Background Pony #04A4
"[@Joseph Raszagal":](/images/2294791#comment_9433945
)
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 asimiuch more claosely related comparison.
Also, reputations are built by the more notorious, so my statement is still accurate. xD
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
Also, reputations are built by the more notorious, so my statement is still accurate. xD