Comic Genesis Forums

yeahduff wrote:You know how many people watch CSI a week? This is America's exposure to the furry scene.

Honest question: How many people in general do you think know the definition of "furry" we're discussing (and disagreeing on) here? As opposed to the dictionary "covered with fur" definition, that is? (I assumed it'd be a minuscule minority. Perhaps I'm wrong.)

<--- New avatar for while we're having this discussion

I'd guess 3-5%.

Few, but if you talk to someone and start describing what you mean, soon the look will be on their face and they'll say, "You mean, like on CSI?"

I've seen it more than once.

In my case, they say, "Oh, like Ozy and Millie."

I'm not sure most of the people I know even own a TV.

*edit* own a TV which is set up for purposes other than playing video games.

yeahduff wrote:Did you mean fries?

no , but seriously do you have to be hostile ?

yeahduff wrote:Few, but if you talk to someone and start describing what you mean, soon the look will be on their face and they'll say, "You mean, like on CSI?"

I've seen it more than once.

Now I'm curious as to what you'd be describing. I doubt you could talk about Carl Barks and make people think of fursuits.

I'll agree with parts of this thread and disagree with others.
I personally think that deciding to draw one's characters as furries is a choice to be made by the artist, one that doesn't neccessarily have to reflect on the artist him- or herself.
I mean, look at me. I have been reading webcomics for years, and i haven't been forced to read one comic or another solely based on the content. I'm split evenly between reading furry comics and non furry ones. But when I decided to start up my own comic, I decided to go with one about furries.
Care to guess why? not because I'm some sexual deviant. not because it's all I think about. But because I can't draw Human faces. I just can't. so I turned to furries as a means to draw, but maintain the human personality aspects.

I don't know where i was going with this.

jackbrych wrote:I'll agree with parts of this thread and disagree with others.
I personally think that deciding to draw one's characters as furries is a choice to be made by the artist, one that doesn't neccessarily have to reflect on the artist him- or herself.
I mean, look at me. I have been reading webcomics for years, and i haven't been forced to read one comic or another solely based on the content. I'm split evenly between reading furry comics and non furry ones. But when I decided to start up my own comic, I decided to go with one about furries.
Care to guess why? not because I'm some sexual deviant. not because it's all I think about. But because I can't draw Human faces. I just can't. so I turned to furries as a means to draw, but maintain the human personality aspects.

I don't know where i was going with this.

*watches the thread rocket off into deep dark directions*

oh wait, now I remember, That was an excuse...

deep and dark? no. Simplicity.

I draw furries because I can't draw people. It doesn't mean i'll ever be caught dead in some mascot costume.

Paul Escobar wrote:

yeahduff wrote:Few, but if you talk to someone and start describing what you mean, soon the look will be on their face and they'll say, "You mean, like on CSI?"

I've seen it more than once.

Now I'm curious as to what you'd be describing. I doubt you could talk about Carl Barks and make people think of fursuits.

To be honest, it's been awhile since I've explained it to anyone, and at this point I forget if I was explaining it or someone else. But I'm pretty sure it involved one confused question following another leading up to that association.

datachasers wrote:

yeahduff wrote:Did you mean fries?

no , but seriously do you have to be hostile ?

I don't know what "Do you want salt with that?" means, but I read it as mocking. Sorry about the confusion, but (between this post and your first one) I guess I just can't understand what you're trying to say, and maybe it doesn't really matter.

No hostility intended. Scotch?

yeahduff wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote:

yeahduff wrote:Few, but if you talk to someone and start describing what you mean, soon the look will be on their face and they'll say, "You mean, like on CSI?"

I've seen it more than once.

Now I'm curious as to what you'd be describing. I doubt you could talk about Carl Barks and make people think of fursuits.

To be honest, it's been awhile since I've explained it to anyone, and at this point I forget if I was explaining it or someone else. But I'm pretty sure it involved one confused question following another leading up to that association.

datachasers wrote:

yeahduff wrote:Did you mean fries?

no , but seriously do you have to be hostile ?

I don't know what "Do you want salt with that?" means, but I read it as mocking. Sorry about the confusion, but (between this post and your first one) I guess I just can't understand what you're trying to say, and maybe it doesn't really matter.

No hostility intended. Scotch?

ok - its all good , sorry im kinda batting things around here at work
but i was wondering if you had read my post or just skimmed it im just snapping these off , as i dont intend on changing anyones opinion ( and this is why i have a editor , because i write like crap ! ) LOL

jackbrych wrote:But because I can't draw Human faces. I just can't. so I turned to furries as a means to draw, but maintain the human personality aspects.

I'm the opposite--I can't draw animals (or humanoid animals) to save my life. My husband's all like "You should do a strip where they all get turned into furries!" and I'm like, "I can't draw furries!"



Personally, I read "do you want salt with that?" as a reference to the phrase, "Take it with a grain of salt," only remade for the fast-food era.

Paul Escobar wrote:

Jim North wrote:Never, not once at any point, did I ever say that there weren't any furry fetishists at all within the furry fandom.

I wasn't trying to contend any of that.

Man, why ya gotta lie right to my face when I can easily go back and grab your own words from your own posts?

Paul Escobar wrote:But saying that those connotations do not exist in furry fandom

Paul Escobar wrote:Nice try, but the first time around you specifically said that the fetish connotations "are not there" and that saying so "builds on [...] other people's ignorance." Now you say the connotations are there, but do not apply to all furries.

Paul Escobar wrote:I simply pointed out that first you said the fetishes are not there, then you said they are. That's not semantics, that's you flip-flopping.

Paul Escobar wrote:It doesn't change that the fetishism is there, no matter the amount of semantic flip-flopping you do.

And this is where the "ass" part comes in. I show you that you are, in fact, in error, and you try to change the argument and pretend some new thing was what you were saying all along, when you most definitely weren't. I say that I was misusing "connotations", so you drop the "connotations" part of your own argument. Now I say that I did not say the thing you were trying to say I was saying, so you try to convince me we were actually arguing about the original definition of "furry". At least the first one was halfway believable. So . . .



srsly

legostargalactica wrote:

mcDuffies wrote:You sound like Jim.

thank you.

Now if only you were as pretty as me, too, you'd be set.

NakedElf wrote:

jackbrych wrote:But because I can't draw Human faces. I just can't. so I turned to furries as a means to draw, but maintain the human personality aspects.

I'm the opposite--I can't draw animals (or humanoid animals) to save my life. My husband's all like "You should do a strip where they all get turned into furries!" and I'm like, "I can't draw furries!"



Personally, I read "do you want salt with that?" as a reference to the phrase, "Take it with a grain of salt," only remade for the fast-food era.

you got it right - sorry i wasnt more clear

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLEATLY DIFFRENT ! BA DA BOOM!

Is it time to catjack this thread already?!

Jim North wrote:Is it time to catjack this thread already?!

yep
CAT JACK!

Cats on a thread about furries... irony, anyone?

I think "appropriate" would work better.

Jim North wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote:

Jim North wrote:Never, not once at any point, did I ever say that there weren't any furry fetishists at all within the furry fandom.

I wasn't trying to contend any of that.

Man, why ya gotta lie right to my face when I can easily go back and grab your own words from your own posts?

Paul Escobar wrote:But saying that those connotations do not exist in furry fandom

Paul Escobar wrote:Nice try, but the first time around you specifically said that the fetish connotations "are not there" and that saying so "builds on [...] other people's ignorance." Now you say the connotations are there, but do not apply to all furries.

Paul Escobar wrote:I simply pointed out that first you said the fetishes are not there, then you said they are. That's not semantics, that's you flip-flopping.

Paul Escobar wrote:It doesn't change that the fetishism is there, no matter the amount of semantic flip-flopping you do.

And this is where the "ass" part comes in. I show you that you are, in fact, in error, and you try to change the argument and pretend some new thing was what you were saying all along, when you most definitely weren't. I say that I was misusing "connotations", so you drop the "connotations" part of your own argument. Now I say that I did not say the thing you were trying to say I was saying, so you try to convince me we were actually arguing about the original definition of "furry". At least the first one was halfway believable.

What nonsense. I addressed whether fetishism is implied by "furry", and I did so right from the start. That I got tired of spelling out "connotation" is not a change in argument. But alright, my bad for not spelling it out in painstaking detail in every post along the way, since you seem to ignore context. Whether we talk connotation or denotation makes no difference to what I'm saying: "Furry" implied a fetish right from the outset. Read up on the history of the fandom. (In mind-numbing detail for your benefit: "Furry" has a fetish connotation and it also has a fetish denotation.)

And you've resorted argumentum ad personam twice now. Fail.