Haha funny sheetpost

MOM!?!?!?!?!?

THE MOD SALLIE.MAY WATCHES A FURRY SHOW CALLED HELLUVA BOSS!!! EXPOSED

He is against furries, and certain 'art' that might be considered furry art by some (Of course, excluding that which is explicitly so) can be enjoyed, assuming that the person viewing said art has knowledge of what is and is not moral according to it.

For example, let's say as an example that I like the movie Fantastic Mr. Fox. It is not 'furry art', though many of the characters are anthropomorphic animals. It is not intended to explicitly BE furry art, and the main value of the art is in the story and characters, not their design.

TL;DR: It's not furry art because it's not explicitly so.

Sallie is an idiot
Modern anti-furries are small children with underdeveloped cerebrial cortexs'

Fanstatic Mr. Fox if a furry movie; Any art pertainig to anthropomorphic animals is classified as furry art.
The main value of anything is their story; All fursonas have a story, That's the point, The design is a part of the story.

TL;DR: do research.

Here's what I'll say: Please, open your mind a bit. Not all of us are idiots. Not to say that aren't an idiot, as I am. However, there are some who are not.

As it pertains to the main substance:
That isn't the point. If that is your definition of furry 'art', there would be a separation between that which is explicitly so and that which is not. Whether or not you were to call the entire thing one label, that wouldn't destroy the inherent gap that exists. This is a simple language thing which is easily avoided, and I apologize for not being more clear.

How would you know? Blud, you're not a furry.

How would I know what? Please be more clear.

How would you know the definition of "furry art" or "furry content"?

The point is that I don't know the definition, and regardless of the word, reality still exists. There is still a gap.

No.

Friend, please consider what I am saying. There is still a seperation between that which is explicitly so and that which is not, please acknowledge my point and this discussion can continue.

Your point is invalid due to the fact that words can be made and can include anything the maker wants.

?? I'm not sure you get what I'm trying to say.
I'm saying that despite the words, the underlying reality still persists.

If one makes a statue without a name, does it still exist?