I think one of the problems that arises with such definitions is that these don't have a quantic margin for labeling or not labeling. In other words, while we can percieve who IS a furry and who IS NOT a furry, it's impossible to define when such transition occurs.
This refers to fuzzy logic, which deals with approximation of truth. (Oh, the irony of using something fuzzy to furries... XD) Like for example, defining hot and cold. While one can definately know when the temperature is hot and when it's cold, there's no way to define when exactly it stops being cold and becomes hot, and vice versa.
Another problem is that defining such things are naturally hard to do. Like for example national culture. Define, for example, american. Or canadian. Or british. It would incredibly hard if not impossible to reach an ultimate consensus for such definitions, unless you use a non-cultural approuch, a document saying you're natural from nation X.
This is because such definitions are never ultimate. Everyone knows stereotyping is bad because it never reflects a person in question, simply because every single person is nevertheless unique, regardless of being american, canadian, british or furry (or a sum of these even!).
But I would say it's foolish to think this is some sort of war or drama or creating conflits in definitions that no other furries have in their lives, simply because most furries actually don't if there is such definition. It's not important for most. On the other hand, just because it's not important for most, most don't care or even think about means there's not such definitions that can be outlined. In other words, most furries are unaware of the problem of defining what is or is not a furry. But it's there regardless!
While I'd like to express my opinion on the subject, at the moment I'm not doing it. Not right now. Just because I don't have yet solid ideas in regarding this subject. But I think one import think to look out is thinking outside of the box. Maybe something that could aid in this analysis is defining what IS NOT a furry. Analyzing for example famous old authors of furry media, if they are/were furries somehow, even if not aware of. People like C.S. Lewis, Lewis Carroll, C.M. Coolidge, T.S.Eliot, et cetera ad nauseum.
I think one of the problems that arises with such definitions is that these don't have a quantic margin for labeling or not labeling. In other words, while we can percieve who IS a furry and who IS NOT a furry, it's impossible to define when such transition occurs.
This refers to fuzzy logic, which deals with approximation of truth. (Oh, the irony of using something fuzzy to furries... XD) Like for example, defining hot and cold. While one can definately know when the temperature is hot and when it's cold, there's no way to define when exactly it stops being cold and becomes hot, and vice versa.
Another problem is that defining such things are naturally hard to do. Like for example national culture. Define, for example, american. Or canadian. Or british. It would incredibly hard if not impossible to reach an ultimate consensus for such definitions, unless you use a non-cultural approuch, a document saying you're natural from nation X.
This is because such definitions are never ultimate. Everyone knows stereotyping is bad because it never reflects a person in question, simply because every single person is nevertheless unique, regardless of being american, canadian, british or furry (or a sum of these even!).
But I would say it's foolish to think this is some sort of war or drama or creating conflits in definitions that no other furries have in their lives, simply because most furries actually don't if there is such definition. It's not important for most. On the other hand, just because it's not important for most, most don't care or even think about means there's not such definitions that can be outlined. In other words, most furries are unaware of the problem of defining what is or is not a furry. But it's there regardless!
While I'd like to express my opinion on the subject, at the moment I'm not doing it. Not right now. Just because I don't have yet solid ideas in regarding this subject. But I think one import think to look out is thinking outside of the box. Maybe something that could aid in this analysis is defining what IS NOT a furry. Analyzing for example famous old authors of furry media, if they are/were furries somehow, even if not aware of. People like C.S. Lewis, Lewis Carroll, C.M. Coolidge, T.S.Eliot, et cetera ad nauseum.