Zeeky_Santos said:
Rednog said:
Wait, wait, wait...back that train up!
Anthropomorphism does not equal half human half animal. Anthropomorphism is any non human thing whether living or not having human traits and or characteristics. From a majority of what I've seen in relation to furry art there is very little to link or to show that in fact many furies are indeed half human/human animal and evolved in some way or are genetically half-half for some reason. They are for all intensive purposes, genetically non-human. Yes there is art out there showing people transforming into furies but let's leave that for another debate.
For example the character you posted, Krystal. Now I admit I haven't played Starfox, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I highly doubt that there is any mention in her back story or during the game that she is indeed part human part animal genetically.
This is where you have to draw the fine line, being anthropomorphic means you can and are humanoid. They might look and act human, but they are definitely not human. Considering the basic definition of bestiality is is the practice of sex between humans and non-human animals, furries kind of fall into that category.
So...umm yea, while yes there are clear differences if you sit down and try to think why people like furies (it's sexualizing animals with human physical characteristics) you know there is a difference between liking that and a straight up animal.
Sorry to say it man, but people who call it bestiality are technically right.
You're splitting hairs on that whole half human or not spiel. They're fucking fictional characters for crying out loud, their back story is what we make of them.
Also, the further you look into the morality of bestiality the more you see that it's about consensual participants and the wrongness of interspecies sex (bestiality is just fucked).
Furries, being our own fictional characters are as previously stated half human and capable of god damned free thought to the level of standard humans, no less. We do have these kinda rules generally ingrained in our collective ideals about the fandom, it's not just me saying this.
Also, the phrase isn't "Intensive purposes", it's "intents and purposes".
Huge Disclaimer, the text gets garbled and I think I lost my mind half way through, but since I've invested the time I'm just going to post it anyways, if anyone bothers to read it maybe you can extract or boil down the point I'm trying to make.
Hmm, well there is a problem when it comes to splitting hairs.
Time Lord's argument, has your quote
Zeeky_Santos:
I hate the assumption made that Furries Love Animals.
We do not, we love Anthros, that is to say Animal-Human Hybrids, not fucking (in any sense of the word) animals.
Which by the definition of Anthropomorphic is in itself wrong. Like I stated in my first post, you can't say that anthropomorphic means half human half animal, because it simply does not. It is an animal with human characteristics. If you are simply basing the argument on this then yes it is in fact bestiality, because no matter what the characteristics of said non human animal, it is still an animal in the end of the day and not a half/half creature.
But like you addressed, sure you can make a furry character who's back story just happens to be that they were once human and got animal characteristics or that they in fact are some sort of human animal hybrid. Sure why not. But, then you are opening a whole new can of worms which leads to an endless fine slicing and dividing of the culture of furies.
The fine line ends up being that it just isn't human-human sex, and this is where we fall into problems. We are using terminology to discuss an issue of tastes of fictional things with terms used to describe non fictional things.
Now bear with me for a moment because I'm going to have to dive into some logic that can get convoluted. Bestiality is the physical act of having sex with an animal that isn't human. And the argument you're presenting is that since they are physically impossible characters that it cannot be considered bestiality because one can never have sex with these fictional characters. But that is walking a fine line between thoughts and intentions and desires. But with that how could you possibly condemn someone as a person to bestiality for liking Bolt?
Bolt can't exist. Sure he can have a real life counter part in a real dog, but Bolt clearly understands the world with human-like logic and intelligence. And who knows, maybe is some fictional world much later in life Bolt would be able to consent to something like sex because it isn't a far stretch in logic that he could actually understand it. Sure he is a bit naive about how the world works but he clearly has the capacity to think at the same level.
So it is kind of hard to buy the argument as to not call something like Bolt a furry, because under your definition, he kind of does fall into that category. Sure it might not be solid match to the stereotypical furry image but it does somewhat fit.
Oh god this whole train of logic/thought/etc is going to give me a migraine.
Don't get me wrong I'm not condemning furies, I honestly don't care what someone does in their own personal time. What I'm arguing is that you can't really boil down the whole problem to simple components. The whole issue with furries is that it is an extremely wide sub culture and it contains a vast array of ideals. And for a person looking in from the outside it becomes very hard to understand it. And when you try to defend it by breaking down the furry argument you have to understand that those who aren't in the subculture are going to try and understand it with the words and logic that is in their tool set from life.
When you stretch things into the fictional world you kind of have to bring the argument into a much longer and drawn out debate about theory and things that you will honestly never find a concrete answer to and it will pretty much be debated to the end of time.
Now if a furry did somehow exist in the real world, we would be able to make a simple and quick answer. But it doesn't and it is forever a discussion. Imo, it is just going to end up being a matter of people's personal opinions on the matter. You can't argue the morality of fictional things.