Virgin vs Chad

Oh damn

W puss

but is he

The Virgin Furry:
*UwU
*Lacks a father
*Never touched grass
*Uncultured
*Unbased
*Identifies as something other than a human

The Chad Puss in Boots:
*An actual cat.
*Wears boots.
*Badass outfit.
*First appeared in Shrek 2
*Pulls bitches.
*is Puss in Boots

no i mean he's better than some dumbass furry i already know that-

YES!

puss IS a furry tho

just because someone from a franchise has animal attributes, doesn't mean it's a furry. I'm sick of those pet-ophiles thinking everything's for them to make r34 of.

1) the definition of a "furry" as a species is an anthropomorphic animal, aka an animal with human traits. Let's see here now. Puss is a cat with the following human traits:
- He stands on two legs
- He talks
- He wears human clothing
- He has a human sword
Now, explain to me how he is somehow exempt even though he fits the definition to a T.

2) yeah no I understand the whole anti-zoophilic shit because all of that shit is just disgusting. Sadly, the internet is the internet, and you can probably find porn of a certain species of tree if you looked hard enough

Thats were you are wrong in order to consider something a furry is a person who has a fursona, that fursona takes on the traits of an anthropomorphic animal, puss in boots does hold some furry traits, he is not intended to be a furry, and he should not be counted as a furry. Just because something has furry like traits does not mean it is intended to be a furry. Would you call Sonic a furry? No you would not because who holds far more human traits then he does animal. Only call charactars intended to be a furry a furry and stop labeling everything a furry.

Wrong, you get a L for that one.

the definition of a "furry" as a species is an anthropomorphic animal, aka an animal with human traits. Let's see here now. Puss is a cat with the following human traits:
- He stands on two legs
- He talks
- He wears human clothing
- He has a human sword
Now, explain to me how he is somehow exempt even though he fits the definition to a T.

wrong

he's a cat that stands on his hind legs and happens to talk

the definition of a "furry" as a species is an anthropomorphic animal, aka an animal with human traits. Let's see here now. Puss is a cat with the following human traits:
- He stands on two legs
- He talks
- He wears human clothing
- He has a human sword
Now, explain to me how he is somehow exempt even though he fits the definition to a T.

Even if Puss in boots is a furry. He is the most badass furry in existence. He is above all other furries.

I absolutely, 100% agree. And even if he's not a furry, he's the best f**king cat there has ever been.

Yeah, HUMAN TRAITS

So let me get this straight: If there was a HUMAN with the following CAT TRAITS...
-Sleep all day
-Knock things off the counter
-"You can only touch me here"
-Attitude
-Scared of cucumber
-Milk is delish
-"Oooh, shiny red laser..."
...then that also automatically makes them a furry?

Wrong, what you have there is a man diagnosed with autism

The definition is an animal with HUMAN traits. Not the other way around. I'm not quite sure why you thought this would be a good comparison to make.

I love how you think I'm gonna listen to someone who's arguing with me about character design.

I love how you're losing an argument about character design SO BADLY that you resort to saying that the thing I'm arguing with you about is a dumb thing to argue about.

My brother in christ, if you hadn't retorted back with something that doesn't even help your point at all NUMEROUS TIMES, we wouldn't be arguing. And yet, I'm the one who's dumb.

Common Charles L

Lol

Yeah no

THE CHAD PUSSY?!!??!