I think inviting mainstream musicians when there are plenty of furry musicians to perform at a furry convention is extremely silly. I also vaguely recall hearing that "invite mainstream people to fund furry events" argument somewhere before but I can not recall well enough where to bring it up here.
However, I will call out some places where I feel you have neglected other arguments, in particular since they were my arguments. In contrast to Fred, I do not think there needs to be anything beyond the aesthetic for furry art (including literature) and I wrote a whole article outlining how I think we can identify a character as furry and, building on that in my presentation at Eurofuence, that furry media is defined by being focussed on such characters.
I think even more important is my discussion on furry music which you omitted. Not only did it include a definition, which I broadly agreed with, from a furry musician but it also included a tool for deciding whether something is furry or not.
According to NIIC:
For me, personally, if we can properly define music as being "furry music", I believe that kind of music must contain lyrics and a story about anthropomorphic characters, or contain language that empathizes with the Furry community.
And from the comments on my piece, there was this from a furry DJ:
Is it furry music?
1. Is the song about anthorpomorphic characters, people, or themes?
2. Does it use samples from things related to furry fandom/art/characters/people/themes/culture?
3. Was the song directly inspired by the fandom/art/characters/people/themes/culture, as in the case of instrumentals?
Using these 3 determining factors, then yes, furries can make non furry music, and non furries can make furry music. Just because a furry makes music, doesn't mean it's necessarily furry music, as is the case of a furry trying to make video gaming music.
And what I said:
If you are going to say that something is furry, whether it be music or art or anything else, you should be able to explain what you could change to make it stop being furry.
I think both of those points should really be addressed. You're going with a definition that is in contrast to what furry musicians have said and with nothing to back up that it's a widely-agreed on. (The complete absence of any sort of supporting links after the first subheading is quite odd.)
Do you also think there are things like right-handed music or vegetarian music because the musician is right-handed or vegetarian? Do you think the furry music, as you treat it here, stops being furry if the musician leaves the fandom? Does music created before a musician is furry automatically become furry when the musician does? To me, such events would be nonsensical. A song is no more a furry song because the musician is furry than Uncle Kage's scientific papers are furry science or what you made for supper was furry cooking.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I think inviting mainstream musicians when there are plenty of furry musicians to perform at a furry convention is extremely silly. I also vaguely recall hearing that "invite mainstream people to fund furry events" argument somewhere before but I can not recall well enough where to bring it up here.
However, I will call out some places where I feel you have neglected other arguments, in particular since they were my arguments. In contrast to Fred, I do not think there needs to be anything beyond the aesthetic for furry art (including literature) and I wrote a whole article outlining how I think we can identify a character as furry and, building on that in my presentation at Eurofuence, that furry media is defined by being focussed on such characters.
I think even more important is my discussion on furry music which you omitted. Not only did it include a definition, which I broadly agreed with, from a furry musician but it also included a tool for deciding whether something is furry or not.
According to NIIC:
And from the comments on my piece, there was this from a furry DJ:
And what I said:
I think both of those points should really be addressed. You're going with a definition that is in contrast to what furry musicians have said and with nothing to back up that it's a widely-agreed on. (The complete absence of any sort of supporting links after the first subheading is quite odd.)
Do you also think there are things like right-handed music or vegetarian music because the musician is right-handed or vegetarian? Do you think the furry music, as you treat it here, stops being furry if the musician leaves the fandom? Does music created before a musician is furry automatically become furry when the musician does? To me, such events would be nonsensical. A song is no more a furry song because the musician is furry than Uncle Kage's scientific papers are furry science or what you made for supper was furry cooking.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~