/sp/ - Football

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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 ^_~

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>22543
>source?!
So sad it has come to this.

>>22570
>>source?!
I expected you to be able and capable of reasoning and doing step by step reasoning. To be capable of explaining your shit.
Let alone reading.
Get some sleep nigger and comeback refreshed not retarded.

>>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.

>>22570
>Makes a claim
>Is asked to back up claim
>refuses to back up claim
>Is asked where they heard the information of the claim
>says to "look it up"
Stupid nigger. Of course any of us could look it up ourselves, the reason >we have been asking for your source is so that we can know how (You) came to your conclusion, and/or scrutinize the accuracy of that information, so it can be refuted or accepted.
I've see this petty "look it up yourself" deflection a lot on the internet in the past three ~3, especially from idiots who are too embarrassed to admit that they either made up the claim or heard it from some crappy clickbait tabloid with no actual evidence. It's a pathetic trend.

>>22525
>the evidence
What evidence? All the evidence you've shown us says the opposite.

>>22584
You sound thirsty.

>whichbutton.jpg

>Ponyfags can identify as not-furry cuz self-identification matters cuz muh ekwality and inkloosion AND men can identify as women
OR
>Ponyfags are furries

>>22587
>thinks ChatGPT is somehow a better source than what he posted earlier
>AI is basically just repeating the same points as earlier, contributing nothing to the conversation
>doesn't even post the prompts used
>If you believe X you must also believe Y because I said so
Wow. How insightful and persuasive.

>>22588
At least its honest

>>22590
>deleting his shitty post
You can tell what my prompt was, cuz the AI repeats it in affirmation. Cry moar, ur a fuery

>>22591
>You can tell what my prompt was
Then post the prompt(s)

>>22592
>dox urself
lol no

>>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?"

>>22593
>doxing
If posting question is doxing the answer to questions would be doxing too as ChatGPT is likely saving both if anything, which I highly doubt they are.

>>22594
Most likely.

>>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?

>>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.

>>22593
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.

>>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

>>22601
>ID images
Then crop the image.

>>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

>>22601
So, the not disagreed with you.
What's your point?

>>22604
Wanna try thay again?

>>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?

>>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.

>>22605
Try what?

>>22609
Wrong. Im saying Muslims and Christians are Abrahamic

>>22610
Speaking intelligibly

>>22611
May as well say Muslims and Christians are Vedic too, if ague references to 4000 yo texts is your criteria.

Nothing says rage/failure like posting random video links

Dont worry, Ill be back when Stix has stopped wetting himself

>>22613
>>22605
>literally misspelled a word in his reply
>"speak intelligibly"
>can't infer that "b" is next to "n".
You're wasting my time.