Why the hate?

[Nate]

I guess I don't understand what a furry is then. I thought a furry was a person with a like towards the animalia in anime. *wears a cat bell, etc* and yes I know some people can go crazy with the erotica crap... but the suits.... I am confused. >,< If thats what a furry is then....alright then...O.o

Some friendly goons have put together an excellent PSA about what furries are. I'll just quote from it:

There are far too many definitions of a furry to name them all. Here are but a few:

* People with an interest in anthropomorphic animals in literature, art, comics, cartoons, and/or pornography.

* People who feel an abnormally strong connection with animals, or who believe they actually are animals.

* People who find fluffy ears or tails on people cute and/or arousing.

* People who believe that living their lives as anthro-animals, they won't have to worry about the responsibilities of real life.

[minakichan]

Look up Otherkin, those are the epitomal creepy furries (at least, the non-sexual ones).

[ShiroiHikari]

Some friendly goons have put together an excellent PSA about what furries are. I'll just quote from it:

There are far too many definitions of a furry to name them all. Here are but a few:

* People with an interest in anthropomorphic animals in literature, art, comics, cartoons, and/or pornography.

* People who feel an abnormally strong connection with animals, or who believe they actually are animals.

* People who find fluffy ears or tails on people cute and/or arousing.

* People who believe that living their lives as anthro-animals, they won't have to worry about the responsibilities of real life.

I don't know about anybody else, but those things are creepy enough for me. >_>

Anthropomorphic animals are alright, I suppose, but...I tend not to like them much. XD; It may just be a matter of negative associations that I've developed. For example, Looney Tunes are chock full of anthropomorphic animals, but that doesn't bother me because it's not associated with "furries". However, when I see "anthro" art on the internet-- especially if it's someone's "fursona" --it irritates me. :\

[Maledicte]

Yeah, I don't understand fursonas either. It's like RPing taken to an unreasonable level.

And ShiHi, wasn't Disney's Robin Hood one of your favorite movies?

[ShiroiHikari]

It was until I saw it through adult eyes. XD;

[Etoh*the*Greato]

[quote="ShiroiHikari (post: 1224123)"]It was until I saw it through adult eyes. XD]

*sigh* yeah... I know that feeling. There's actually a crappy home video floating around somewhere of me with my green nighty tied to my back and my robin hood hat running around a neighborhood chasing a cat I called Prince John.

[Mave]

I thought furries referred to ppl with too much hair. Heh.

Now, that image isn't too bad. Guess I'm too used to ppl dressing up as animal mascots or clowns.

I have no issue with this unless you start trying to sought erotic pleasures or procreate with animals. Now that's wrong. Think of the poor animal, you monsters.

[termyt]

*sigh* yeah... I know that feeling. There's actually a crappy home video floating around somewhere of me with my green nighty tied to my back and my robin hood hat running around a neighborhood chasing a cat I called Prince John.

Now there's some YouTube gold right there.

[Azier the Swordsman]

Now there's some YouTube gold right there.

I smell an overnight hit.

[NuclearPeon]

Some friendly goons have put together an excellent PSA about what furries are. I'll just quote from it:

There are far too many definitions of a furry to name them all. Here are but a few:

* People with an interest in anthropomorphic animals in literature, art, comics, cartoons, and/or pornography.

* People who feel an abnormally strong connection with animals, or who believe they actually are animals.

* People who find fluffy ears or tails on people cute and/or arousing.

* People who believe that living their lives as anthro-animals, they won't have to worry about the responsibilities of real life.

People who find fluffy ears or tails on people cute and/or arousing are not furries. Rather, this type of style is known as Kemonomimi (See Wikipedia.)

I can understand the animal aura thing, but the word furry seems to denote the sensual side to 'being an animal-like person'.
Maybe I've spent too much time on the internets.

[Slater]

1. A large proportion of furries claim to be either homosexual or bisexual (hence the term furf--)

2. The relatively small number of furry porn artists who turn into complete drama queens when they expect people to pay to view their art.

3. The fursuits... I mean, I'm a furry and even I think that about 98% of fursuits are very bizarre

4. 4­chan and SA's anti-fur campaigns have always been successful

5. Some furries do some pretty weird things in real life...

Those are the 5 things that I think are responsible for "fursecution," in no particular order. It all boils down to stereotyping.

[Tundrawolf]

Here's a question for you all. Why do you think that the vast majority of the internet, if not most people, don't like furries? If you actually know any of them, they are some of the nicest, most tolerant people you will ever meet! I know, I have a very good friend who is an open furry, and he gets along great with everyone we know! Sure, they razz him for being a furry, but nothing too intense.
And he is quick to point out that there is a difference between 'furf@gs' and furries. If my understanding of his analogy is correct, then furf@gs are equivilent to LARPers (Live Action Role Play), and furries are people who play stuff like D&D. The LARPers are a relatively small group, who are extremely vocal, and give the rest of them a bad name. Same with furf@gs and furries.

My belief as to why people don't like furries and feel the need to flame them so intensely is that they fail to see the difference between furries and beastiality. There is a difference, and if anyone on here doesn't understand the difference, I would be happy to clear it up. Other opinions?

Have you ever looked at their uncensored artwork? For starters, on, say, the vcl, a LARGE percentage of it is not only pronographic, but is akin to bestiality. It's the same to me: You have homosexuals who will walk around SanFranCisco naked, have sex in public places, etc, then you have the ones who try their hardest to have private monogamous lives.

I am not sure what to think about furries. I know there are Christian groups devoted to furry-ism, but to me, it seems like a cop out. As in, bestiality is too taboo for some, so they make-up manimals and lust (or, at least like very much) after them. I wonder if some of those Christian furry groups know that man-animal things were worshipped (Their images were, anyway) by some ancient tribes and revered as gods (And thusly having demonic activity behind them)?

Go to the vcl and see for yourself. There is even an artist by the name of "Ibuki" or some such thing that draws pornographic artwork of "young" looking furries, it's like freaki'n furry child porn! Some furries also are unashamedly zoophiles, which means that they engage in bestiality. It seems to me that the furry community is coming out with many sub-genres of itself that simply mirror humanity in its vast perversions. Why is it we need any more than we already have?

[Nate]

You have homosexuals who will walk around SanFranCisco naked, have sex in public places, etc

There are straight people who do that too so I don't see why you felt the need to specify homosexuals.

revered as gods (And thusly having demonic activity behind them)

Uh what? So anything that's revered as a god has demonic activity behind it? So the sun, trees, the wind, the soil, rain, lightning, and fire are all demonic?

I despise furries as much as the next guy but to say that furries are demon-worshippers without realizing it doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Aleolus]

Have you ever looked at their uncensored artwork? For starters, on, say, the vcl, a LARGE percentage of it is not only pronographic, but is akin to bestiality. It's the same to me: You have homosexuals who will walk around SanFranCisco naked, have sex in public places, etc, then you have the ones who try their hardest to have private monogamous lives.

I am not sure what to think about furries. I know there are Christian groups devoted to furry-ism, but to me, it seems like a cop out. As in, bestiality is too taboo for some, so they make-up manimals and lust (or, at least like very much) after them. I wonder if some of those Christian furry groups know that man-animal things were worshipped (Their images were, anyway) by some ancient tribes and revered as gods (And thusly having demonic activity behind them)?

Go to the vcl and see for yourself. There is even an artist by the name of "Ibuki" or some such thing that draws pornographic artwork of "young" looking furries, it's like freaki'n furry child porn! Some furries also are unashamedly zoophiles, which means that they engage in bestiality. It seems to me that the furry community is coming out with many sub-genres of itself that simply mirror humanity in its vast perversions. Why is it we need any more than we already have?

OK, yes, a large amount of their artwork is adult in nature, but I know a good number of people who are fur's who do not find any particular enjoyment of furry porn. They simply think that they should have been, to use your terminology, a 'manimal' of a particular genus, and enjoy talking with people who have similar viewpoints.

It sounds to me like most of the experiences you have had with furries is with the relatively small, but quite vocal, number of people who are actually what furs would consider 'furf@gs', the individuals who are extreme about their fur fetish, and don't care who knows it, or what they think of it.

[Amzi Live]

Huh,I just learned something new.I didn't know that there were Furry fans who went to such extremes.

[Cognitive Gear]

They simply think that they should have been, to use your terminology, a 'manimal' of a particular genus, and enjoy talking with people who have similar viewpoints.

This is actually one of the things that I don't like about furry culture. It's one thing to like a particular artistic ascetic, and quite another to think that God got something wrong when he made you a human being.

[Nate]

It's one thing to like a particular artistic ascetic, and quite another to think that God got something wrong when he made you a human being.

I'd like to say this sums up my position very well.

[Slater]

I know there are Christian groups devoted to furry-ism, but to me, it seems like a cop out.

Ugh, you did NOT just resort to that argument. Many, many people say that sites like CAA are oxymorons by the same argument. I buy neither cases]This is actually one of the things that I don't like about furry culture. It's one thing to like a particular artistic ascetic, and quite another to think that God got something wrong when he made you a human being.[/QUOTE]
Again, only a very small minority of furries believe that they are actually animal spirits on the inside -_-;

[Nate]

[quote="Slater"]Ugh, you did NOT just resort to that argument. Many, many people say that sites like CAA are oxymorons by the same argument. I buy neither cases]
That's not a very good comparison, watching a TV show isn't the same as identifying yourself as part of a group or culture.

Further, this depends on your interpretation of whether or not it is morally acceptable to be a furry. Obviously, Cognitive Gear, Tundrawolf (though I don't agree with his post), and myself believe being a furry is morally wrong. Thus yeah, it's technically true that you can be a furry and a Christian. You can be a homosexual and a Christian. You can be a thief, a murderer, and a liar and be a Christian. The question is is it okay to be both those things at once? I believe it isn't, but again, that's based on what I personally think, a position that Phil summed up nicely.

This may lead to thread lockage, but I feel the need to expound on this. I like Bugs Bunny cartoons. They're awesome. I like Swat Kats. Ninja Turtles. The Star Fox games. They're all rad. I don't think anyone here is saying it's wrong to enjoy anthropomorphism. So then where does a furry come in?

My earlier joking post aside, there then can be only three definitions of a furry:

1. Someone who thinks they are an animal/anthro.

2. Someone who wants to be an animal/anthro.

3. Someone who is sexually attracted to animals/anthros.

To me, all three of those are completely wrong. The third more obviously so than the first two, but to think you are an animal is obviously insane, and as Phil said, to want to be an animal is to somehow imply that God made a mistake in making you human. That doesn't sit well with me.

I have a personal problem regarding myself, that I'd rather not talk about. The difference is I don't make excuses and say "I'm a Christian and a _______!" I know my personal feelings on this are wrong, and I want to change it. I don't want to join groups devoted to it, I don't want to wear the label proudly, and I don't want to accept it as "who I am," because part of following Christ is to want to be BETTER than who we are.

Thus ends my Abe Lincolns. The copper kind, not the paper kind.

[NuclearPeon]

There are straight people who do that too so I don't see why you felt the need to specify homosexuals.

Uh what? So anything that's revered as a god has demonic activity behind it? So the sun, trees, the wind, the soil, rain, lightning, and fire are all demonic?

I despise furries as much as the next guy but to say that furries are demon-worshippers without realizing it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Seems to me Nate, that the reason homosexuals were specified is because
1. It makes for a good example
2. While most, if not all of us, would hate to see two hetero lovebirds slobbering all over each other's mouths, it would be even more unnatural and uncomfortable to watch two homosexual people do so.

In essence, he specifies them for emphasis on his point, not due to discrimination or intolerance or any other politically correct pussification of his meaning.

As for your second retort, the person you quoted said nothing of comparing furries to gods of nature and animals.
What he meant was that furries have an unnatural interest in animals that could potentially draw their attention away from God like these nature animal god things did for people throughout history. Or he even could be pointing out the possibility of an extreme case where someone is obsessed to the point of worshiping animals. (and hence, possibly having sexual relations with them.)

Is my point made?

[NuclearPeon]

That's not a very good comparison, watching a TV show isn't the same as identifying yourself as part of a group or culture.

Further, this depends on your interpretation of whether or not it is morally acceptable to be a furry. Obviously, Cognitive Gear, Tundrawolf (though I don't agree with his post), and myself believe being a furry is morally wrong. Thus yeah, it's technically true that you can be a furry and a Christian. You can be a homosexual and a Christian. You can be a thief, a murderer, and a liar and be a Christian. The question is is it okay to be both those things at once? I believe it isn't, but again, that's based on what I personally think, a position that Phil summed up nicely.

Sorry for the double post, but I'd like to add something in your favour too, Nate.

Is it morally acceptable for us to download anime and be Christian too? I'm certain more of us can relate to that.

Oh and is it okay to be a fangirl and Christian too?
Personally I hope the two never mix... eww. Fangirls...

[Nate]

Seems to me Nate, that the reason homosexuals were specified is because
1. It makes for a good example

It doesn't though. Having public sex is wrong no matter whether you're straight or gay. There was zero reason to specify a sexual preference, and further, it stereotypes gays as having no sexual boundaries. Straight people have public sex too, it's not like it's completely relegated to gays.

Example, if I said, "Women are always so moody." That implies 1) all women are moody and 2) men are never moody. This is obviously not true]2. While most, if not all of us, would hate to see two hetero lovebirds slobbering all over each other's mouths, it would be even more unnatural and uncomfortable to watch two homosexual people do so.[/QUOTE]
Unnatural and uncomfortable for YOU. I think homosexuality is wrong, no question, but watching two dudes kiss doesn't immediately make me go "OH HOLY CRAP THAT'S SO GROSS." If two dudes want to kiss on a park bench who am I to stop them? There's no law against it. It doesn't mean I approve of their lifestyle but they have a right to do it, same as a guy has a right to walk into a bookstore and purchase a copy of Hustler. While it's morally wrong, he has every legal right to do so.

Besides it's not like gay people are out in the park in droves making out on park benches. Again, he's stereotyping gays into looking like they go "I'm totally gay and I'm going to flamboyantly display it everywhere I can!" They're not all like that and it's wrong to say they are.

In essence, he specifies them for emphasis on his point, not due to discrimination or intolerance or any other politically correct pussification of his meaning.

Ha ha ha. As I said before if he'd just said "people having public sex" you'd be right, but he felt the need to say "gay people having public sex" proving it's not any emphasis, it's discrimination and intolerance.

What he meant was that furries have an unnatural interest in animals that could potentially draw their attention away from God like these nature animal god things did for people throughout history.

I don't agree with your assessment of what he's saying but I agree with that sentiment you just expressed. Still, just because something draws attention away from God doesn't mean it's demonic or that demonic activity is behind it. Humans are perfectly capable of being sinful on our own ya know. Demons don't hide around every corner to make us screw up, we have an inherent sinful nature.

Is it morally acceptable for us to download anime and be Christian too? I'm certain more of us can relate to that.

Probably not, and that's been an issue that's come up multiple times on the site. Also why the mods don't allow links to scanlation/fansub/download sites on here.

Personally I hope the two never mix... eww. Fangirls...

Boy you're crazy. XP I wish I had a rabid fangirl.

Okay maybe not. These kinds of wishes always have a way of backfiring. :\

[Slater]

But that's just the thing: I don't want/am not any of the things that Nate listed, and many of my friends are the same way. They're disgusted at the porn and stuff that exists in the fandom too. Just because some people in a community do the wrong things doesn't mean that the community as a whole is wrong or that it's wrong to associate with the community.

It's kinda--no, exactly--like when a writer pens out a fine work of fiction. Often, they chose a character in their story to represent themselves. They use their creative imagination to translate their own thoughts, feelings, and whatnot into their fictional character(s), and the result is (hopefully) something artistically pleasing. That's all that us furries are doing when we create these fictional beings.

Those who believe that they are/should be anthro are like those who start religions based on Star Wars or the Matrix; they're freaks of the fandom, but that doesn't mean that they automatically suck everyone down into their bizarre little vortex of disillusion. Like I said before, judging the whole of a community (such as furries) based on the actions of a few is wrongful stereotyping.

[Nate]

It's kinda--no, exactly--like when a writer pens out a fine work of fiction. Often, they chose a character in their story to represent themselves. They use their creative imagination to translate their own thoughts, feelings, and whatnot into their fictional character(s), and the result is (hopefully) something artistically pleasing. That's all that us furries are doing when we create these fictional beings.

Then I don't get your definition of a furry? Like I said, furries are not people who like or draw anthro art. That doesn't make someone a furry.

As far as translating your own thoughts/feelings/whatever into an anthro/animal character, I see that as wanting to be an anthro/animal, which as I already explained is wrong. For example. I don't want to be a grizzled old sea captain. Thus I would never write a story where I transferred my own thoughts/feelings/whatever into a grizzled old sea captain. Because I don't want to be one.

Besides I think there's a vast difference between "Hey here's a tiger person I drew" and saying "Hey here's me as a tiger person." The first is okay; the latter isn't.

To clarify, here's my position as to what defines a furry, since you and I seem to have different definitions I think:

Furries ARE people who want to be animals/anthros, think they are animals/anthros, or are sexually attracted to animals/anthros.

Furries ARE NOT people who view anthro art, or draw anthro art.

If you're saying you're a furry because you occasionally like drawing raccoon people then I would say you're not a furry. There's no reason to, what is furry-ish about drawing a raccoon person? However if you're drawing YOURSELF as a raccoon person then you are a furry, and I think it shows a desire to be a raccoon person and therefore I find it wrong based on my personal beliefs.

So...yeah. Confusing.

[Maledicte]

As far as translating your own thoughts/feelings/whatever into an anthro/animal character, I see that as wanting to be an anthro/animal, which as I already explained is wrong. For example. I don't want to be a grizzled old sea captain. Thus I would never write a story where I transferred my own thoughts/feelings/whatever into a grizzled old sea captain. Because I don't want to be one.

I wouldn't mind being a grizzled old sea captain.

Just to clarify, (not to a specific person, just to the thread in general) lots of writers end up making up characters that represent themselves, or injecting a little bit of themselves into the makeup of a character. This is not a bad thing]better[/I] if I were that character. Some of my characters are cold-blooded killers--just about anyone will tell you that that's not something you should aspire to be. And a killer is something that you can actually become. Why would someone want to be an anthropomorphic animal, when there's no way of becoming one at all?

It's one thing to draw a picture of yourself as an animal and say, "This is me as an animal." It's quite another to draw that animal and say "This IS me."

[Tundrawolf]

There are straight people who do that too so I don't see why you felt the need to specify homosexuals.

That statement is wholly disingenuous. But I digress, the last straight pride parade was a flamboyant show of wholesomeness. Before you speak for something, you had better know about it, first. Take a look at the artwork-much of it is homosexual oriented. Do a search for "VCL Furry". Educate yourself.

Further, the reason why I specified homosexuality, is because it is an aberrant behavior forbidden in the Bible.

Uh what? So anything that's revered as a god has demonic activity behind it? So the sun, trees, the wind, the soil, rain, lightning, and fire are all demonic?

Also disingenuous. So many people who like to retort to what I say are so frequently this way. Listen:Sun, trees, wind, soil, rain, lightening=unavoidable. Furry art and the furry community:avoidable. Use some sense, please!

but to say that furries are demon-worshippers without realizing it doesn't make a lick of sense.

I never said that. (The Bible speaks about not even CONSIDERING what ancient societies used to do) Quite simply, I implied (I will say it clearly though, since there seems to be a degree of confusion) that there MAY BE demonic activity behind such fandom, and the artwork.

Please do not try to debase my argument by exaggerating and saying I believe there is a demon behind every tree. SO many Christians today are actually tripped up because they are falling into a deceitful spirit-that tells them there is eaither no such thing as demons, or that if they simply avoid the subject they will remain immune.

If I were to post some of the pictures I have seen, you would understand the depravity I am speaking of. I would be banned from here-and what would be the point of that?

Also, do not say that I am saying all furries are evil-I am not. They have some beautiful, exceptionally drawn artwork. I am trying to get the point across that the entire thing might not be beneficial, and may lead to the tripping up of people. Does that make sense???

It was in a furry forum where one of the furries asked me if I ever had a sexual encounter with the wolf in my picture. There seemed to be almost a hopeful expectation. On the same forum, two underage young men were professing love for each other, and mourning the fact that they lived in different countries.

I distanced myself from there after that.

The artist was very talented, too.

Edited to remove the hypocritical assumption. Apologies!

[Nate]

It's one thing to draw a picture of yourself as an animal and say, "This is me as an animal." It's quite another to draw that animal and say "This IS me."

I disagree based on the premise that if you had a male friend who always drew himself as a female, you'd probably think he had some deep rooted psychological issues, yes? It's the same for someone who always draws themselves as an animal.

Take a look at the artwork-much of it is homosexual oriented. Do a search for "VCL Furry".

Unlike you, I have no desire to look at furry artwork. You don't have to look at something to know that it's disgusting. There are many types of hentai I have never seen, but that doesn't stop me from being repulsed by it. It's absurd to think you have to look at something to know about it.

In short, I don't have to shake Abraham Lincoln's hand to know that he was the sixteenth President of the United States.

Further, the reason why I specified homosexuality, is because it is an aberrant behavior forbidden in the Bible.

No, bzzzt, wrong, sorry, but good effort trying to weasel out of your bigotry. Oh wait, that wasn't a good effort at all, it was a terrible effort.

If something is wrong, it's wrong no matter what aberrant behavior you have. Thus, it's just as wrong for a straight person to shoplift as it is for a gay person to shoplift. So if you were saying shoplifting was bad, there'd be no reason to specify "a gay person shoplifting" unless you were a bigot. Thus, since public sex is wrong if you're gay OR straight, there's no reason to specify gays unless you're a bigot.

Therefore there are only two possible situations:

1. You are saying it is perfectly acceptable for straight people to have public sex, or

2. You are a homophobic bigot.

I'm going to assume it's number two. If it's number one, I'll be sure to have public sex outside your door every day because it's perfectly acceptable.

Sun, trees, wind, soil, rain, lightening=unavoidable.

You can avoid rain pretty well in a desert or the arctic. Also you could live in a cave and avoid the sun fairly well. Or at least post on an internet forum. :p

FURTHERMORE just because something is avoidable and was worshiped still doesn't make it demonic! Animals have been worshiped in the past, and you could be a vegetarian and thus avoid animals. But animals aren't demonic! So your argument makes no sense.

SO many Christians today are actually tripped up because they are falling into a deceitful spirit-that tells them there is eaither no such thing as demons, or that if they simply avoid the subject they will remain immune.

I see the opposite happening, Christians being tripped up because they see demons everywhere they turn, or believe that every sinful act is caused by demonic possession. One has to look no further than Jack Chick, Fred Phelps, or other terrible people who call themselves "Christian" to see this.

There are demons out there, and occasionally there is demonic possession. But it doesn't happen as often as people think. Besides, when we accept Christ we are filled with the Holy Spirit and His presence. I'm sure God would never share space with a demon, which means anyone who calls themselves Christian yet lives a sinful lifestyle can't blame a demon...they can only blame their own sinful nature.

I am trying to get the point across that the entire thing might not be beneficial, and may lead to the tripping up of people. Does that make sense???

It makes perfect sense but saying furries have demonic activity behind them isn't going to do any good. Atheist furries don't believe in demons, and Christian furries are going to feel insulted. You're preventing yourself from doing any good.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

What the heck? Why do you always explode into argument over the pettiest things?

[Syreth]

Therefore there are only two possible situations:

1. You are saying it is perfectly acceptable for straight people to have public sex, or

2. You are a homophobic bigot.

I'm going to assume it's number two. If it's number one, I'll be sure to have public sex outside your door every day because it's perfectly acceptable.

That's rather disrespectful, unnecessary and inappropriate. It also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It's one thing to disagree, but this is basically a personal insult (and a rather unfounded one in my opinion). Lay off, dude.

[Nate]

It also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Oh I'm sorry, you seem to be directing that post at me, rather than the person who brought it up. If you have a complaint, direct it at the person responsible, rather than the person trying to stand up for others.

Oh wait, my bad. I guess I was defending the rights of gay people on a Christian board. Whoops. Should have remembered where I was. Don't worry, next time I see someone acting racist or bigoted I'll be sure to ignore it.