I see it the same way you do

Yay, I'm not alone :D

Lol and I know other that look at it the way we do

I see plenty of examples of it being both ways, I think both are very correct ways to describe Furries. I think it all depends on the people who are expressing the characters... If I was a psychologist I might be able to tell you what it means if someone makes a Human with Animal characteristics or an Animal with Human characteristics ;P

Yeah, I agree with Unclegant and you. It seems like people like to group them all together as one big group or try to define Furry as "one or the other", but there's so much more to being a furry than merely "looking part animal". After all, some people consider furry simply a human with cat ears and a tail, while some don't consider it furry if the female has boobs, only if the animal is completely animalistic.

Personally, I think that furry as a universal term describes anyone who prefers to identify with animal like qualities, but the branches is where it gets really murky cause you don't want to stereotype people cause they like something specific about the furry fandom (e.g. ALL furries like sex), but because of the stereotypes, some people don't want to even associate themselves as furry (e.g. I'm not like those people on FA. I draw animals cause I think they're cuter than humans, not cause I want to have sex with them).

But all in all, in MY personal opinion, it's all about the psychology more than the appearance. Cause the way I define "humans" are "People who focus on qualities built from social and ideological constructs to form biases and opinions whether for the benefit or destruction of their own and others' kind." Meaning they can think outside the box and can choose to be "good or evil", preferring to control nature than let nature control them. Hence even a person who claims to act completely feral is actually just as human if not more human than one who stands on 2 legs, because they're basing their definition of "feral" as "lacking intelligence" when that's not exactly true at all, hence the stereotypes drawing people away from the furry fandom (or just as bad, people making furrys basically have human only problems like racism, sexism, discrimination, etc when animals don't exhibit those qualities because they don't judge arbitrarily if it means destruction of their own well being.). Also proof is that we judge other furries based on appearance of thier character or the popularity of their features, rather than looking inside of them. If we were truly natural and animalistic, we wouldn't be insulting each other over arbitrarily looks. (stuff like "Your boobs are too big" or "Your eyes aren't realistic enough". Only humans actively attack others because they dislike such arbitrary qualities. You'd never see a dog attack another dog on it's own because it's "feet are too big". Heck they usually will ignore the other creature unless it attacks them.)

So yes, you're right, most furries are basically humans with animalistic qualities. You really have to study an animal without man made bias to really understand how to be an "Animal with human qualities", but for starters, consideration for why an animal would want to populate and stay populated if they were to focus on selfish desires is a good start. (In that humans are the only species who explicitly can accidently have children and even endanger thier own kid's lives for their own selfish reasons. After all, if you have a kid, you must share food, you must share potential mates, it doesn't seem like most people want to do such, just "hit and run". Sex isn't the problem with the furry fandom. It's the abuse of others for sexual satisfaction that's the problem, and they're NO different from humans in that regard.)

I see it as being animals with human traits.