Get kids to fear bad guys on the internet at an early age and it makes it easier to shoehorn more privacy invading techniques into their lives.

Interesting <=_O>

I don't quite understand how people instantly call anything that involves Anthropomorphic Animals 'Furry'.
You do know Furry is a Subculture right? XD

And cute anthro animals have always been an effective way to get kids towards something XD

I thought those characters looked somewhat furry

Definition of furry is anything where anthropomorphic animals is used despite no obvious reason for it. Futuristic whodunkit where everyone's a skunk for no discernible reason? Furry, very furry. Fandom is irrelevant.

Kids respond well to anthro animals though, so I guess this gets a pass.

Wouldn't mind sucking obviously military eagle's cock though.

Judging by that grin I think thats about to happen for him in the near future.

So basically....if an Anthro isn't being used for a relevant purpose like a DND creature concept, or a Beasthuman Character for a Video game its Instantly Furry?

Im just trying to understand the logic.

Like how many still don't understand my logic that Im really not a Furry, its a little hard to grasp that I just like the Beasthuman concept from Sci-Fi, Medeval, and Tribal Fantasy concepts.
Just because I like the concept doesn't make me a Furry.

Actually I just found this bizarre thing I felt like sharing, they are kind of furry this is a furry site so I described it that way its not meant to be taken that seriously.

I didn't mean to sound to serious about it and start drama.
My reaction was fueled because others had shared little things like this and say someone is trying to use furry to reach out to kids.

Sorry, ment no disrespect lol

no probs :)

You're confusing two different things here. Stuff like Gargoyles, say, isn't furry because there's real purpose in the story to make them non-human animal-like things. Same with Island of Doctor Moreau.

Furry for the sake of furry is usually the result of someone just interjecting fetish into something. See: Every Star Trek fan-fiction with original cast members as furries for no logical reason. That's the essence of furry.

Something really doesn't even have to be made by a furry to be 'furry'.

Just because I like the concept doesn't make me a Furry.

You're posting on a furry site, under a name with an animal in it, discussing just what exactly is furry.

Didn't Marx say he wasn't a Marxist? At some point, how you self define is not relevant based upon how others commonly define you. They're not really wrong, and I suppose neither are you, but for there purposes, if a work is furry, and if you're furry for making it, all the bitching in the world won't change that.

So now your saying its not furry if the Anthro has a 'purpose'?
And I hardly watched Star Trek, but there is an anthro race in it. So its not furry? Or is it Furry? Your logic still isnt really making sense......

And so now having an animal in my name and just being on a site makes me furry?

Whatever man lol
I think the very definition got lost somewhere.

One cat woman thing in the cartoon. The cartoon was kind of a joke anyway, but just because it's 'official' doesn't mean someone isn't inserting their fetish. See: gorillas in old superman comics.

And so now having an animal in my name and just being on a site makes me furry?

Same way hanging out tobacconists, smoking with cigar aficionados kind of makes you one by default.

He's trying to argue intent which is a hard thing to do, basically. His reasoning is that if someone has "reasonably" justified it as the "furry" aspect having a "purpose" in the universe, it's not furry.

His argument, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just attempting to clarify, is that *arbitrarily* making *everything* in a game/show/whatever all anthro is furry, merely because it's done just because not by merit of any other drive or contribution to the story.

Again, not agreeing/disagreeing, just trying to clarify. :)

what a dumbass thing to lose your shit over.

I don't remember loosing my shit....lol
It was a simple argument over the Meaning of Furry
*Rolls Eyes*

I'm not a furry either but I operate within the fandom because it's hard to find non-furry RPers or non-furry individuals that appreciate non-human stories. I used to be in the fandom until it burned me out something fierce and we do have a lot of artists here in FA that aren't furry but do Anthropomorphic Animal Artwork because the money is good from commissions and things of the like. Being an anthro animal artist doesn't inherently make you furry or make your art furry. Just enjoyed by the furry fandom.

The fandom itself doesn't get to declare who is a fur nor if the artwork is classified as furry artwork. It would be the individual who did it honestly. Just so many of these doofers believe they have the right and sense of entitlement to wave a magic wand and go, "POOF! You're a FURRY!" Nah... doesn't work that way. Sad because a lot of furs want to believe they have this entitlement to do so and it's driven a lot of good artists out of here because while they got the admiration of individuals who love their work... they don't want to be known as a furry artist because of association to a culture that's largely adult/sexual in nature.

how about a bunch of furries go to a childrens hospital and hug them up

Thats more productive :D

that would cheer them up! :D

And now you've incited Rule 34 to happen

cant post it to this site though! :D

Well, if I recall correctly a lot of the US government sites that deals with kids have anthropomorphic animals. Funny though the way that eagle is grinning is like he is willing to do anything for his country... ;P

.....ANYTHING *NUDGE NUDGE*

Remember back when there was a big push to get EVERY kid to submit fingerprints, with the supposed motive of making them easier to find if they were kidnapped? They pushed that hard in schools in the 90s.

I have to wonder if growing up around that sort of thing didn't make a lot of people jaded to basically volunteering to be printed, prodded, and probed. And the cycle continues.

Also, I love how people seem to love splitting hairs on the definition of "furries" as if reinforcing a strict definition mattered. Never mind that in the original context a "furry" in the earliest fan publications I can find could be any anthropomorphic character regardless of whether or not it was created for the subculture; it was originally synonymous with "anthro" or "funny animal." I guess some people just need a hobby...

Well they wait until people are used to one infringement, then move onto the next before long you lose it all.

But... How would you check someone's fingerprints if you can't find them?

On their dead little rotting bodies.

Pretty much.

Why are squirrels in multi-species animal groups almost always girls? It seems that some animals are just seen as "inherently female." The same applies to animals more typically seen depicted as boys. This isn't a complaint, really, just something that boggles me.

The Rescue Rangers were dudes.

Then again, I'm not sure if they were squirrels or chipmonks.

Chipmunks and squirrels are in the same family, so they're basically the same thing, with chipmunks being a kind of squirrel. But insofar as fiction treats them as separate species, chipmunks are usually males and "squirrel squirrels" are typically female. Keep in mind that series' only (to my knowledge) appearance of "squirrel squirrels" (with the familiar tail) had all three as females (a mother and her two daughters).

And even looked at as them being the same family and Chip and Dale being examples of squirrels, they're still only two of five examples with the other three being female.

When there's multiple individuals of a species present there's more gender diversity anyway. But when only a single individual appears, it seems to me writers seem to assign one gender to this or that animal more commonly than they do the other, and in most examples of "ensembles" like this one, I've noticed squirrels are usually female.

They coulda at least got a halfway decent artist, yeesh. I mean, it ain't bad.. but it ain't NSA-grade contract pay good.

They need to be drawn better and porn'd up. *nods sagely* That'll stick it to the man!

Site's taking a while to load (perhaps it's having trouble sneaking a peak at my HD contents since I'm using Linux instead of Windoze) but from the splash page (Codemakers and Codebreakers) sounds like they're just trying to encourage more kids into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) by making cryptography (which is HEAVILY math-based) seem cool.

Science technology engineering and math are all great things, but they are trying to Bogart all the brightest minds to turn them towards nefarious purposes instead of something productive, Investment firms do the same thing, its a sad tragic waste.

What are the "nefarious purposes," out of curiosity? It seems to me there's nothing inherently nefarious about coming up with new encryption algorithms and ways to make transfer of secure data more efficient. Or coming up with regulations on how secure data should be transferred. I guess they also attempt to break the encryption of others, but most people probably wouldn't say breaking the Germans' enigma code was nefarious, and I'm sure there are modern day equivalents. I suspect a lot of people who work there are just nerds who like security concepts.

As to the recent freaking-out, there's some relativism in who you consider a good guy or bad guy. The problem lately is that bad guys are getting better at looking like normal citizens. If you know of a good way of weeding those people out while having no impact whatsoever on the rest of the population, I'm sure they would love to know about it!

Anyway, back to the main point, cool find on the creative use of furries. :) Or, sorry, "anthropomorphic animals." ;)

well collecting and storing the personal data and private communications from everyone on earth without their consent or knowledge is pretty fucking nefarious… assuming individual rights have any value these days.

While I agree with some of the outrage on that matter, it's just strange to me that when the NSA datamines people it's "pretty f--king nefarious," but when google does a ton more datamining, everyone's like "oh whatever, it's Google."

Likewise, not everything the NSA does is spying on people, which is sort of where I was trying to go with that.

Either way, I think the days of having legitimate expectations of privacy on the internet were behind us sometime in the late 90s. I'm not saying I'm happy about it but it just seems to be a sign of the times... I dunno.

Ok look at it this way, They gather information about every single freaking person on earth, they claim they arent to collecting the content of the messages but with the US governments track record of lying every time they say anything you can be sure thats a lie too, add that to the fact that everyone has some embarrassing secret they would rather not let out.

Do you not see that this data collection absolutely destroys any hope of ever having a proper free society? As it is right now, if the government, or any sufficiently influential person in the government, or any corporation for that matter, feels anyone is a threat to their power, or annoys them in any way, or wishes to gain an opportunity of some kind over a political foe or business rival all they have to do is access that persons NSA file and blackmail them into silence. The NSA data-mining essentially gives the government absolute un challenge-able power over the entire world. I am not ok with that, in fact I can think of few things more troubling.


Googles datamining is somewhat different, it actually collects demographic data for advertising and statistical purposes that isnt really traceable to individuals.

I don't know a better way to attempt to find Bad People™ electronically than by datamining broadly and flagging certain suspicious behavior. If you know of ways to do this that only target Bad People, and which are impervious to misuse by corrupt people, please tell me so I can patent and sell the technology. ;) The alternative is to eliminate all datamining since innocent people may also be monitored, which risks outcry of "why didn't you know" after an event.

BTW, let's not be so naive as to assume that the US is the only, or most nefarious global power attempting to do this,

Getting a clearance for NSA-style work requires a thorough series of screening investigations, coincidentally including flags for blackmail. Note that google does not require clearances, and is a huge for-profit entity. I leave it to you to determine which is more likely to contain corrupt, unscrupulous egotists with access to personal data. :)

Google definitely stores and associates data with individuals, which is how they can produce it when law enforcement asks. Phone companies have logged SMS messages and long distance calls since the dawn of time. "Private" stuff is all but public if someone has the time; just ask Anonymous. I was not at all surprised to hear about monitoring.

Again I don't mean to endorse the NSA or their actions, I just understand their dilemma.

For one thing terrorists aren't stupid enough to use electronic communications. Terrorism is just the word these people like to use to push through the kind of shit the public would never normally accept,Patriot act? terrorism, Drones killing random innocent people? umm terrorism! Jail whistelblowers toss them in isolation for three yearswith no trial? TERRORISM! Start pointless wars to enrich defense contractors and oil bbillionaires? TERRORISM!
Don't fall for their bullshit , this data mining is for one purpose only, Protect the powerful and control everyone else.


Benjamin Franklin said something fairly relevant to this situation "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I'm with you on the "terrorism" buzzword too, and definitely with you on the "let's scare people into coughing up more money, supporting a war, etc." :P

The important thing is that we still live in a place that has good accessibility to raunchy porn of anthro deer. :P

Yes I agree!! GOD I wish I hadm roe time to do that stuff!

This is not brainwashing this is not brainwashing this is not brainwashing

Why does only the eagle have proper teeth? Do the other ones not have health insurance?

Porn of these striking down in 10,9,8.... xP

Why are they so scary looking?

Did you post this just to frighten me?
I think you did.
I think you want to scare me so bad that I just flop over.

And for what? The life insurance money?

You have uncovered my plan!

This wouldn't be so disturbing if it wasn't for the language inside the site. It's Wargames in real life. Seriuosly. (Not sure how old you guys are, but wargames was a disturbing movie from the 80s, look it up if you don't know).

...am I the only one worrying over the fact that they couldn't find a better artist for the job?

Hey kids, gimme your parents email addresses!!

Also is it bad that I keep thinking of "cryptorchids"? :P

I dont know what that is :D

cryptorchid (krɪpˈtɔːkɪd) —n. 1. an animal or human in which the testes fail to descend into the scrotum.

lol