Please note that I am not trying to start an arguement, I'm merely posting this thread because I like to see the opinions of people and pose my opinion as well. Please don't get too hostile if you don't like something I say.

I've been constantly seeing peoples opinions on this topic, and I apologize if threads like this have already been posted. However, I hope you moderators / admins realize that I'm not doing this to argue, just to meet other opinions on the topic.

As an example, I refer to this post:
post #574762

In this posts are several comments that I'm going to use as an example. Here they are:

Brayburned said:
All bronies are furries.

*flees from the flame war*

Sharp_Coyote said:
Naw, bronies are furries who are more accepting of bestiality, is all ...

ForeverComics said:
Brony here, I wouldnt go that far... some of us do, no denying, but myself and several people I know dont

D4rk said:
Furry: A fondom based on the liking of anthropomorphic content.

Bronies: People that like a CERTAIN anthropomorphic show/characters

Maybe MLP is a sub-fandom of the Furry fandom, but they´re for sure related. Opinion of a Furry that likes MLP fanart.

Rayzr said:
Adding to the fact that just because you like Ponies, doesn't make you a Furry. You can like Ponies without being a Furry. There's probably some people out there that love ponies but have no idea what a Furry even is.
Js.

AFluffyFoxy said:
Brony's and furry's are in the same boat to an extent, but at the same time there is a slight difference despite both using bits of anthropomorphism. I have nothing against My Little Pony, Bronies, and ponies..they go the same crap us furs do...but sort of wish there was a different site for MLP artwork instead of SoFurry, FurAffinity, and E621 xD. Nothing like going through submission uploads and seeing xxx amount of pony porn. Not trying to hate on people who draw or love it as it would be unfair and while there is filters available; one really shouldn't have to filter something that is slightly different. Same with humans and characters who do not follow the anatomy correct features of their characters (hybrids make a little bit of sense), but a wolf shouldn't have no sheath and a human ****.

Kario said:

If you like ponies and relate yourself to a pony of any kind feral or anthro, you are a furry. To just like the show but not create a pony character or want to be a pony from the show is not being a furry. If you're a brony and create a pony character you are in fact a furry, period. Furry is not just about porn or fursuit's who are a different class of furry all together, regular furries who have characters they create or someone else creates but they pretend to be is the same as most bronies. I've known a few over the years and they all have created pony sona's, thus they are furries.

fangboy12 said:
*clears throat* (I'm a furry and a brony to start)

So I've had this conversation multiple times and can quickly come to the conclusion that furries and bronies are not the same. Period. No questions. You can be both at the same time, but being a brony doesn't make you a furry and being a furry obviously doesn't make you a brony. They are both there own separate "fandoms", for lack of a better word. A way to prove this is one, you cannot actually define what a furry is. As a group there is no legitimate definition for them for they aren't a coalition of things. The only thing in common is that they like animals, not only anthropomorphic animals at that either. I myself, and many others, am not to partial to the half-human mix that is anthro in favor of a more feral stand. Feral being natural for those who don't know (That wolf is not human in any way, shape, or size though he may be capable of speech.) I am still a furry though, simply because I say so for as previously stated there is no standard to be met, only a common interest.

On the other hand is a brony, who actually has a "base" that must be met to become one. They have to like the show My Little Pony. Fact, there is no loophole around this. You may not watch the show, but you like the youtube stuff. Maybe not even that and you just prefer fanfictions, then even still you can get lower and just enjoy the overall company as well as the custom made servers and such. That latter is the basest level, but it still counts. What also differentiates the bronies from the furries is that you can be one without even knowing what it is. You are not a furry until you say you are, only because of the lack of requisites to be in the sub-culture, yet as long as you like MLP than you will always be considered a brony. Boy, girl, woman, man it doesn't matter. If you don't call yourself one that also doesn't matter. Being a brony is just like being a hoovian (Dr. Who fan) in the sense that you don't need to participate in the fandom to be one.

...So to reiterate: One can be a brony and a furry at the same time, but being one does not mean you are the other. Now if you don't mind, I came to this site to fap not debate so I'll get back to that now.

Rayzr said:
I cannot frustrate how wrong I believe you are. If you have your own opinion, then fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. You're talking as if this is a proven fact that you pulled off a wikipedia or something.
Let me try saying it this way;
Ponies are from a show. Ponies are an icon of that show. You telling me that they are furries is like telling me the penguin mascot from the Penguin Point Restraunt is a furry. Is he? No. He's an icon. A Mascot. A simple character that portrays what he's mascotting(for lack of a better word, i think.) Ponies represent the show. Furries do not. There is no show that Furries originally came from. They were created with a persons mind. Are they in shows and stuff now? Yeah. Of Course. They've become a popular thing in the world. Everyone is bound to have heard the word "furry" at some point in their life, especially if they're on the internet.
Just because you created an unoriginal character based off a t.v. show does not mean it's furry related. It's a character. The ponies on the show are characters. If you take those characters and draw them as Anthros? Sure. That could be considered "furry". But the origin of the character will forever be just a pony, and not a furry.
Hope this makes sense to you.

Rayzr said: You were...greatly mislead, then. Ponies from MLP are not furries. Furries are anthro's, whereas they walk on two legs, talk like a human, act like humans, and so on. Ponies are not anthro's, whereas they do NOT do anything that humans do. Sure you can say they speak like humans do, but they're created by artists for people to watch, therefore they HAVE to speak like us. Not only that, they're mythical creatures, so for all we know they originally do speak like humans. Either way, MLP Ponies are more of a fan base, which is why they're called Bronies and not Furries. If you were to draw one of them in a Anthro state, I still don't technically consider them Furries because they're mythical creatures, and Furries are more real-world animals in Anthro form, where as Ponies are in stories. imho.

My opinion is obviously already in here, so let me know what yours is.

This exact topic was discussed not too long ago.
And yes they are.

They are if they say they are.

/thread

Well, let me answer that by asking you this:
how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Rayzr said: You were...greatly mislead, then. Ponies from MLP are not furries. Furries are anthro's, whereas they walk on two legs, talk like a human, act like humans, and so on. Ponies are not anthro's, whereas they do NOT do anything that humans do. Sure you can say they speak like humans do, but they're created by artists for people to watch, therefore they HAVE to speak like us. Not only that, they're mythical creatures, so for all we know they originally do speak like humans.

This argument makes no sense. Anthros are also more like human then normal animals because "they're created by artists for people to watch". Reason why anthros exists in not much different from why ponies, and other non-anthros exist.
Also ponies are not more mythical than average anthros in furry art. They are going to schools. They eat sandwiches. They live like humans. There's nothing much mythical about them. They don't even poop rainbows.

They aren't. Bronies are just in an "extremely high risk of furry" group compared to average Joe.

A brony is a furry. A furry is not a brony.

yes

Pretty much, yeah.

Furries are parallelograms, Bronies are squares.
Bronies are a subset of furries, and thus in all cases, are furries.
The reverse however, isn't always the case.

I partially feel as if I'm giving you guys the impression that I want to know if Bronies can be Furries or not, which is not my question.
I fully understand the concept that bronies can be furries and that furries can be bronies. My question is are Ponies considered Furries even though they don't share the same traits?
For example, from "whatisfurry.org", one of the first paragraphs is thus:

The Furry Fandom grew out of the science fiction and fantasy communities as a unique group focused on anthropomorphic animals and creatures. Anthropomorphic animals are animals with human characteristics such as the familiar cartoon characters Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse or popular mascots like the Philadelphia Eagle or San Diego Chicken.

So animals that stand on two legs, talk like a human, act like a human, have thumbs and all that are considered to be a "furry". The only thing Ponies do that have anything to do with that is that they speak english(and other languages depending on your original language, but I'll just stick with English.). So how and in what way is a Pony a furry? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Rayzr said:
I partially feel as if I'm giving you guys the impression that I want to know if Bronies can be Furries or not, which is not my question.
I fully understand the concept that bronies can be furries and that furries can be bronies. My question is are Ponies considered Furries even though they don't share the same traits?
For example, from "whatisfurry.org", one of the first paragraphs is thus:
So animals that stand on two legs, talk like a human, act like a human, have thumbs and all that are considered to be a "furry". The only thing Ponies do that have anything to do with that is that they speak english(and other languages depending on your original language, but I'll just stick with English.). So how and in what way is a Pony a furry? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

They have human like society, behavior, interactions, consciousness, emotions, live in houses, employ technology, are aware of themselves and the universe around them, able to reflect about their own actions, and a multitude of other things.
"Human characteristics" are not necessarily limited to physical traits only.

no bronies r gross and r losers and furries are cool and not losers (as much)

NotMeNotYou said:
They have human like society, behavior, interactions, consciousness, emotions, live in houses, employ technology, are aware of themselves and the universe around them, able to reflect about their own actions, and a multitude of other things.
"Human characteristics" are not necessarily limited to physical traits only.

While I understand completely what you're getting at, I don't see how having more emotional expression and better I.Q. has to do with them being "furries". Any simply drawn character can have this, but I don't see how that makes them a "furry". It's like saying just because every human has a brain that every person is exactly the same. In this case it's Ponies and Furries.

Rayzr said:
While I understand completely what you're getting at, I don't see how having more emotional expression and better I.Q. has to do with them being "furries". Any simply drawn character can have this, but I don't see how that makes them a "furry". It's like saying just because every human has a brain that every person is exactly the same. In this case it's Ponies and Furries.

A furry is an anthropomorphic animal. Anthropomorphic means that the thing in question has been given human traits that it doesn't normally possess. Emotional expression and IQ are human traits that equines don't normally possess. Beyond that, mlp ponies speak human languages, have much more human faces, have a very human like society, have the ability to create/use complex tools and technology, etc.

There's simply no arguing that they aren't anthropomorphized ponies. Therefore, since a " furry" is an anthropomorphized animal (usually), it counts as a furry. Many people who like furries are into "ferals" more than "anthros," and they're still furry enthusiasts.

Also, It's officially Christmas day for me over here on the west coast. So Merry Christmas!

Rayzr said:
While I understand completely what you're getting at, I don't see how having more emotional expression and better I.Q. has to do with them being "furries". Any simply drawn character can have this, but I don't see how that makes them a "furry". It's like saying just because every human has a brain that every person is exactly the same. In this case it's Ponies and Furries.

"Furries" are generally agreed upon to be anthropomorphized animals, meaning animals with human characteristics.

What are human characteristics?
Physical appearance, Emotions, Intelligence, everything I listed above.

Under that definition the species in My Little Pony (all kinds of ponies, Diamond Dogs and a lot of other critters) show human like characteristics, by having intelligence and social lives rivaling our own.
So yes, it very much makes them anthropomorphized animals, and thus furries.

There is even a really interesting wikipedia page on the matter of Anthropomorphism throughout the history of humanity, definitely worth the read if you have some time to spare.

memeboy said:
no bronies r gross and r losers and furries are cool and not losers (as much)

That is something a 12 year old kid would say

DerpyDoom said:
That is something a 12 year old kid would say

at least I don't watch shows for lil girls like a loser!!!!!!!

memeboy said:
no bronies r gross and r losers and furries are cool and not losers (as much)

This really isn't a decent way to phrase an argument, even if you are joking.

memeboy said:
at least I don't watch shows for lil girls like a loser!!!!!!!

Still not a good way to rebate an argument.

NotMeNotYou said:
"Furries" are generally agreed upon to be anthropomorphized animals, meaning animals with human characteristics.

What are human characteristics?
Physical appearance, Emotions, Intelligence, everything I listed above.

Under that definition the species in My Little Pony (all kinds of ponies, Diamond Dogs and a lot of other critters) show human like characteristics, by having intelligence and social lives rivaling our own.
So yes, it very much makes them anthropomorphized animals, and thus furries.

There is even a really interesting wikipedia page on the matter of Anthropomorphism throughout the history of humanity, definitely worth the read if you have some time to spare.

I have read the page, it is very interesting.
I never meant it as that they are not "Anthros", but as furries in general. Wouldn't they be more of a subsection when it comes to Furries? The original concept of a furry is...Well, obvious, and while it's not my place to say whether something belongs in the furry world or how furries SHOULD look, I think it's more fair to keep the original idea of what furries are as...well, what they are and not change that just because a new fandom hits the internet.

Tokaido said:
have much more human faces

wot. I'm sorry, but I don't see Ponies with humanoid faces at all. I don't usually see any furries at all with humanoid faces.
Merry Christmas to you as well, and to everyone else.

memeboy said:
no bronies r gross and r losers and furries are cool and not losers (as much)

It's like I'm actually on 9gag.

Rayzr said:
I don't usually see any furries at all with humanoid faces.

Sorry if this comes off as blunt, but I think the main reason our opinions clash so much with yours is that you aren't very familiar with what anthropomorphic actually means and how it looks when applied to a non-human.

Rayzr said:
wot. I'm sorry, but I don't see Ponies with humanoid faces at all. I don't usually see any furries at all with humanoid faces.
Merry Christmas to you as well, and to everyone else.

Look at a horse's face, look at an mlp pony's face, look at a human face, in that order.

But regardless, peekaboo already said anything else I would say, that's the only issue really. But I will add that yes, ponies ARE a subsection of furries. Ponies are to furries as squares are to rectangles.

memeboy said:
at least I don't watch shows for lil girls like a loser!!!!!!!

Again an answer from a 12 year old child, this site is nothing for little kids. So leave now.

DerpyDoom said:
Again an answer from a 12 year old child, this site is nothing for little kids. So leave now.

I honestly think he's just screwing with us.

DerpyDoom said:
Again an answer from a 12 year old child, this site is nothing for little kids. So leave now.

He's a troll, ignore it and do something better with your time than replying to him, like watching paint dry or grass grow, anything else, really.

Rayzr said:
I have read the page, it is very interesting.
I never meant it as that they are not "Anthros", but as furries in general. Wouldn't they be more of a subsection when it comes to Furries? The original concept of a furry is...Well, obvious, and while it's not my place to say whether something belongs in the furry world or how furries SHOULD look, I think it's more fair to keep the original idea of what furries are as...well, what they are and not change that just because a new fandom hits the internet.

wot. I'm sorry, but I don't see Ponies with humanoid faces at all. I don't usually see any furries at all with humanoid faces.
Merry Christmas to you as well, and to everyone else.

The faces are more human like than real horses because they have both eyes oriented towards the front, while horses have them on the side, horses also have longer faces, while mlp ponies have more stubby ones, which also comes closer to ours than that of a horse.
Do what Tokaido says and look at some pictures, all proportions are closer to human than a horse.

NotMeNotYou said:
He's a troll, ignore it and do something better with your time than replying to him, like watching paint dry or grass grow, anything else, really. The faces are more human like than real horses because they have both eyes oriented towards the front, while horses have them on the side, horses also have longer faces, while mlp ponies have more stubby ones, which also comes closer to ours than that of a horse.
Do what Tokaido says and look at some pictures, all proportions are closer to human than a horse.

That's...honestly not a very good reason, to be blunt. They're drawn like that to attract an audience to cute and magical. If my little pony featured faces like average, real life horses, it's not going to attract kids. I'm pretty sure they weren't drawn to intentionally resemble a humanoid face.

I suppose that you could argue that bronies are furries, because the ponies in MLP are at least mentally anthropomorphic animals. But I wouldn't classify bronies in general as furries. The term "furry", to me, implies a generalized appreciation for anthropomorphic animals. If someone likes a specific show that happens to have furry characters, but not furry characters in general, I would not label that person as "furry".

Analogously, is someone who likes the Game of Thrones show (or the books in the ASOIAF series) necessarily a fantasy fan? I don't think so. There are quite a few people who like that series in particular, but don't care for fantasy in general. So they're not fantasy fans. They just like this one thing that happens to be fantasy.

Rayzr said:
That's...honestly not a very good reason, to be blunt. They're drawn like that to attract an audience to cute and magical. If my little pony featured faces like average, real life horses, it's not going to attract kids. I'm pretty sure they weren't drawn to intentionally resemble a humanoid face.

It doesn't matter if it was intentional, it still resembles humans more than horses. Honestly aside from the relative lack of muzzle, to me they resemble something closer to dogs.

Snowy said:
Analogously, is someone who likes the Game of Thrones show (or the books in the ASOIAF series) necessarily a fantasy fan? I don't think so. There are quite a few people who like that series in particular, but don't care for fantasy in general. So they're not fantasy fans. They just like this one thing that happens to be fantasy.

I'm pretty sure that almost every fantasy fan has some series that he or she likes and some that he or she dislikes. I don't think that there exist a single fantasy fan who cares about everything in fantasy.
Or to show example from furry fandom - does this means that scalies are not furries? They don't care about creatures with fur - why should they be in furry fandom? It's not generalized at all.

parasprite said:
It doesn't matter if it was intentional, it still resembles humans more than horses. Honestly aside from the relative lack of muzzle, to me they resemble something closer to dogs.

they look like a donkey and a pig had a baby

memeboy said:
they look like a donkey and a pig had a baby

http://i.imgur.com/9Ny1jAK.gif

Granberia said:
I'm pretty sure that almost every fantasy fan has some series that he or she likes and some that he or she dislikes. I don't think that there exist a single fantasy fan who cares about everything in fantasy.
Or to show example from furry fandom - does this means that scalies are not furries? They don't care about creatures with fur - why should they be in furry fandom? It's not generalized at all.

You don't have to like every single thing, but liking one specific example isn't enough. If you had a description of a work, but not the work itself, would the addition of "it contains [anthropomorphic animals/magic/future tech/etc]" make you more interested in the work? If yes, you're a [furry/fantasy/sci-fi/etc] fan. For scalies, it would be specifically anthropomorphic reptiles (or reptile-like critters). That's still pretty broad, and includes many types of anthropomorphic animals. For many bronies, it wouldn't even even be as broad as "equines" or even ponies, but rather ponies of the sort seen in MLP:FIM. That's a very specific thing.

There is no bright line rule, here, about exactly how broad a person's interest in a category has to be. But just because there isn't a sharp separation doesn't mean that there is no difference.

I think the problem most furries have with bronies is their need to plaster their generic TV show all over everything and not expecting it to just not be to some people's tastes.

memeboy said:
no bronies r gross and r losers and furries are cool and not losers (as much)

memeboy said:
at least I don't watch shows for lil girls like a loser!!!!!!!

memeboy said:
they look like a donkey and a pig had a baby

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Ozelot said:
I think the problem most furries have with bronies is their need to plaster their generic TV show all over everything and not expecting it to just not be to some people's tastes.

Correct. Hence why it has been labeled as a cancer by many.

Snowy said:
You don't have to like every single thing, but liking one specific example isn't enough. If you had a description of a work, but not the work itself, would the addition of "it contains [anthropomorphic animals/magic/future tech/etc]" make you more interested in the work? If yes, you're a [furry/fantasy/sci-fi/etc] fan. For scalies, it would be specifically anthropomorphic reptiles (or reptile-like critters). That's still pretty broad, and includes many types of anthropomorphic animals. For many bronies, it wouldn't even even be as broad as "equines" or even ponies, but rather ponies of the sort seen in MLP:FIM. That's a very specific thing.

There is no bright line rule, here, about exactly how broad a person's interest in a category has to be. But just because there isn't a sharp separation doesn't mean that there is no difference.

The difference is the reason you like said subject. If you like scalies because they are anthropomorphic reptiles then you fit under a category of the furry fandom whether you dislike all other anthropomorphic characters or whether it's an artistic taste over a paraphilia.

For your sci-fi example goes the same. If you like Doctor Who for its science fiction then you are a fan of sci-fi.

On the other hand if you like Doctor Who or MLP in spite of the sci-fi and anthropomorphic content then you are merely a fan of the subjects in question as you don't find enjoyment in actual sci-fi or anthropomorphic characters.

Snowy said:
You don't have to like every single thing, but liking one specific example isn't enough. If you had a description of a work, but not the work itself, would the addition of "it contains [anthropomorphic animals/magic/future tech/etc]" make you more interested in the work? If yes, you're a [furry/fantasy/sci-fi/etc] fan. For scalies, it would be specifically anthropomorphic reptiles (or reptile-like critters). That's still pretty broad, and includes many types of anthropomorphic animals. For many bronies, it wouldn't even even be as broad as "equines" or even ponies, but rather ponies of the sort seen in MLP:FIM. That's a very specific thing.

There is no bright line rule, here, about exactly how broad a person's interest in a category has to be. But just because there isn't a sharp separation doesn't mean that there is no difference.

I happen to remember some of the more zealous furry recruiters stating things like "if you liked the animated version of Robin Hood you're a furry", which is obviously not true. I still maintain that you only are if you say you are.

Put another way, if people were posts I'd see a high quality of brony posts tagged as furry, but an implication wouldn't work very well.

Ozelot said:
I think the problem most furries have with bronies is their need to plaster their generic TV show all over everything and not expecting it to just not be to some people's tastes.

Weren't people saying pretty much the same thing about whovians car nerds Dr. Phil advocates Christians Ayn Rand followers potheads furries not too long ago? I could've sworn I remember hearing about that...

Ko-san said:
The difference is the reason you like said subject. If you like scalies because they are anthropomorphic reptiles then you fit under a category of the furry fandom whether you dislike all other anthropomorphic characters or whether it's an artistic taste over a paraphilia.

For your sci-fi example goes the same. If you like Doctor Who for its science fiction then you are a fan of sci-fi.

On the other hand if you like Doctor Who or MLP in spite of the sci-fi and anthropomorphic content then you are merely a fan of the subjects in question as you don't find enjoyment in actual sci-fi or anthropomorphic characters.

That's a much better way of putting it.

Rayzr said:
So animals that stand on two legs, talk like a human, act like a human, have thumbs and all that are considered to be a "furry". The only thing Ponies do that have anything to do with that is that they speak english(and other languages depending on your original language, but I'll just stick with English.). So how and in what way is a Pony a furry? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Anthropomorphic means that animals have human behaviour, wich is represented in the show by:
- Books (the ability to write, read and print those)
- To speak
- Money based economy
- Monarchy
- Society differences (poor, normal and rich ponies)
- Usage of advanced weapons (Speers,swords, Armor)
- Usage of advanced tools
- Usage of chemicals like medicine a.e.
- Law inforcement
- Machines for long-range traveling (the airships)
- agriculture

So I would say they have quite many human attributes

Here's how I look at it:

TL;DR/I don't get it: see bold.

Bronies and depictions of MLP ponies/characters fit within the umbrella categorizations of "furry".

However, people with a strong affinity for only one specific type or niche of furry creature (i.e., bronies) should not be identified or labeled as furries. A proper furry should have at least some broader appreciation or affinity for creatures other than their main preference within the furry umbrella.

Thus:
1. MLP characters are furry characters. Exceptions, of course, are MLP animals depicted as animals with only true-to-life animal intelligence or a facsimile of such. And humans.
2. Bronies are fans of MLP. Bronies who only care about MLP do not display sufficient acceptance of the broader furry subculture to be classified as "furries" in the general sense. This conclusion hinges on the interpretation that proper furries do not tune out the rest of the subculture just because they have a dominant affinity for one specific type of character, species, or franchise. Based on that, one could say that furry subculture is inclusive whereas MLP subculture is exclusive.
3. Bronies can also be furries. Bronies who do have a broader appreciation of the furry subculture, even if their affinity for MLP dominates their tastes greatly, are furries.

Food for thought:
In the strictest sense, all bronies can be viewed as furries since an apples to apples comparison of the two subcultures reveals near if not perfect parallels in perhaps every facet of their construction and means for continued existence. The greatest bone of contention here should be the more derivative inspiration for MLP subculture, which arguably requires MLP:FiM's continued airing to maintain relevance and interest, whereas the furry subculture has a much more basic and less temporary inspiration (i.e., real animals). Nevertheless, I would probably ignore refutations referencing degree of derivation between the two subcultures because the furry subculture is inclusive of even greater niche interests than MLP. For all intents and purposes, except content, the two subcultures are very much alike if not identical.

...but I'm not quite brave enough to totally endorse that argument =). An alternative, more moderate take on that line of thinking is that the MLP subculture is an analogue of the furry subculture, that all subcultures share certain properties that make them subcultures as opposed to some other social group. In other words, the furry and MLP subcultures are complete and separate entities, although neighboring. This view purports that the great parallels between the two subcultures, referred to in the previous paragraph, should be seen only as incidental, natural, and thus expected similarities. This way, an individual can much more cleanly identify as a member of one or both groups without all the fussing over subset or exclusive vs. inclusive "mental gymnastics".

Edit: Oh, and I'm not even going to debate whether ponies from MLP qualify as furry characters. Are faithful renditions of characters from the Sonic franchise accepted as furry characters? What about Digimon? Pokemon? Anthro or feral body type doesn't matter. That distinction probably hasn't been up for a serious debate in a very long time.

abadbird said:
things

Loony Toons are furry characters. That doesn't mean that my 10 year old nephew's a furry.

"Furry" is an identity. If you identify with the fandom, congrats. You're a furry. It doesn't matter if you just think Starfox's design is cool, or if you like to hump things wearing a dog costume. So long as you exhibit some interest in anthropomorphic animals, you can be a furry.

"Brony" is a label. If you're an adult, male fan of MLP, you're a Brony. It doesn't matter if you think cloppers should be burned at the stake, or you despise every other fan of the show. You're a brony if you like the show.

My opinion is obviously already in here, so let me know what yours is.
[/quote]

I'm definitely a Brony, and I suppose that in turn makes me a furry. Though I can hardly see myself donning a fur costume.

I'm quite content with the MLP fan art/Rule 34, and collecting the IDW comic books and TCG, thank you very much.

GameManiac said:
snip

was it.. REALLY necessary to revive this topic

Mutisija said:
was it.. REALLY necessary to revive this topic

No.

Technically, a furry is a person who's interested in the realm of anthropomorphic animals. MLP-style ponies are anthropomorphic animals. So, technically, yes.

Whether or not they should be identified as furries is the controversial topic, I take it. Something akin to, in my opinion, calling a gay an "LGBT." Yes, technically, it's correct, but it isn't the best terminology.