona doing?

Sorry, meant to say 'waifu'

>>22473
>White or Black africans are a subcategory of African
African is a geographic location, not an identity, fandom or even group association. No white African denies being African, even though calling them African may be misleading to those who expect someone black.
However, if you ask a white African his race/ethnicity, he'd tell you he's racially Anglo or Dutch Afrikaanz.
>t. Descended from white Africans

Heck, a lot of the various types of niggers in Africa don't even like how others group them all together as niggers. West Africans Bantus (the niggers that American slaves came from), are not Kalahari Bushmen (who aren't even blacks but red, and are only like 4 ft tall); the Bantus in fact all but exterminated the Bushmen. Abyssinian (Ethiopians; basically look like whites with black skin) don't like being considered the same race as the big-lipped, chimpanzee-skulled Bantus. These groups all consider themselves to be different races; it is only outsiders who consider them one group, only for the purpose of separating "white" from "colored".
Of course, as a non-nigger outsider, I wouldn't care about calling them all "niggers", as even though they reject being called the same race, but I also wouldn't go up to them insisting that they should all call themselves the same thing under the "umbrella term" and accept my vague definitions of what is black; because despite them being niggers I still have a shred of respect for people who recognize the independence of their race.

>>22473
The country of Africa represents animation. The farmers have made something of the land.
>You literally just proved my point
That the words you proclaim are true are lacking in nearly every metric.
>Divesting people of their ignorance
Had you used something that has more truth in it that could have been useful. Instead you're suckered into the veneer of fools gold.
>Do they then identify as a fan of anime?
They qualify as people who happened to experienced something.
>In that Furry is the all-encompassing term
Keep using worthless paper nobody will trade with. Then when you crow about how you were right that nobody will bother trading, it's that you're offering valueless trades.

>>22479
Well said.

>>22478
A Waifu is not a fursona
A fursona is a personalized character; usually a self-insert.
A Waifu is often just a character from a piece of media. It is almost never a self-insert (except among the /ptfg/ trannies who wants to be one Fluttershy).
They can overlap, but they are not the same.

>>22482
Wrong. A fursona is a character, nothing more. I reiterate that people in some cases have dozens of fursonas, and its become increasingly prevalent to purchase ("adopt") premade fursonas without any involvement of the purchaser.
A waifu is a character that one adopts, and ostensibly role-plays with on a quasi-internal level. Different facets on the same stone.

>>22483
Then all characters are fursonas.
Once again you're incorrect stop being dumb to do a little trolling.

>>22484
No, all animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities are furry. For example, theres the Fox and the Hound; foxes and a doggo who speak to eachother in english, or the Lion King where all manner of animals speak English to one another. Then there's Robin Hood (the fox one), where bipedal animals speak and interact like humans (with the exception of snek) or Zootopia, where likewise is true. My Little Pony is somewhere between those examples, but no less furry.

>>22486
Yes, that is how I responded to the assertion that a fursona is a personalized character. The emphasis of being an anthropomorphic animal has already been well established, if you have been paying attention.

>>22483
Fursona = "furry persona"
"Persona" means personalized character.

>>22487
>has already been well established
No. You've just been repeating your own assertions.

>>22488
Not at all, there is nothing implicit or explicit about the term Persona that implies personalization, even though the etymology is similar. When you play Dark Souls, you are playing a persona. If for some reason that persona was an anthropomorphic animal, THEN it would be furry.

>>22489
So you admit that you observed the specification, and that you're being disingenuous. You may not like my assertions, but outside logical fallacies, you cant refute them

>>22467
>Furry is the title of the anthropomorphic-interest spectrum, rather than a particular section of the group.
No it isn't.

For instance, take this actual furry's video here. He ultimately defines furries as "an international queer art movement," or something to that effect. He doesn't even mention anthropomorphic animals in his definition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovu8VK3NeX4&pp=ygUjcGx1c2ggZG9lc24ndCBrbm93IHdoYXQgZnVycmllcyBhcmU%3D

>>22448
>MLP has ALWAYS been furry content, in that the internet has decided thats the criteria.
Literally no it doesn't. Most people on the internet don't think bronies are furries, and no one except you thinks that every single children's movie or work of literature that features a talking animal is furry.

>>22473
>Egyptians and Hindus have a religious component, designed to convey wisdom, understanding, and how to correctly orient themselves in the world, but yeah you could describe them as niche furries.
*Furries are niche Egyptians
ftfy

>>22485
>No, all animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities are furry. For example, theres the Fox and the Hound; foxes and a doggo who speak to eachother in english, or the Lion King where all manner of animals speak English to one another. Then there's Robin Hood (the fox one), where bipedal animals speak and interact like humans (with the exception of snek) or Zootopia, where likewise is true. My Little Pony is somewhere between those examples, but no less furry.
Is this a troll post? These things are blatantly not furry, and most of the things you named existed long before the furry fandom.

In any case, you've been equivocating the meaning of the term "anthropomorphic." As applied to furries, it means what the great term literally translates to: human form. It means animals given a human shape. But you've been using a different and broader definition of the term to try to force disney characters to be furry - the meaning of an animal given any kind of human quality. But that isn't what the term "anthropomophic" means as applied to furries.

>>22492
Sure bud, Im gonna sit through an hour long video where a guy objects to a comic about cannibalization, HOPING to find what you claim is a point.
No, Im gonna revert to the wealth of demographics provided by furscience. Nice try tho.
>furry movies arent furry
There wasnt that classification before, thats true. There is now though. You're welcome to try and establish a different term. Good luck. (Fun fact, I used those specific examples because they are some of the most commonly cited examples of media that led furries to being furries)
>Furries are niche egyptians
No, Egyptians worshipped/exalted specific deified individuals who were reported to have animalistic traits some of the time (reported as appearing human at some instances, and animal-headed at others). For one, there is a degree of religious prescription in that. For two, depending on how literally one interprets the stories, these were figurative and considered iconographical, but still subject to worship. I mean, if you wanna get THAT general, then in that they were deified constructs, Jesus was a furry (except not, cuz not animal, but definitely furry adjacent, if youre gonna spin furries as Egyptian).
Anthropomorphic ANIMALS. Animals, being a specific and intrinsic aspect to the equation, yes; furries are animals that display one or more degrees of human form, be it social, physiological, etc.
Glad you joined the discussion L (kek, never made that connection before)

>>22492
>furries
>"an international queer art movement,"
>video of cannibal furries
More satanic cannot get, I guess.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Heres some SHORT references for y'all
https://youtube.com/shorts/nXHqLLSKsRQ?si=qo5ym41IVS20gLvj
>What is a furry
https://youtube.com/shorts/Fz_1COj4s2o?si=g3QwMGkb4SMe6lwn
>What is a fursona
You'll notice that the individuals represented have both been Guests of Honor at one or more furry conventions (not to mention their followings on YT, Insta, etc), rather than being a niche 'literally who?'

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 them
We refuted them in multiple ways you've yet to address.

>>22472
Also, I went back and read your diatribe. Not impressed. I wont fixate on each and every logical fallacy (numerous nat they are), instead I'll say simply: they didnt USED to be call weebs, but they are now.

>>22498
As I just said, Im not gonna address every/all fallacy, and if you dont know that its a fallacy, its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries; we have enough disingenuous troublemakers as is ^_~

>>22500
You say we "can't refute them", and yet you skip past the refutations. To me, it sounds more like it's you who cannot refute the arguments.

>>22501
If (you) cant recognize your own logical fallacies, no; Im not going to expend the time and effort to educate you. You (should) know better by now

>>22500
Sorry you couldn't make your point and have to step away. Better luck next time.

>>22503
>implying
see >>22502

>>22502
You won't because you can't. It's so transparent.
You claim to win an argument when ignoring half of the other side's arguments, particularly those that you can't refute. And you expect people to take you seriously.
It's all so tiresome.

>>22500
>its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries
Good.
Keep away from us as well.

>>22502
Just reflecting back what you dish out.

>>22505
I wont because I already have. If y'all stepped outside your carefully guarded ideas of what a 'horsefucker' or 'brony' or wtfe "is" and took a careful look at the wealth of available evidence (including evidence not presented, cuz if I was wrong it would be simple to find furry/non-furry sources to refute) THEN attempted to make an argument, it would be evident.
But you haven't, and you won't.
I'll reiterate: nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.

>>22508
>already have
No you didn't.
Scroll up in the thread. There's more then a dozen carefully crafted arguments that you either did not reply to or only replied to part of while ignoring the part that refuted your arguments.
And having already done something has never stopped you from redundantly repeating the same couple lines/points over and over in this threads.

>>22508
A couple Anons even refuted your arguments using the same information you presented in the "furry science" link.

>>22509
>>22510
Oh, 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.

>>22511
Fine. Stop being a dumbass.
https://furscience.com/resources/
>Is my child a furry?

>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not. Some furries will have fursuits, and others will not. Some will go to conventions or buy furry artwork. None of these is a necessary or sufficient condition to declare someone a furry. Like being a video gamer or a fan of a genre of music or a particular sport team, the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself—typically when your interest in anthropomorphic animal media is an important part of your identity. If your child really enjoys movies or books with talking animals, then they might consider themselves to be a furry. If you’ve always liked Daffy Duck or Disney’s Robin Hood, you might be a furry, too. As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself

>>22512
Thats been my point from the beginning. But, I also assert that having been made aware of all this (read: nescience is disspelled) one is either a furry, or in denial of being a furry.

>>22513
If the point is one that you apply to yourself, that makes it inherently subjective. You cannot be "in denial" of a subjective aspect.

>>22513
No. Your point is that Horsefuckers, bronies, ect. are furries.
The definition with the source you said is up to your standard.
<As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
So no. Horsefuckers are not furries.
Furries can be bronies or whatever fucking else. But it does not work the other way around.

>>22515
You are right, theyre furries in denial

(at least, he horsefuckers ITT, so far)

>>22514
Is it not logical to observe that a person who is categorically a furry, and has been appraised of what a furry is, is in denial?

>>22516
How can you be in denial of something that is dependent on your personal acceptance of it? That's an oxymoron.
>>22518
The key factor is self-identification. The interest with some anthro animals, according to the source that YOU provided, is not enough on its own. People who do not identify as furries are categorically not furries.

>>22519
Ask yourself. Youve been well appraised by this point, how can (YOU) be in denial?
Self-identification, AFTER a sufficiently thorough explanation is the DIFFERENCE between whether one is a furry or in denial

>>22518
You are so full of shit.
You come here and demand that we accept what you consider to be an authoritative source for the definition ("Trust the science!") and then you contradict the very same source when further scrutiny reveals it to be inconsistent with your point.
According to the "furry scientist", we are not furries unless we say so. The fact that we do not say so is proof enough by itself that we are not furries. This, on top of all the other points we've made about the distinguishing factors between ourselves and furries is more than enough proof that we are not.
>>22520
Your source says nothing about being "in denial" is says not to label a person as furry unless they decide it for themselves.

>>22512
Wow. It's like he didn't even read the source before posting it.

>>22521
So, you're denying the logical conclusion that someone who presents a variety of furry characteristics can be observed to be a furry?
Because they dont self-identify?
(can you see the troon argument, about to rear it's ugly head?)

>>22523
You are making the troon argument that a girl who cuts her hair short and likes to play sports, or is otherwise nonconformance with the expectations of femininity must actually be a troon, and not just a tomboy, regardless of what she thinks.
The key factor is self identity. All the other characteristics are superficial, as furries do not share them all, and many other people express those characteristics without being furries. Without the key characteristic, none of the other characteristics matter.

>>22524
No, the troon argument is that "how I identify is more authentic/legitimate than the evidence that suggests Im not what I see myself as"
Like ponyfags pretending to not be furries

>>22525
Troons are denying what's in their pants.
Furry is a question of identity.

>>22526
So, whats in their actions?

>>22512
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
Yup. So simple as that.

>>22524
>"tomboys"
Degenerate all the same. Much like horstruckers. Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.

>>22532
Why?

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 meme
KEK

>>22535
Felt appropriate.

>>22532
Kill yourself.

>>22532
>Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.
WTF
I missed that one.