Furry
noun/adjective
>One can be said to be A furry, and one can be said to DO things that are describable AS furry.
"Furry" encompasses Animals with anthropomorphic aspects, and people who are interested in animals with anthropomorphic aspects.
Things like animals using spoken language, reading/writing, holding cups with their fore-[~]hands[/~]hooves, and assorted other human-like behavior that is otherwise not associated with the native creature.
Like ponies. Specifically, My Little Pony ponies.
Yes, ponies ARE definitively furry.
And, one can like furry things without identifying AS a furry,... but....
Tl;dr ITT OP tries to divest horsefuckers from their denial of being furries
/sp/ - Football
Yea, for the Denver Broncos are Football Now and Forever
File (): AABAF51433BFEC1E2D4A9D0AAC58975E-69374.jpg (67.7 KB, 569x438, 4cr9qr.jpg)
File (): ED38594C8D05920BEA38780A4FB94305-52184.jpg (51.0 KB, 1080x560, Screenshot_20230506_112003_Google.jpg)
464 replies and 103 files omitted.
>>22500
You say we "can't refute them", and yet you skip past the refutations. To me, it sounds more like it's you who cannot refute the arguments.
You say we "can't refute them", and yet you skip past the refutations. To me, it sounds more like it's you who cannot refute the arguments.
>>22501
If (you) cant recognize your own logical fallacies, no; Im not going to expend the time and effort to educate you. You (should) know better by now
If (you) cant recognize your own logical fallacies, no; Im not going to expend the time and effort to educate you. You (should) know better by now
>>22502
You won't because you can't. It's so transparent.
You claim to win an argument when ignoring half of the other side's arguments, particularly those that you can't refute. And you expect people to take you seriously.
It's all so tiresome.
You won't because you can't. It's so transparent.
You claim to win an argument when ignoring half of the other side's arguments, particularly those that you can't refute. And you expect people to take you seriously.
It's all so tiresome.
Anonymous
No.22506
>>22500
>its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries
Good.
Keep away from us as well.
>its fine that you keep yourselves away from the rest of furries
Good.
Keep away from us as well.
>>22505
I wont because I already have. If y'all stepped outside your carefully guarded ideas of what a 'horsefucker' or 'brony' or wtfe "is" and took a careful look at the wealth of available evidence (including evidence not presented, cuz if I was wrong it would be simple to find furry/non-furry sources to refute) THEN attempted to make an argument, it would be evident.
But you haven't, and you won't.
I'll reiterate: nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.
I wont because I already have. If y'all stepped outside your carefully guarded ideas of what a 'horsefucker' or 'brony' or wtfe "is" and took a careful look at the wealth of available evidence (including evidence not presented, cuz if I was wrong it would be simple to find furry/non-furry sources to refute) THEN attempted to make an argument, it would be evident.
But you haven't, and you won't.
I'll reiterate: nescience is a bitch, but ignorance is haram.
>>22508
>already have
No you didn't.
Scroll up in the thread. There's more then a dozen carefully crafted arguments that you either did not reply to or only replied to part of while ignoring the part that refuted your arguments.
And having already done something has never stopped you from redundantly repeating the same couple lines/points over and over in this threads.
>already have
No you didn't.
Scroll up in the thread. There's more then a dozen carefully crafted arguments that you either did not reply to or only replied to part of while ignoring the part that refuted your arguments.
And having already done something has never stopped you from redundantly repeating the same couple lines/points over and over in this threads.
>>22508
A couple Anons even refuted your arguments using the same information you presented in the "furry science" link.
A couple Anons even refuted your arguments using the same information you presented in the "furry science" link.
>>22511
Fine. Stop being a dumbass.
https://furscience.com/resources/
>Is my child a furry?
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not. Some furries will have fursuits, and others will not. Some will go to conventions or buy furry artwork. None of these is a necessary or sufficient condition to declare someone a furry. Like being a video gamer or a fan of a genre of music or a particular sport team, the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself—typically when your interest in anthropomorphic animal media is an important part of your identity. If your child really enjoys movies or books with talking animals, then they might consider themselves to be a furry. If you’ve always liked Daffy Duck or Disney’s Robin Hood, you might be a furry, too. As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
Fine. Stop being a dumbass.
https://furscience.com/resources/
>Is my child a furry?
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not. Some furries will have fursuits, and others will not. Some will go to conventions or buy furry artwork. None of these is a necessary or sufficient condition to declare someone a furry. Like being a video gamer or a fan of a genre of music or a particular sport team, the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself—typically when your interest in anthropomorphic animal media is an important part of your identity. If your child really enjoys movies or books with talking animals, then they might consider themselves to be a furry. If you’ve always liked Daffy Duck or Disney’s Robin Hood, you might be a furry, too. As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>the label “furry” is one that you apply to yourself
>>22512
Thats been my point from the beginning. But, I also assert that having been made aware of all this (read: nescience is disspelled) one is either a furry, or in denial of being a furry.
Thats been my point from the beginning. But, I also assert that having been made aware of all this (read: nescience is disspelled) one is either a furry, or in denial of being a furry.
>>22513
If the point is one that you apply to yourself, that makes it inherently subjective. You cannot be "in denial" of a subjective aspect.
If the point is one that you apply to yourself, that makes it inherently subjective. You cannot be "in denial" of a subjective aspect.
>>22513
No. Your point is that Horsefuckers, bronies, ect. are furries.
The definition with the source you said is up to your standard.
<As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
So no. Horsefuckers are not furries.
Furries can be bronies or whatever fucking else. But it does not work the other way around.
No. Your point is that Horsefuckers, bronies, ect. are furries.
The definition with the source you said is up to your standard.
<As we see it, self-identifying as a furry is the key to the furry identity.
So no. Horsefuckers are not furries.
Furries can be bronies or whatever fucking else. But it does not work the other way around.
Anonymous
No.22517
(at least, he horsefuckers ITT, so far)
>>22514
Is it not logical to observe that a person who is categorically a furry, and has been appraised of what a furry is, is in denial?
Is it not logical to observe that a person who is categorically a furry, and has been appraised of what a furry is, is in denial?
>>22516
How can you be in denial of something that is dependent on your personal acceptance of it? That's an oxymoron.
>>22518
The key factor is self-identification. The interest with some anthro animals, according to the source that YOU provided, is not enough on its own. People who do not identify as furries are categorically not furries.
How can you be in denial of something that is dependent on your personal acceptance of it? That's an oxymoron.
>>22518
The key factor is self-identification. The interest with some anthro animals, according to the source that YOU provided, is not enough on its own. People who do not identify as furries are categorically not furries.
>>22519
Ask yourself. Youve been well appraised by this point, how can (YOU) be in denial?
Self-identification, AFTER a sufficiently thorough explanation is the DIFFERENCE between whether one is a furry or in denial
Ask yourself. Youve been well appraised by this point, how can (YOU) be in denial?
Self-identification, AFTER a sufficiently thorough explanation is the DIFFERENCE between whether one is a furry or in denial
>>22518
You are so full of shit.
You come here and demand that we accept what you consider to be an authoritative source for the definition ("Trust the science!") and then you contradict the very same source when further scrutiny reveals it to be inconsistent with your point.
According to the "furry scientist", we are not furries unless we say so. The fact that we do not say so is proof enough by itself that we are not furries. This, on top of all the other points we've made about the distinguishing factors between ourselves and furries is more than enough proof that we are not.
>>22520
Your source says nothing about being "in denial" is says not to label a person as furry unless they decide it for themselves.
You are so full of shit.
You come here and demand that we accept what you consider to be an authoritative source for the definition ("Trust the science!") and then you contradict the very same source when further scrutiny reveals it to be inconsistent with your point.
According to the "furry scientist", we are not furries unless we say so. The fact that we do not say so is proof enough by itself that we are not furries. This, on top of all the other points we've made about the distinguishing factors between ourselves and furries is more than enough proof that we are not.
>>22520
Your source says nothing about being "in denial" is says not to label a person as furry unless they decide it for themselves.
>>22521
So, you're denying the logical conclusion that someone who presents a variety of furry characteristics can be observed to be a furry?
Because they dont self-identify?
(can you see the troon argument, about to rear it's ugly head?)
So, you're denying the logical conclusion that someone who presents a variety of furry characteristics can be observed to be a furry?
Because they dont self-identify?
(can you see the troon argument, about to rear it's ugly head?)
File (): 6059A468C9F6ACA84BA734B5B7E1CEF3-1259460.gif (1.2 MB, 329x406, caption-3.gif)
>>22523
You are making the troon argument that a girl who cuts her hair short and likes to play sports, or is otherwise nonconformance with the expectations of femininity must actually be a troon, and not just a tomboy, regardless of what she thinks.
The key factor is self identity. All the other characteristics are superficial, as furries do not share them all, and many other people express those characteristics without being furries. Without the key characteristic, none of the other characteristics matter.
You are making the troon argument that a girl who cuts her hair short and likes to play sports, or is otherwise nonconformance with the expectations of femininity must actually be a troon, and not just a tomboy, regardless of what she thinks.
The key factor is self identity. All the other characteristics are superficial, as furries do not share them all, and many other people express those characteristics without being furries. Without the key characteristic, none of the other characteristics matter.
>>22524
No, the troon argument is that "how I identify is more authentic/legitimate than the evidence that suggests Im not what I see myself as"
Like ponyfags pretending to not be furries
No, the troon argument is that "how I identify is more authentic/legitimate than the evidence that suggests Im not what I see myself as"
Like ponyfags pretending to not be furries
Anonymous
No.22529
>>22524
>"tomboys"
Degenerate all the same. Much like horstruckers. Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.
>"tomboys"
Degenerate all the same. Much like horstruckers. Give up and embrace your right-leaning troonism.
File (): CE0D98147A17B0FE0DD8D4FC58B1B38E-65447.png (63.9 KB, 1057x1280, Overwhelmingvictory.png)
File (): 891BAF24D619B425E2BAF6BC19D99B0B-3152107.jpg (3.0 MB, 4032x3024, NotFurry.jpg)
Here's the image summary of the thread. Sort of disappointed I was hoping it'd be more mentally stimulating. Good game.
File (): AF8CE5517A4C8E5939ECAE7E20ED24C0-618569.png (604.1 KB, 3768x2334, 2717544.png)
File (): 682CA37FE0D4A332DD0B43A9F5751C1A-75128.png (73.4 KB, 1280x720, NanoMarechinesSon.png)
>>22538
>>22537
I figured he already destroyed whatever he wanted to try to do and let bygones be bygones.
>>22512
Both the media MLP:FiM and horsefuckers and I suppose by extension bronies ect ect aren't furry. As detailed in the post using the recommended OP source.
Which means OP is a faggot because he's OP.
>>22537
I figured he already destroyed whatever he wanted to try to do and let bygones be bygones.
>>22512
Both the media MLP:FiM and horsefuckers and I suppose by extension bronies ect ect aren't furry. As detailed in the post using the recommended OP source.
Which means OP is a faggot because he's OP.
>>22532
Not me btw, in case y'all,... nevermind, you cant put 2 and 2 together anyway
>>22539
What furscience lacks is the willingness to be offensive. To their credit (but not of use in this scenario) they make allowances for self-identity and perspective and refuse to either reach and/or assert that one who specifically identifies as a member of a fandom that is observably furry but denies being a furry is thereby in denial. They actively avoid making such claims because they wish to remain as presentable as possible. Im under no such constraints/obligations.
But, keep posting ponies, keep having a waifu that is a pony, and keep pretending that ponies are somehow not furry; at this stage, you have the choice of acknowledging being a furry or pretending to not be. Pretty clear where (you)'re gonna go with it, but Ive done my due diligence.
Not me btw, in case y'all,... nevermind, you cant put 2 and 2 together anyway
>>22539
What furscience lacks is the willingness to be offensive. To their credit (but not of use in this scenario) they make allowances for self-identity and perspective and refuse to either reach and/or assert that one who specifically identifies as a member of a fandom that is observably furry but denies being a furry is thereby in denial. They actively avoid making such claims because they wish to remain as presentable as possible. Im under no such constraints/obligations.
But, keep posting ponies, keep having a waifu that is a pony, and keep pretending that ponies are somehow not furry; at this stage, you have the choice of acknowledging being a furry or pretending to not be. Pretty clear where (you)'re gonna go with it, but Ive done my due diligence.
File (): BC7EC1077E4088CAB49E8D77149D8D51-963701.png (941.1 KB, 774x809, 1538254063239.png)
File (): D977705C7E55847335D9C1DE3C15A954-82084.gif (80.2 KB, 720x480, 1538336682708.gif)
File (): 1A6AE5BF849E63FF39D7C2208A67930C-176612.jpg (172.5 KB, 650x650, 1QJxLkgKJz.jpg)
File (): E2390BD631AC0112388C8BD42C9A56C6-179631.jpg (175.4 KB, 1024x453, 1538401848345.jpg)
File (): BEE990BA73EE7362CFF5E80C437777BC-20754.jpg (20.3 KB, 700x535, 1538321762564.jpg)
>>22532
You don't even understand what a troon even is.
Based on DNA and organs born with an average person knows that is what the DNA and organs are and that they exist and matter.
Troons reject both. An irrefutable biological reality.
Even in the chance of DNA fuckups doesn't account for all of that. The side effects is their mind and body screaming to stop and reverse course. For a sizable proportion. Some are fine with the mutilations and chemical treatments compared to biological directives. That's their high risk choice which in turn may include higher mental aberrations.
As long as they don't force young innocents to chop shit off or drug them or violate them. I'd prefer to leave them to their closets.
...
The same applies to furries or any other group.
>Tomboys are icky cause I said so
Very impressive well cited deduction.
Again you're incorrect.
The generic and upbringing factors means tomboys are normal. Due to the world climate it's hard to categorize what are the largest factors for that occurring.
They don't tend to do that awful shit.
They also have functioning biological imperatives which mean they are less likely than the alphabet bbq groups of doing those awful things.
By hear say and deduction also lies likely to divorce rape however I need better citations.
I do mean tomboys in the full truism and rule of thumb that means.
>Degenerates
The use cases are about those that degrade the moral standings. It's anti-generative.
Which would mean without those it would be a neutral or positive (in effect) spiral.
Surprise surprise, the joke of a union is externally generative providing more moral strandings and protecting from outside factors.
As its a moral generation rather than a headcount accumulator. People on average are better off having interacted with. With moral generation comes the appropriate use cases and error.
>Give up.
No u.
Repost your points with sources if need be, your attempting to argue your point which means you provide your sources to attempt to be convincing.
>>22405
Now this OP faggot.
Oh, wait this is just virtue signaling and blog posting.
>>22432
Mhmm, not virtue signaling or blog posting. At all.
Just exchanging the IQ of the room for feel good posts.
>>22447
It's about making people see reality as it is and the benefits. Golly gee willikers batman. Wowzers if you were good at either you might have gotten somewhere.
The question is whether it's execution, understanding or wisdom or a combination. That which is which you need to work on.
I'd go for all of the above.
There are no direct benefits to being hamfisted into a furry.
You've been blown the fuck out since the start of the thread your self-reported goals are dunked on mostly by your own posts, and then the whole rest of the thread.
I'm not seeing your grand strategy here.
>>22542
>W-well the Science wants to play nice but I don't.
Mhmm.
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not.
Well okay then. Better get started getting that methodology and test parameters.
>Ive done my due diligence.
No. You really haven't. You just walked it shat everywhere and now leaving.
Great job by the way.
Let's see here.
>refuse to either reach and/or assert that one who specifically identifies as a member of a fandom that is observably furry but denies being a furry is thereby in denial.
You need to prove that somehow.
<The furry test.
<Furry in denial theory.
>Pony is furry
That's been disproven multiple times. So let's see your next point.
>Just be the furfag please
That's been debunked.
Aaaannnd...
That's it.
You have nothing what the fuck you double nigger give us some fucking integrity and intellectually engaging fun you fuck.
Go leave in disgrace or stop being a dumbfuck and engage people.
You don't even understand what a troon even is.
Based on DNA and organs born with an average person knows that is what the DNA and organs are and that they exist and matter.
Troons reject both. An irrefutable biological reality.
Even in the chance of DNA fuckups doesn't account for all of that. The side effects is their mind and body screaming to stop and reverse course. For a sizable proportion. Some are fine with the mutilations and chemical treatments compared to biological directives. That's their high risk choice which in turn may include higher mental aberrations.
As long as they don't force young innocents to chop shit off or drug them or violate them. I'd prefer to leave them to their closets.
...
The same applies to furries or any other group.
>Tomboys are icky cause I said so
Very impressive well cited deduction.
Again you're incorrect.
The generic and upbringing factors means tomboys are normal. Due to the world climate it's hard to categorize what are the largest factors for that occurring.
They don't tend to do that awful shit.
They also have functioning biological imperatives which mean they are less likely than the alphabet bbq groups of doing those awful things.
By hear say and deduction also lies likely to divorce rape however I need better citations.
I do mean tomboys in the full truism and rule of thumb that means.
>Degenerates
The use cases are about those that degrade the moral standings. It's anti-generative.
Which would mean without those it would be a neutral or positive (in effect) spiral.
Surprise surprise, the joke of a union is externally generative providing more moral strandings and protecting from outside factors.
As its a moral generation rather than a headcount accumulator. People on average are better off having interacted with. With moral generation comes the appropriate use cases and error.
>Give up.
No u.
Repost your points with sources if need be, your attempting to argue your point which means you provide your sources to attempt to be convincing.
>>22405
Now this OP faggot.
Oh, wait this is just virtue signaling and blog posting.
>>22432
Mhmm, not virtue signaling or blog posting. At all.
Just exchanging the IQ of the room for feel good posts.
>>22447
It's about making people see reality as it is and the benefits. Golly gee willikers batman. Wowzers if you were good at either you might have gotten somewhere.
The question is whether it's execution, understanding or wisdom or a combination. That which is which you need to work on.
I'd go for all of the above.
There are no direct benefits to being hamfisted into a furry.
You've been blown the fuck out since the start of the thread your self-reported goals are dunked on mostly by your own posts, and then the whole rest of the thread.
I'm not seeing your grand strategy here.
>>22542
>W-well the Science wants to play nice but I don't.
Mhmm.
>Even as researchers, we do not have a “test” to see if someone is a furry or not.
Well okay then. Better get started getting that methodology and test parameters.
>Ive done my due diligence.
No. You really haven't. You just walked it shat everywhere and now leaving.
Great job by the way.
Let's see here.
>refuse to either reach and/or assert that one who specifically identifies as a member of a fandom that is observably furry but denies being a furry is thereby in denial.
You need to prove that somehow.
<The furry test.
<Furry in denial theory.
>Pony is furry
That's been disproven multiple times. So let's see your next point.
>Just be the furfag please
That's been debunked.
Aaaannnd...
That's it.
You have nothing what the fuck you double nigger give us some fucking integrity and intellectually engaging fun you fuck.
Go leave in disgrace or stop being a dumbfuck and engage people.
>>22543
>That's been spuriously denied multiple times.
Just Like troons deny biology, cuz >muh feels
>Go leave
Regularly and gladly. I dont have alot of time to waste here anymore (not that I used to HAVE the time, tho I did take it because I was still delusional about the intellectual integrity of posters), but you can rest assured Ill make periodic visits to rub your noses in your blatant ignorance ^_~
>That's been spuriously denied multiple times.
Just Like troons deny biology, cuz >muh feels
>Go leave
Regularly and gladly. I dont have alot of time to waste here anymore (not that I used to HAVE the time, tho I did take it because I was still delusional about the intellectual integrity of posters), but you can rest assured Ill make periodic visits to rub your noses in your blatant ignorance ^_~
Anonymous
No.22566
>>22563
>deny biology
You are denying science by contradicting the same "furry science" that (You) posted, which says it's self-identified.
Last I knew, fandoms weren't an established study of science, unlike biology, except maybe as a pet progress for highschool sociology classes; but according to the "scientific" sources that (You) posted, pony fans are still not furries, and yet you arbitrarily assert that they really are and impose yourself as the decider of the definition.
So who's the real science-denying tranny here?
>Regularly and gladly
And yet you're still coming back to redundantly repeat the same dumbass argument. Not using an image board every day is nothing to brag about.
>I dont have alot of time to waste here
Weird of you to say that when you've been arguing about this long.
>deny biology
You are denying science by contradicting the same "furry science" that (You) posted, which says it's self-identified.
Last I knew, fandoms weren't an established study of science, unlike biology, except maybe as a pet progress for highschool sociology classes; but according to the "scientific" sources that (You) posted, pony fans are still not furries, and yet you arbitrarily assert that they really are and impose yourself as the decider of the definition.
So who's the real science-denying tranny here?
>Regularly and gladly
And yet you're still coming back to redundantly repeat the same dumbass argument. Not using an image board every day is nothing to brag about.
>I dont have alot of time to waste here
Weird of you to say that when you've been arguing about this long.
Anonymous
No.22567
>>22563
So... you don't want to engage people?
And you don't want to detail the methodology of the furry test or furry in denial theory or proof of characters being furry or prove in a satisfactory way your OP claims.
But you're leaving because of your feels, because you feel you're done.
Not based on facts or grounded logic. Just tossing shit into the street and see where that smears...
You know what, I'm glad you got all that off your chest. See you whenever and take care.
So... you don't want to engage people?
And you don't want to detail the methodology of the furry test or furry in denial theory or proof of characters being furry or prove in a satisfactory way your OP claims.
But you're leaving because of your feels, because you feel you're done.
Not based on facts or grounded logic. Just tossing shit into the street and see where that smears...
You know what, I'm glad you got all that off your chest. See you whenever and take care.
Anonymous
No.22568
>>22563
>intellectual integrity of posters
Nigger, we are arguing with the same consistent points that we've been making for the past 13 years. In the month we launched this board, we had a thread about this topic and came to the same conclusion that we have now. Go to /mlp/ and they'll tell you the same thing. Check the /mlp/ archives at any point in history and they'll tell you the exact same thing; and I'm sure you'd need to check them because you are by your own admission a newfag to ponies who's only "interacted" with fans for the past 6 years, only since back when season 7 was airing and the fandom was contracting.
(You) are not the first person to tell us this. We've had this discussion many times before and repeatedly come to this conclusion, remaining logically consistent on what we have decided that we are, and yet (You) have the audacity to say that we lack "intellectual integrity" when (You) cannot even provide an authoritative source for the definition of furry that doesn't contradict your own arguments.
>still delusional
(You) certainly must have been delusional about something, because our collective opinion on this matter hasn't changed for the past 13 years; if it took (You) 6 years to see that, then you must've not known this fandom for what it was very well at all to begin with; so yeah, that's pretty delusional.
>blatant ignorance
So funny. What I see is a furry who thinks he's enlightened because he's has finally decided on a very general definition of the word "furry", and is trying to pass it off as fact with no sources other than his own opinion. How insightful. How wise.
>intellectual integrity of posters
Nigger, we are arguing with the same consistent points that we've been making for the past 13 years. In the month we launched this board, we had a thread about this topic and came to the same conclusion that we have now. Go to /mlp/ and they'll tell you the same thing. Check the /mlp/ archives at any point in history and they'll tell you the exact same thing; and I'm sure you'd need to check them because you are by your own admission a newfag to ponies who's only "interacted" with fans for the past 6 years, only since back when season 7 was airing and the fandom was contracting.
(You) are not the first person to tell us this. We've had this discussion many times before and repeatedly come to this conclusion, remaining logically consistent on what we have decided that we are, and yet (You) have the audacity to say that we lack "intellectual integrity" when (You) cannot even provide an authoritative source for the definition of furry that doesn't contradict your own arguments.
>still delusional
(You) certainly must have been delusional about something, because our collective opinion on this matter hasn't changed for the past 13 years; if it took (You) 6 years to see that, then you must've not known this fandom for what it was very well at all to begin with; so yeah, that's pretty delusional.
>blatant ignorance
So funny. What I see is a furry who thinks he's enlightened because he's has finally decided on a very general definition of the word "furry", and is trying to pass it off as fact with no sources other than his own opinion. How insightful. How wise.
File (): 1C3ABEC94AD06C370FA206DEBA322221-28546.jpg (27.9 KB, 500x529, 7DD34641FA8785AA9721B616E59A99BE-28528(2).jpg)
Anonymous
No.22572
>>22570
>>source?!
I expected you to be able and capable of reasoning and doing step by step reasoning. To be capable of explaining your shit.
Let alone reading.
Get some sleep nigger and comeback refreshed not retarded.
>>source?!
I expected you to be able and capable of reasoning and doing step by step reasoning. To be capable of explaining your shit.
Let alone reading.
Get some sleep nigger and comeback refreshed not retarded.
Anonymous
No.22573
>>22570
Yes, "sourse?!", you absolute faggot. You're arguing that we're furries based on the "established" definition, so what backing do you have to say we should accept that definition that supposedly includes us, other than your opinion?
>look it up
We did look it up, multiple times. All the sources reviewed say that it's self-identified.
Yes, "sourse?!", you absolute faggot. You're arguing that we're furries based on the "established" definition, so what backing do you have to say we should accept that definition that supposedly includes us, other than your opinion?
>look it up
We did look it up, multiple times. All the sources reviewed say that it's self-identified.
Anonymous
No.22574
>>22570
>Makes a claim
>Is asked to back up claim
>refuses to back up claim
>Is asked where they heard the information of the claim
>says to "look it up"
Stupid nigger. Of course any of us could look it up ourselves, the reason >we have been asking for your source is so that we can know how (You) came to your conclusion, and/or scrutinize the accuracy of that information, so it can be refuted or accepted.
I've see this petty "look it up yourself" deflection a lot on the internet in the past three ~3, especially from idiots who are too embarrassed to admit that they either made up the claim or heard it from some crappy clickbait tabloid with no actual evidence. It's a pathetic trend.
>Makes a claim
>Is asked to back up claim
>refuses to back up claim
>Is asked where they heard the information of the claim
>says to "look it up"
Stupid nigger. Of course any of us could look it up ourselves, the reason >we have been asking for your source is so that we can know how (You) came to your conclusion, and/or scrutinize the accuracy of that information, so it can be refuted or accepted.
I've see this petty "look it up yourself" deflection a lot on the internet in the past three ~3, especially from idiots who are too embarrassed to admit that they either made up the claim or heard it from some crappy clickbait tabloid with no actual evidence. It's a pathetic trend.
Anonymous
No.22575
>Day 4752 of FiM ponies being a type of anthropomorphic animal.
>Still no end in sight
>Still no end in sight
File (): F0A1FAC9DBD92DD8960483CBF76F4090-139301.png (136.0 KB, 720x922, Screenshot_20231024-041200~2.png)
File (): 15F2AEFDA1EDCDA9C9D1B3F080DB97E4-110090.png (107.5 KB, 720x821, Screenshot_20231024-041831~2.png)
File (): B57EA1219F0883C347C451756C78D9E1-93064.png (90.9 KB, 720x596, Screenshot_20231024-043116~2.png)
>whichbutton.jpg
>Ponyfags can identify as not-furry cuz self-identification matters cuz muh ekwality and inkloosion AND men can identify as women
OR
>Ponyfags are furries
>Ponyfags can identify as not-furry cuz self-identification matters cuz muh ekwality and inkloosion AND men can identify as women
OR
>Ponyfags are furries
File (): B1DA9F9270A6D6E8738067DB76607F35-2447283.gif (2.3 MB, 498x255, my-little-pony-bored.gif)
>>22587
>thinks ChatGPT is somehow a better source than what he posted earlier
>AI is basically just repeating the same points as earlier, contributing nothing to the conversation
>doesn't even post the prompts used
>If you believe X you must also believe Y because I said so
Wow. How insightful and persuasive.
>thinks ChatGPT is somehow a better source than what he posted earlier
>AI is basically just repeating the same points as earlier, contributing nothing to the conversation
>doesn't even post the prompts used
>If you believe X you must also believe Y because I said so
Wow. How insightful and persuasive.
>>22590
>deleting his shitty post
You can tell what my prompt was, cuz the AI repeats it in affirmation. Cry moar, ur a fuery
>deleting his shitty post
You can tell what my prompt was, cuz the AI repeats it in affirmation. Cry moar, ur a fuery
>>22587
I bet the prompt was "If anything that has anthropomorphic characters in it is furry, and if my little pony has anthropomorphic characters, are fans of my little pony furries?"
I bet the prompt was "If anything that has anthropomorphic characters in it is furry, and if my little pony has anthropomorphic characters, are fans of my little pony furries?"
>>22594
Quite literally. The response was a diatribe about identification and respect/inclusion of the individual and so on.
Funny, it had the same response when talking about men who dress in womens clothing and insist theyre women.
Hence the screencap.
>>22595
Theres identifiable information present in the image associated in the account I operate from, so regardless of your "doubts" I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot.
Remember LAST time I posted edited images of myself that pertained to me?
Surely thats not why you're eager, not (you),....
All this, just to obfuscate the principle issue. I wont bother to indicate how many argumentative/logical fallacies, Ill just point them out so people who are presciently aware can take note.
So, are troons operating from legitimacy, or are you arguing in bad faith about not being a furry?
Quite literally. The response was a diatribe about identification and respect/inclusion of the individual and so on.
Funny, it had the same response when talking about men who dress in womens clothing and insist theyre women.
Hence the screencap.
>>22595
Theres identifiable information present in the image associated in the account I operate from, so regardless of your "doubts" I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot.
Remember LAST time I posted edited images of myself that pertained to me?
Surely thats not why you're eager, not (you),....
All this, just to obfuscate the principle issue. I wont bother to indicate how many argumentative/logical fallacies, Ill just point them out so people who are presciently aware can take note.
So, are troons operating from legitimacy, or are you arguing in bad faith about not being a furry?
>>22589
It's predisposed to give you answers that it thinks will please you based on how you worded the prompt. It's not a useful research tool or source of any kind.
It's predisposed to give you answers that it thinks will please you based on how you worded the prompt. It's not a useful research tool or source of any kind.
>>22593
How is posting the prompt doxxing yourself?
You screenshotted the chat, why not screenshot the prompt?
How is posting the prompt doxxing yourself?
You screenshotted the chat, why not screenshot the prompt?
>>22596
>Funny, it had the same response when talking about men who dress in womens clothing and insist theyre women.
>Hence the screencap.
You keep bringing this up.
Male and female are scientific terms. It is a question of biology.
"Furry" is not a scientific term. It's internet slang with no authoritative definer. It is a question of identity.
>bad faith
You are conflating a biological reality (sex) with a loosely-defined abstraction "furry". You know they're not the same. You probably could have come up with a more appropriate comparison, but you chose to bring troons into this because you considered the topic to be politically evocative.
This is the definition of a bad faith argument.
>Funny, it had the same response when talking about men who dress in womens clothing and insist theyre women.
>Hence the screencap.
You keep bringing this up.
Male and female are scientific terms. It is a question of biology.
"Furry" is not a scientific term. It's internet slang with no authoritative definer. It is a question of identity.
>bad faith
You are conflating a biological reality (sex) with a loosely-defined abstraction "furry". You know they're not the same. You probably could have come up with a more appropriate comparison, but you chose to bring troons into this because you considered the topic to be politically evocative.
This is the definition of a bad faith argument.
>>22598
To the contrary, it quite refused to suggest there is any objective criteria in which NOT appealing to feelings, self-identity, inclusion, etc. is viable, excluding criminal law. It was most insistent that social progress - including letting horsefuckers pretend they arent furries - was 'the way'. It ONLY agreed that its feasible to exclude troon identity if one was operating as, say, a nazi.
>>22599
>cant understand that it has ID images that may be specific and personal
To the contrary, it quite refused to suggest there is any objective criteria in which NOT appealing to feelings, self-identity, inclusion, etc. is viable, excluding criminal law. It was most insistent that social progress - including letting horsefuckers pretend they arent furries - was 'the way'. It ONLY agreed that its feasible to exclude troon identity if one was operating as, say, a nazi.
>>22599
>cant understand that it has ID images that may be specific and personal
>>22600
And you keep wanting to insist that your aubjective terms for yourself are any different than the subjective terms that men dressing as women want to apply to themselves. I know you dont WANT to acknowledge the comparison, but EVEN A THOUGHTLESS AI can
And you keep wanting to insist that your aubjective terms for yourself are any different than the subjective terms that men dressing as women want to apply to themselves. I know you dont WANT to acknowledge the comparison, but EVEN A THOUGHTLESS AI can
>>22606
Thank you stix. Moves out of your parent's house yet? Maybe gotten your own bank account? I hope so, you're what, 25 now?
Thank you stix. Moves out of your parent's house yet? Maybe gotten your own bank account? I hope so, you're what, 25 now?
>>22603
Fandoms are subjective because they are social phenomena and questions of identity. Sex is biology, which is objective.
Point to me the objective, scientific definition of "furry". You tried earlier, and your source disagreed with you.
What you're doing is like saying that since Christians are people who accept Christ as the Messiah, all Muslims must be Christians. Muslims would deny this. Christians would say your definition is too vague. The same applies in this situation.
Fandoms are subjective because they are social phenomena and questions of identity. Sex is biology, which is objective.
Point to me the objective, scientific definition of "furry". You tried earlier, and your source disagreed with you.
What you're doing is like saying that since Christians are people who accept Christ as the Messiah, all Muslims must be Christians. Muslims would deny this. Christians would say your definition is too vague. The same applies in this situation.
Anonymous
No.22615
>>22611
May as well say Muslims and Christians are Vedic too, if ague references to 4000 yo texts is your criteria.
May as well say Muslims and Christians are Vedic too, if ague references to 4000 yo texts is your criteria.
>>22596
>I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot
You could crop the screenshot. It wouldn't be hard.
>I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot
You could crop the screenshot. It wouldn't be hard.
>>22623
I cropped the image last time, and a faggot from here uncropped it and made a bunch of fake gay porn because Inpet a deer. No, go fuck yourself
I cropped the image last time, and a faggot from here uncropped it and made a bunch of fake gay porn because Inpet a deer. No, go fuck yourself
>>22624
The bot disagreed that its acceptable to disregard the subjective self-identification of troons who identify as the wrong gender, comparably to horsefuckers who identify as not being furry. Come on Lotus, your reading comprehension isnt THAT bad,....
The bot disagreed that its acceptable to disregard the subjective self-identification of troons who identify as the wrong gender, comparably to horsefuckers who identify as not being furry. Come on Lotus, your reading comprehension isnt THAT bad,....
File (): 1CBE76185A2460DC1E23BE866A2DE5B9-751103.gif (733.5 KB, 498x280, laugh-mlp (1).gif)
File (): 960CC9404A1AD56CB4C572892D771680-150280.png (146.8 KB, 720x895, Screenshot_20231024-043105~2.png)
File (): 064758A28E065ED624A04E42B397CACC-190580.png (186.1 KB, 720x1440, Screenshot_20231024-043116.png)
File (): 8FD8DA31A5F19D071FD91B63730E3C8F-215212.png (210.2 KB, 720x1440, Screenshot_20231024-043105.png)
File (): 4EAE4B1731E1D00626110926B91CDA37-176488.png (172.4 KB, 720x1440, Screenshot_20231024-041831.png)
File (): 980108EEACFD64F14028C99A223AEF79-203115.png (198.4 KB, 720x1440, Screenshot_20231024-041200.png)
Now that hearts have been played, have fun with it. They arent in order, but they paint a pretty clear picture
>>22627
>Lotus.
I am not Lotus.
The not regurgitates whatever it thinks is an appropriate based on freely available public sources and options of random people. Currently, the semi-dominant cultural zeitgeist on the internet is to be sensitive to the feeling of troons, and the bot, wanting to give you an answer you'd like, told you so.
However, it is (You) who asserted that pony fans must go along with the generally accepted colloquial definition of the term "furry," however, as it has been revealed, most of those sources seem to agree that "furry" is a question of self-identification.
>Lotus.
I am not Lotus.
The not regurgitates whatever it thinks is an appropriate based on freely available public sources and options of random people. Currently, the semi-dominant cultural zeitgeist on the internet is to be sensitive to the feeling of troons, and the bot, wanting to give you an answer you'd like, told you so.
However, it is (You) who asserted that pony fans must go along with the generally accepted colloquial definition of the term "furry," however, as it has been revealed, most of those sources seem to agree that "furry" is a question of self-identification.
(not just the bot either, furscience - for all their aggregation of useful data, they too cater to feelings and inclusion)
Anonymous
No.22642
>>22611
Nobody identifies as "Abrahamic". Abrahamic is neither identity, religion or fandom. "Abrahamic" only means "things that reference Abraham".
Furry, however, is in fact a fandom. It is separate from the mere concept of anthropomorphism.
Nobody identifies as "Abrahamic". Abrahamic is neither identity, religion or fandom. "Abrahamic" only means "things that reference Abraham".
Furry, however, is in fact a fandom. It is separate from the mere concept of anthropomorphism.
>>22640
So if all the sources refer to the message of self-identification, then would that mean the consensus is that furry is self-identified?
If so, wouldn't that make us compliant with the generally-accepted definition of not-furry?
So if all the sources refer to the message of self-identification, then would that mean the consensus is that furry is self-identified?
If so, wouldn't that make us compliant with the generally-accepted definition of not-furry?
>>22645
I do.
I don't care either way about trannies or what they call themselves. I just know a male is male and a female is female when it comes to sex. If troons want to get schizo with John Money's definition of "gender", then so be it; just leave me out of it.
So, do you agree?
I do.
I don't care either way about trannies or what they call themselves. I just know a male is male and a female is female when it comes to sex. If troons want to get schizo with John Money's definition of "gender", then so be it; just leave me out of it.
So, do you agree?
>>22663
>We can continue when
Are you implying you're not going to post anymore until he stops spamming? Or are you just using it as an excuse not to answer to the argument?
>We can continue when
Are you implying you're not going to post anymore until he stops spamming? Or are you just using it as an excuse not to answer to the argument?
File (): 4EC1BBFE85D95ED6AF841D00270A46CD-423290.png (413.4 KB, 1036x1044, Screenshot_20230928-210924.png)
>>22680
I didnt say that, I said 'pretty much yes'
As I said in another thread, I do what I want. But, as far as actual discussion, check your boy
I didnt say that, I said 'pretty much yes'
As I said in another thread, I do what I want. But, as far as actual discussion, check your boy
>>22681
So you're just gonna keep making off-topic posts and ignore legitimate arguments while still bumping the thread?
That's basically the same as spam.
So you're just gonna keep making off-topic posts and ignore legitimate arguments while still bumping the thread?
That's basically the same as spam.
(dont worry, staff loves that theres an actual and observable increase in the post xount)
>>22688
Who are you even talking to at this point? It's just three shitposters and Stix here, and you've given up on making legitimate arguments.
Who are you even talking to at this point? It's just three shitposters and Stix here, and you've given up on making legitimate arguments.
>>22690
Are you pretending that this board hasnt effectively died BECAUSE of the crony largesse given by staff? That this thread (outside pruning) wont be on the overboard for fuxking ever?
Are you pretending that this board hasnt effectively died BECAUSE of the crony largesse given by staff? That this thread (outside pruning) wont be on the overboard for fuxking ever?
Anonymous
No.22696
>>22694
It'll be on the overboard forever because you keep bumping it, and we don't have proper bump limits for some reason.
It'll be on the overboard forever because you keep bumping it, and we don't have proper bump limits for some reason.
>>22693
>no matter where or when, just let the posting count increase
Alex, what is "manufactured relevance"
>no matter where or when, just let the posting count increase
Alex, what is "manufactured relevance"
>>22702
Where did you get the definition of the word "furry" that is so undeniable we must accept it?
Where did you get the definition of the word "furry" that is so undeniable we must accept it?
>>22702
We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
omg, has Stix finally stopped shitting the bed?
Alright, lets go back then!
>>22587
Heres where we left off, more or less
Alright, lets go back then!
>>22587
Heres where we left off, more or less
>>22709
Yes, because as was established, both ChatGPT and furries tend to favor people's self-identification, which then allows for men to present themselves as women. Lets take Lia whatshisfuck, the swimmer. You know the one. He is as legitimately NOT a woman as a ponyfag is legitimately NOT a furry
Yes, because as was established, both ChatGPT and furries tend to favor people's self-identification, which then allows for men to present themselves as women. Lets take Lia whatshisfuck, the swimmer. You know the one. He is as legitimately NOT a woman as a ponyfag is legitimately NOT a furry
Anonymous
No.22719
>>22711
So why is it that the part of the source that you agree with is right, but the part of the source you disagree with is wrong?
>muh troons
Troons drink water too. That's irrelevant.
So why is it that the part of the source that you agree with is right, but the part of the source you disagree with is wrong?
>muh troons
Troons drink water too. That's irrelevant.
Anonymous
No.22751
<The discussion recap so far
>OP
<Anons
>Muh troons if you disagree.
>>22702
>To rub your noses in the fact that youre furries, since it bothers you so much
Seems like it's really bothering you though.
<But you haven't proven anything that helps you so far.
>I'm pagon of enlightenment!
>>22706
<We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
<For over 13 years pony frens aren't furries. The debated case still stands that pony and pony frens aren't furry.
>OP
<Anons
>Muh troons if you disagree.
>>22702
>To rub your noses in the fact that youre furries, since it bothers you so much
Seems like it's really bothering you though.
<But you haven't proven anything that helps you so far.
>I'm pagon of enlightenment!
>>22706
<We, you've allegedly given up on arguing the case, so there's little nose-rubbing to be had here.
<For over 13 years pony frens aren't furries. The debated case still stands that pony and pony frens aren't furry.
Imagine being an Appul waifu-fag who pretends to represent her virtue, while being entirely dishonest and surreptitious when called out and blasted, such that cant even make an argument and has to resort to random YT vids to try and wipe posts away.
Horsefuckers aren't furries, but they are a walking oxymoron if they adhere to right-wing politics.
>>22753
That's not how that works. More posts don't wipe away posts.
Had you posted things made of more solid truths the outpouring of responses would even surprise the site as a whole.
Instead it's vain repetitions.
Without love does it even matter?
There's still time.
Don't stumble in hypocrisy, act in honesty.
That's not how that works. More posts don't wipe away posts.
Had you posted things made of more solid truths the outpouring of responses would even surprise the site as a whole.
Instead it's vain repetitions.
Without love does it even matter?
There's still time.
Don't stumble in hypocrisy, act in honesty.
Anonymous
No.22760
File (): 0A901787F2FF3E4710BE4F5E0CEFD285-2682098.gif (2.6 MB, 444x400, 0A901787F2FF3E4710BE4F5E0CEFD285-2682098.gif)
>>22757
>Horsefuckers aren't furries
Congratulations.
>but they are a walking oxymoron if they adhere to right-wing politics.
Walking in the truth can be paradoxical to the world. Especially clown world.
But the truth is still the truth.
Core values rise above the mask of politics for that is where the mask of politics is fashioned.
>Horsefuckers aren't furries
Congratulations.
>but they are a walking oxymoron if they adhere to right-wing politics.
Walking in the truth can be paradoxical to the world. Especially clown world.
But the truth is still the truth.
Core values rise above the mask of politics for that is where the mask of politics is fashioned.
>they are a walking oxymoron if they adhere to right-wing politics.
According to the highest level truth The Truth, The Way and The Life, all else is reflections and refractions to demonstrate truth.
A higher level truth is ideal values in varying situations.
Truth confirms the truth.
Politics is about a shadow attempting to encapsulate the whole truth.
Horsefuckers politically are as clearest glass housing a flame. The shadow not able to be in that light. What is seen is what is there.
Yet there's still glass, unseen.
Trying to confine that in any other lower level housing introduces shadows that twist and warp the internal light.
Truly, politically trying to paint everybody in the same stroke is at best a series of rule of thumbs.
Here's some.
>When mirrors that bounce the light back and also have it go through doubling inside light and outside light.
>Others are also light and those doubling mirrors.
>Some are smudged sometimes, and or have specific shapes.
...
>>22764
That's the board because gaming roleplay, don't be a salty. Context matters. Because it's in the smae type of location as /vx/ all share those traits.
According to the highest level truth The Truth, The Way and The Life, all else is reflections and refractions to demonstrate truth.
A higher level truth is ideal values in varying situations.
Truth confirms the truth.
Politics is about a shadow attempting to encapsulate the whole truth.
Horsefuckers politically are as clearest glass housing a flame. The shadow not able to be in that light. What is seen is what is there.
Yet there's still glass, unseen.
Trying to confine that in any other lower level housing introduces shadows that twist and warp the internal light.
Truly, politically trying to paint everybody in the same stroke is at best a series of rule of thumbs.
Here's some.
>When mirrors that bounce the light back and also have it go through doubling inside light and outside light.
>Others are also light and those doubling mirrors.
>Some are smudged sometimes, and or have specific shapes.
...
>>22764
That's the board because gaming roleplay, don't be a salty. Context matters. Because it's in the smae type of location as /vx/ all share those traits.
>>22757
Horsefuckers not being furries is precisely as valid as men deciding to be women. Both ideas have equal merit
Horsefuckers not being furries is precisely as valid as men deciding to be women. Both ideas have equal merit
And in a stunning display of how committed discourse and such this site is, after both spamming YouTube links and flooding the catalog, this thread is bump locked.
Anonymous
No.22772
>>22769
No, dumbass, for the umpteenth time, this is a flawed argument. Furries and horsefuckers are internet slang terms that don’t mean anything on their own, so membership in either group is a matter of pure self identification. Men and women are terms that have objective definitions, and membership is determined biologically. This comparison is silly, and repeating it over and over does not make it any less silly.
No, dumbass, for the umpteenth time, this is a flawed argument. Furries and horsefuckers are internet slang terms that don’t mean anything on their own, so membership in either group is a matter of pure self identification. Men and women are terms that have objective definitions, and membership is determined biologically. This comparison is silly, and repeating it over and over does not make it any less silly.
Anonymous
No.22775
File (): DE78003D568089954B9B6E41E990A67A-2070524.webm (2.0 MB, Resolution:654x480 Length:00:00:27, 1585779.webm) [play once] [loop]
File (): 74A39B5190CB19DAE61DC5A771500D38-370600.jpg (361.9 KB, 1000x750, 2445338.jpg)
Total furry apologist death.
464 replies and 103 files omitted.
[View All] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts]Post pagination: [Prev] [1-200] [201-400] [401-600] [601-664] [Next]
664 replies | 133 files | 34 UUIDs | Page 9