Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

(This is addressing comments here in general more than the article.)

There seems to be a reoccurring problem or issue with using a personal definition of furry. A common, broad definition of "related to anthropomorphic animals" seems pretty straightforward. Even with the second definition of referring to a member of the fandom, things are usually pretty clear from context. And while personal definition of furry are not by themselves bad, in the sense of thinking what aspects of furry things are meaningful to oneself, there is a problem when one tries to use such meaning in regards to something outside of their personal realm. All that really comes of it is confusion and frustration.

What can make this even more problematic though is when narrower, personal definitions are used in a prescriptive sense. In those cases, some people seem to try codify what they like into the definition of furry. So instead of trying to encourage or discourage something because of personal taste, they can argue that others are not being furry enough, or are betraying true nature of "furry" or some other junk. In other words, it looks like instead of someone saying "I don't like or care for that" they try to sound more authoritative arguing what is and isn't furry.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.