Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

If you feel you need a workable definition of Furry, I wrote one, Anthrocon has one, Ursa Major has one, Wikifur has one, Wikipedia has one, quite a few other Furries on the internet have written one. And, if all else fails, you can always go right back to the dawn of the community with the intro page of alt.fan.furry.

Basically they all boil down to a single premise. We're "The Anthropomorphic Animals Fandom." And that definition seems to be working quite well for us.

You say, "Letting people choose for themselves what to include and exclude is not workable and renders the idea of furry immaterial."

We have always been a progressive fandom, subject to constant evolution and experimentation. We mix material freely to come up with new concoctions, and that is how we keep the output of the fandom fresh.

We do not exist in a box. We do not all do the same things. We do not work from a recipe of specific ingredients. Furry is an adjective. It can not function if it is not free to be added to other things.

What you're suggesting would take away all the potential for creativity and innovation, locking the fandom into a sealed breadbox where it would quickly grow stale, because it could never grow or advance.

If freedom means Furry must be immaterial, so be it. It's better to be immaterial, than to be impotent.

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.