Just kind gonna do this in the middle of both (edit: or not, threading problems) but, yes cartoon animals tend to act cute, but at the end of day, they're still animals. Hiccup is a glorified horse, as is Pegasus from Hercules. Sisu from Raya and the Last Dragon or Rainbow Dash, on the other hand, are people (never mind Sisu's word for humans seems to be "people"). Once they start talking, then they become furry (though even that's not a hard and fast rule). I can throw a rock at my real cat and she'll let me know she's annoyed, but she remains a cat.
As far as "liking" is concerned, that's not the dividing line. It's not personal preference. If we're going to use a definition, then we should use it. Otherwise, you're doing the Martin Scorsese "that's not cinema" thing. It honestly would be better if he said the MCU was crap cinema than not cinema, because quality should not be a qualification for inclusion or exclusion, which is subjective. Saying "I don't like this" is one thing; saying "I don't like this, therefore it doesn't count, and only what I like does" is something very different. Using a strict definition may sound arbitrary, but personal preference is actually way more arbitrary.
Anyway, going back to mythical creatures, well, I kind of indirectly answered this, but a fictional species of animal can be furry, if it is anthropomorphisized. So a dragon in not automatically furry, until it is. So, can a Pokémon, for instance, be made furry, though not automatically. Or norn, probably. An intelligent alien species is already anthropomorphic, but it was never an animal.
I guess that's what my argument. If furry is about "anthropomorphic animals", merely being an animal, or merely being anthropomorphic is not enough, you need both. Though both seperately hold appeal to a furry fan, and are of interest to them, so liking How to Train Your Dragon makes sense (cool animal with some cutesy emotional reactions), and liking Lilo & Stitch makes sense (cool anthropomorphic characters with some non-specific animal traits), but they're "things furries like" rather than "actually furry."
Just kind gonna do this in the middle of both (edit: or not, threading problems) but, yes cartoon animals tend to act cute, but at the end of day, they're still animals. Hiccup is a glorified horse, as is Pegasus from Hercules. Sisu from Raya and the Last Dragon or Rainbow Dash, on the other hand, are people (never mind Sisu's word for humans seems to be "people"). Once they start talking, then they become furry (though even that's not a hard and fast rule). I can throw a rock at my real cat and she'll let me know she's annoyed, but she remains a cat.
As far as "liking" is concerned, that's not the dividing line. It's not personal preference. If we're going to use a definition, then we should use it. Otherwise, you're doing the Martin Scorsese "that's not cinema" thing. It honestly would be better if he said the MCU was crap cinema than not cinema, because quality should not be a qualification for inclusion or exclusion, which is subjective. Saying "I don't like this" is one thing; saying "I don't like this, therefore it doesn't count, and only what I like does" is something very different. Using a strict definition may sound arbitrary, but personal preference is actually way more arbitrary.
Anyway, going back to mythical creatures, well, I kind of indirectly answered this, but a fictional species of animal can be furry, if it is anthropomorphisized. So a dragon in not automatically furry, until it is. So, can a Pokémon, for instance, be made furry, though not automatically. Or norn, probably. An intelligent alien species is already anthropomorphic, but it was never an animal.
I guess that's what my argument. If furry is about "anthropomorphic animals", merely being an animal, or merely being anthropomorphic is not enough, you need both. Though both seperately hold appeal to a furry fan, and are of interest to them, so liking How to Train Your Dragon makes sense (cool animal with some cutesy emotional reactions), and liking Lilo & Stitch makes sense (cool anthropomorphic characters with some non-specific animal traits), but they're "things furries like" rather than "actually furry."