Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Pony Arts & Prints!

Derpibooru costs over $25 a day to operate - help support us financially!


safe1749573 artist:pony quarantine745 oc711411 oc only465139 oc:amber rose (thingpone)391 oc:thingpone396 semi-anthro13582 3 panel comic76 bed42334 blank flank7705 body horror1442 claw180 clothes475635 crying44792 cute205591 cute little fangs2195 eldritch abomination884 fangs26650 hairband1308 offended81 offscreen character35707 rest in peace359 shirt26149 speech bubble24402 standing12869 tentacles12132 text62152


not provided yet


Syntax quick reference: *bold* _italic_ [spoiler]hide text[/spoiler] @code@ +underline+ -strike- ^sup^ ~sub~
Background Pony #04A4
@Joseph Raszagal
And yet, you're the one who claimed that sexually interested bronies are just furries, implying that anyone from 'ooh horse, I wanna fuck it!' to 'species boundaries don't exist for me' are considered the same as Furries, also making your prime link between them sexual in nature, and if they're connected to being 'furry' by sexual interest, then that'd mean that people who 'do furry things' but aren't sexual about it, aren't actually furries by that interpretation.

just because people seem to lack the ability to just make different words instead of saying 'oh, this word means what I say it means, not what the world says it means' XD

And I mean, you only specified 'furries', as the broad generalization that you're treating it as [neverminding that you're generalizing even harder by lumping non-furry things in as furry], that lumps the best with the worst, and the barely if at all related with the perfectly definition fitting, so there's little point in worrying about separating the public exposure criminals from the casual fur-suiters. If you consider a definitively dissimilar fandom to be 'furry', Then it just makes you sound like a hypocrite to have an issue with a much more closely related comparison.

Also, reputations are built by the more notorious, so my statement is still accurate. xD
Joseph Raszagal
Wallet After Summer Sale -

Emily Brickenbrackle III
Apparently. Blame it on me, yo.

@Background Pony #04A4
I did lay it out like that, yes, but that's also not what grooming is. Also, by that logic, by lumping all furries into the same sexual-deviant category, you paint a rather horrid picture of our own fandom. Because the rest of the internet isn't very thrilled with us either.

Not all furries go around molesting each other in fursuits, just like not all bronies are into the show just because of the porn. Generalizations like that are poisonous to both the fandoms and the people making the generalizations.
Background Pony #04A4

Hell if I know… something about trying to define all sexual interest in non human beings as inherently associated with the group that has a reputation of spontaneous public orgies that get them banned if not arrested, and getting caught fucking actual animals?
Joseph Raszagal
Wallet After Summer Sale -

Emily Brickenbrackle III
Cool, you can use Google too. That's literally a copy-paste of the definition; props for that!

You can over-explain the dictionary definition of the word "semantics" until you're blue in the face, but that isn't going to make me lose the train of the initial argument. Mostly because a dictionary definition here means very little in the face of the topic at hand (don't worry, this applies to what comes next too). Or paw, or hoof, if I'm to continue the trend of the joke that I've been driving into the ground. Realistically, we're both making our case from a semantic and opinionated point-of-view, but whatever. I'm having fun.

Also, regarding furries; there's no official definition of the furry fandom as far as the internet as a whole is concerned; oh, God, that'd be an interesting insert for dictionaries everywhere. The only thing that seems accepted at face-value, all the time, is that they're an ostracized community that obsesses over animals. That's about as base and bare-bones as the definition gets. Be it four legs or two, furries are into it. Very, very, into it.

Perhaps uncomfortably so. But let's move on.

Your second argument has more flaws than the first. Like, all the flaws.

I would argue that, yes, for a group of animalistic creatures to do the following:

- Build a society complete with a central government
- Institute/grant jobs for the common folk to work
- Instate logistical functions like police and military that are needed in order to keep the peace and uphold the law (laws, which must be instated by the aforementioned government)
- Build blimps with which to traverse the skies
- Cultivate farms to grow food (I should've probably just relegated that to the "job" category, but whatever)
- Craft pointless niceties like designer clothing outlets to be desired by the masses (I'm so sorry for saying that, Rarity; I'm just trying to make a point, honest)
- Build schools to teach every next generation, et cetera

Blah blah blah. So much! Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much! So many intricate and absurdly complicated things that makes them basically human. Oh, except they have hooves and magic. I forgot, in this flawed argument, it's the appearance that matters the most. My bad.

All sarcasm aside (well, not all), those things do in fact make them very, incredibly, almost stupidly human. Mostly because, aside from the current shape and form that we as the human race exist in, those are all of the traits that make us an "arisen" species that no longer has to forage in the dung for good bugs to eat or fear thunder like it's God's way of screaming at us.

Look, I know gorillas and dolphins are very smart, especially by stupid animal standards, and we humans proved this by teaching a gorilla sign language, but I don't think they're quite to the point of "build a prison to contain our world's ultimate evils because the moral quandary of killing them is complicated" smart. You know, otherwise known as "Tartarus" in the magical pastel-colored pony realm.

These things are not "common" for all sapient creatures. A chimpanzee driving a stick down a termite mound in order to collect a tasty snack is not the same as a collective family working a farm to grow food for an entire community. A howler monkey being able to scream a message of general danger to other howler monkies is not the same as literally writing a letter to the ruler of an organized nation that an imminent threat has been made against said organized nation.

Pony society (and very likely all societies within the MLP universe) is much like our own.

So, clearly, even without standing on two legs, these ponies are anthropomorphic. So, where do we go from here?

Well, you can still enjoy the show without being a furry. Hell, enjoying the movie Zootopia doesn't immediately make you a furry. However, there's a point that one can cross, more than likely on the internet, that changes things.


Once you sexualize an animalistic character, you're pretty much automatically furry. "Oh, but it's only MLP characters! Only them and nothing else!" Weak defense, bro. Wouldn't hold up, not even in the silliest court of law. Likewise, the old "Oh, but it's an alien!" line is also super weak. Just because someone wants to get wet'n'wild with a xenomorph doesn't mean they're exempt from the furry clause, yo.

See, it's the mental gymnastics involved that I find the most embarrassing. The whole, "No, I'm not a furry because~

At the end of the day, people like what they like. If they're into furry stuff, whatever. I'm not here to judge. I just find the whole argument involving MLP very contrived, deflective, and pointless. Just like what you like and admit it. Beating around the bush is just sad and pathetic.

Think about it this way: The only way other people are going to know that you're a furry is if you let them know. If you enjoy furry art, be it conventional or MLP-related, just don't let anybody know! Problem solved in the easiest and most obvious manner possible. Griping, bitching, moaning, complaining, and screaming about it on the internet only serves the purpose of pointing out that you're basically the biggest furry to ever exist.

And to finish this off:

@Joseph Raszagal
Ignoring the meaning of words, doesn't change their existence of meaning, it just means you're basically denying reality in favor of opinion.

And you're right, it doesn't! You're denying the truth of furry sexualization right here and it's hilarious! =D Thank you for attending my second Ted Talk.

@Joseph Raszagal
first, I have no idea why this post is marked 'posted 1 day ago', This was months ago!
Also, just to make sure the definition of 'semantics' is made clear, here!

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
Also, so we know the 'official' internet definition of Furry

an enthusiast for animal characters with human characteristics, in particular a person who dresses up in costume as such a character or uses one as an avatar online.

People shit talk semantics all the time, but definitions are definitions, and semantics wouldn't exist if they weren't important. Saying 'semantics' like it's a bad thing is like saying 'they're the same because I said so' implying that opinion defines words instead of their meaning. [Granted, 'meaning' is ultimately just 'the most accepted opinion on a word', but the fact of the matter remains, that without convincing 'the world' to change it's understanding of the definition of these words, it's only a matter of 'opinion' that furries and pony-fans are the same thing.]

And continuing that first line of yours, are you implying that it is an 'inherently' and 'exclusively', human characteristic to have a government, be sapient, be civilized, want shelter to live in, form 'families', do work and have things they consider fun, and wear protective or fashionable garments?

See, these are all things that any sapient creature has the potential to do, they're not inherently 'human' characteristics, which breaks the 'anthropomorphized' element, especially since they're also not characteristics being 'given' to them, but that already exist in the context of the universe they originate from.

You can bash semantics like they don't matter, but fact of the matter is, anthropomorphism is defined as 'attribution' of human characteristics to a god, animal, or object. Even if we branch out beyond the 'god/animal/object' listing, they would still need to be 'attributed' human characteristics in order to be anthropomorphized, and they are not 'given' them, they evolved them.

In the furry examples you mention, they're still 'another creature' being 'attributed' human characteristics… This same argument is why I consider sergals to be aliens instead of 'furries', they were an invented species, not a 'creature given human characteristics'.

Ignoring the meaning of words, doesn't change their existence of meaning, it just means you're basically denying reality in favor of opinion.
Joseph Raszagal
Wallet After Summer Sale -

Emily Brickenbrackle III
@Background Pony #4360
BP, while that's not technically wrong, it doesn't quash the fact that furries have been into both biped and quadruped anthropomorphic art for centuries. It goes back a long, long time; it goes back much further than most people are comfortable with contemplating, especially given the implications. I mean, who wants to admit that our ancient ancestors have pretty much always fantasized about getting wild with livestock?

Let's rewind the clock a thousand years or more~

Just look at the historic hot-mess that is Greek mythological lore. How does literally any specific mythological creature come into creation? Obviously, a man or a woman decided to copulate with an animal or god/demigod disguised as an animal (the gods were either weird or assholes, or more often, both; don't ask). BAM! Now you've got anthropomorphic offspring based on the combination of a human and whatever animal was involved. Because CRAZY GODS LOL! And again, they come in both flavors: quadruped and biped.

Heck, the Romans loved it too. So did the many Germanic tribes. And then there's the Celts and their almost laser-guided specific fetish for wolves. If anything, the Egyptians were the most lightweight of the ancient civilizations with their overall furriness, even though they're kind of the most famous now because of how overly-sexualized the furries have made poor ol' Anubis; all they did was put animal heads on human bodies. The Egyptians, the olden times' "normies" of the furry world.

And centaurs, where do they fit in when it comes to a completely pointless argument like this? You've got a human top and a horse bottom; a creature more than likely invented because one ancient dude was arguing with another ancient dude that his OC could definitely run faster than the other's (at the very least, I'd like to believe that people from h'way-back-when engaged in the same kind of stupid arguments in a face-to-face manner that Sonic fanboys now engage in primarily online). A centaur is technically a quadruped, sure, but very human in overall mannerisms, mental capacity, and societal creativity. So, is it wrong to be hot'n'bothered for them? I don't know, I'm not here to kink-shame, only lay out the facts as history presents them.

Look, whether it has four legs or just two, if it talks and can think for itself in a conventionally intelligent capacity, then it's guaranteed that the furry fandom will love it. And if someone sexualizes either of the aforementioned, in literally any way at all, then they're absolutely a furry. I don't care what possible counterargument someone might desperately try to propose, in the end it's just weak deflection, and usually because the idea of being labeled as a furry upsets them.

Furries, the bane of the internet, even and/or especially when it comes to other furries.

I'm J.Razzle, thank you for attending my Ted Talk.
Background Pony #4360
@Joseph Raszagal
Furries are just trying to make anything with animalistic characteristics fall into their category when some people may not want to be associated with the category because of how furries generally act and want to differentiate themselves from them.
Joseph Raszagal
Wallet After Summer Sale -

Emily Brickenbrackle III
Basically, this is a very long winded and in-depth way of saying, you can be a furry, and/or a brony [or whatever term you prefer], but they are not mutually exclusive nor identical! XD
As Ponies are not an 'animal that has been given human characteristics' so much as a naturally sapient quadrupedal species, they are not a definitive 'furry' thing, they're actually a sapient species that would need to be given 'more' human characteristics to be considered anthropomorphized to fit the qualifications.

I don't know, man, this sounds like the very definition of semantics. They're sapient, they've made a civilized society for themselves complete with a unifying central government and military, they live in houses as full family units, they have jobs and hobbies, they can wear clothing if they feel like it, et cetera.

They only "human" characteristic they're missing is a human shape, and if you're even remotely familiar with furries you'll know that an anthropomorphic shape is not a must-have. There's a lot of furries that specifically like quadrupeds more than bipeds, almost like animal purists or something.

All-in-all, a weak argument. The only point I totally agree with is that enjoying the show does not immediately make you a furry. It just makes you someone that enjoys the show, because duh.

However, like moonchosen said earlier, enjoying the show sexually definitely does make you a furry, no contest.

I actually just had this discussion with someone, lemme drop some knowledge here!

First, the definition!
the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

an enthusiast for animal characters with human characteristics, in particular a person who dresses up in costume as such a character or uses one as an avatar online.

Keep in mind, Sapience is not exclusive to humanity, whether you believe in aliens or not, it is a statistical impossible that humanity can be the only sapient creature in the universe, calling every creature with sapience anthropomorphized would actually probably be extremely offensive if it were done in a period where multiple species held sapience, as it implies they're all just 'like humans'

This is why there were arguments once upon a time between furries being inherently into beastiality [which is illegal in reality in various places for various reasons] because beastiality requires a 'feral' mind be involved, while it's just more 'common' among furries to be into that, it's not an inherent characteristic of a furry.

In a similar vein, being into 'sapient quadrupeds' is not an inherently furry characteristics, there-by a fandom centered almost exclusively around a species, or world where almost all species, are sapient quadrupeds, is kindof reductive, and the same line of thinking as those people who claim there's no biological difference between male and female.

And that is 'all' 'before' considering that ponies are so wildly different from any animal that we know of merely being 'anthromorphized', that they are more like aliens first, than just an animal being anthrofied.
Furry is for people into anthropomorphized animals, not 'everything with any human characteristics'.
While Brony is for people specifically into species from MLP, the vast majority of which share only 'sapience' with humans, which is not an 'exclusively' human characteristic.

Basically, this is a very long winded and in-depth way of saying, you can be a furry, and/or a brony [or whatever term you prefer], but they are not mutually exclusive nor identical! XD
As Ponies are not an 'animal that has been given human characteristics' so much as a naturally sapient quadrupedal species, they are not a definitive 'furry' thing, they're actually a sapient species that would need to be given 'more' human characteristics to be considered anthropomorphized to fit the qualifications.
Background Pony #54CE
Being a furry isn't necessarily a sexual thing, it just means you like anthropomorphic characters. Whether your interest is sexual or not, the difference between bronies and furries is purely semantic anyway.