There's some statements in this thread I'd like to consult.
ON TOPIC: The term "furcigarette" is a derogatory term for a furry.
Then what is it professor? A Manimal? It's still a tiger. An animal.
You're right, it would be an animal. It would be, in theory, a living organism characterized by voluntary movement.
But it's still not a tiger. It doesn't entirely fit the characteristics of a tiger, and nor does it entirely fit the characteristics of a human. It has different physiology, and it must be classified as a different species. This is all in terms of reality.
But a human-tiger hybrid does not exist in the natural world of our reality, and therefore, does not need official classification. It's a made up thing.
People are saying that furries are "
people who forget animals." Probably a statement of trollish nature, but I'd like to get this out for the sake of misinformation.
That statement is simply not true. A
furry is a person who can be associated with interest in
anthropomorphic animals. This interest can be loveual. It can also simply be a general interest. Many are artists who draw the creatures of their interest in a loveual or nonloveual manner. Some can be fanatics, and dress up as anthro's for entertainment.
The key idea here is that the creatures in these drawings and in the imaginations of said furries do not physically exist in reality. Even if they were classified as non-human animals, they still don't physically exist. Tell me, how can you have love with that which does not exist?
On another note, only approximately about 1.3% of furries are self-proclaimed zoophiles. It may be likely that some members of this percentage have, indeed, forgeted animals. Even still, there's approximately another 98.7% of people in the "furry" classification who are most likely not zoophiles.
I'd also like to talk about the
moral aspect of furry fandom. Being a furry may mean that you have a special interest. Let's face it, we all have special interestes. We're open about some, and secretive about others. A lot of people may not even know that they have a special interest, and they may never know. There's nothing wrong with special interestes, even if they are unnatural.
I know of some people who have rape special interestes. I also know that they have never raped or considered raping anybody. They know it's a crime, and they know following through with an idea like rape is morally wrong. They do not intend on following through with their desires.
The truth of the matter is,
furries aren't hurting anybody. They are not having love with anthropomorphic animals, because it isn't possible. They can want to. They can want to with all of their heart. That's part of what having a special interest is.
Being a furry is not, and will never be wrong.
You can have your opinion of them. That's fine. It's good to have opinions. I just want you to try and judge people reasonably.
One more thing! There's a lot of talk about "flamboyant furries." This can mean a lot of things. It can mean somebody who wants you to accept the fact that they're a furry. It can also mean that they try to show you content (pictures, text, whatever) of furry classification.
They have a right to express their ideas. If it really bothers you that much, you can ask them politely to stop showing you, or stop talking to you.
You can also simply ignore them. There's really no need for harsh language or violent action. It only makes things worse.
