I can't help but see this as a fallacious question.
The problem lies within its constituent parts. There's no context for either 'creative' or 'original' provided in regards to how the author is using them. And why? It's almost impossible to actually provide that. The dictionary definition of 'creative' is a person with capacities for imagination and originality within artistic works.
Considering that, the extra inclusion of 'original' is somewhat redundant. We only need to really understand the parts of what it means to be creative. The concept of imagination is to be able to produce something sight unseen by its literary nature. Whether to one's taste or not, evidence of this talent being present is ubiquitous.
And originality, as a component of imagination? It's an expression of creation forged by a particular artist, of a like they hadn't consciously recognised as a copy. Now, playing the game of semantics, one could argue that nothing is original is everything is inspired by something else, whether conscious or not. If we did argue that, then it renders the word 'original' moot.
To wit, furries are both creative and original.
You have used various quantities to describe these factors. From reasonable descriptors like 'especially' to the hyperbole of 'unique.' One commentator used the quantifier of 'unusually,' with which I'm inclined to agree. The creativity of the furry fandom is unusual in both its niche nature and the content it produces. Whether that is 'especially' creative, or even 'special' is another matter entirely.
The problem is is that a lot of this is playing with words and subjectivity. It's an opinion that means nothing. As such, it's not so much an actual opinion founded in any sort of logic, but more a feeling. I can't help but psychoanalyse when I notice the recurring theme of having a potent dislike for anyone or anything that identifies itself as being special. That that's inherently offensive. And I think that's the truth behind the article, here.
This isn't about whether the furry fandom has capacities for creativity, nor is it about what quantities of it they have. I've explained my position on why I think this above. It's more an almost... I'd call it a political position based upon a feeling. And I know there are those who will regularly incorrectly attribute that as an opinion.
In closing. I think the article should have been titled as thus: Opinion Piece -- I Don't Think the Furry Fandom is Special and Neither Should You.
And that, in and of itself, is an entirely different topic to the one actually proposed.
I can't help but see this as a fallacious question.
The problem lies within its constituent parts. There's no context for either 'creative' or 'original' provided in regards to how the author is using them. And why? It's almost impossible to actually provide that. The dictionary definition of 'creative' is a person with capacities for imagination and originality within artistic works.
Considering that, the extra inclusion of 'original' is somewhat redundant. We only need to really understand the parts of what it means to be creative. The concept of imagination is to be able to produce something sight unseen by its literary nature. Whether to one's taste or not, evidence of this talent being present is ubiquitous.
And originality, as a component of imagination? It's an expression of creation forged by a particular artist, of a like they hadn't consciously recognised as a copy. Now, playing the game of semantics, one could argue that nothing is original is everything is inspired by something else, whether conscious or not. If we did argue that, then it renders the word 'original' moot.
To wit, furries are both creative and original.
You have used various quantities to describe these factors. From reasonable descriptors like 'especially' to the hyperbole of 'unique.' One commentator used the quantifier of 'unusually,' with which I'm inclined to agree. The creativity of the furry fandom is unusual in both its niche nature and the content it produces. Whether that is 'especially' creative, or even 'special' is another matter entirely.
The problem is is that a lot of this is playing with words and subjectivity. It's an opinion that means nothing. As such, it's not so much an actual opinion founded in any sort of logic, but more a feeling. I can't help but psychoanalyse when I notice the recurring theme of having a potent dislike for anyone or anything that identifies itself as being special. That that's inherently offensive. And I think that's the truth behind the article, here.
This isn't about whether the furry fandom has capacities for creativity, nor is it about what quantities of it they have. I've explained my position on why I think this above. It's more an almost... I'd call it a political position based upon a feeling. And I know there are those who will regularly incorrectly attribute that as an opinion.
In closing. I think the article should have been titled as thus: Opinion Piece -- I Don't Think the Furry Fandom is Special and Neither Should You.
And that, in and of itself, is an entirely different topic to the one actually proposed.