• BEYOUBlåhaj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Honestly this kind of lingo has fallen off so much. Need a captcha that tells the user it will weigh your soul

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    This raises some interesting questions, since furries not only have an animal identity, but also are along the anthro spectrum somewhere between human and animal form. Very few furries identify as someone who looks like they could star in The Lion King.

    Of course, when people identify as gay or lesbian, they don’t necessarily include in their identity where they are on the Kinsey scale.

    And then, plenty of trans folk, witches and other people who change their name after an important reckoning, still will keep their government name for official purposes (such as depositing paychecks). Also underaged denizens of the internet will acknowledge the risks they take going into 13+ spaces or adult spaces by clicking through age gates (or even spoofing age verification walls).

    That is all to say, we’re flexible.

  • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Furries know they are human.

    Therians believe they are an animal, but also acknowledge they are in a human body.

    Obviously if youre a therian youre probably a furry, but being a furry does not mean youre a therian. Its a real rectangle-square situation

    • Seralth@piefed.seralth.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Man i have literally never met a single therian that doesn’t get outrageously pissed off when you even remotely suggest they might be a furry. They are rare tho, so i could have just had bad luck.

      • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        To be entirely honest, ive never known one, and the ones ive met have been at conventions, so my anecdotes might be skewed.

      • Kay Ohtie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I think that’s a “used to be the case” thing, but not the case now, or at least those ones are much more separated. I know plenty of furry + therian types now, myself included.

        And yes, under zero delusions of body etc. I don’t even think about these prompts, but it’s fun and makes for waggy feels when I see something that’s altered to be more broad. X3

  • yucandu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 day ago

    An argument I overheard recently:

    “…I think he’s a furry.”

    “Well, furries are people too.”

    “No, Dave, I’m pretty sure they’re not, that’s the whole point.”

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Well, “people” and “humans” aren’t the same thing. One’s a subset of the other.

      Problem with getting too philosophical here is that someday soon the bots might also count as a subset. Then things get really complicated.

    • Bilb!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I think in fantasy you do have what can only be called non-human people. The definition for the word “person” tends to include “human,” but only because in real life human persons are the only ones that are known to exist.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Sadly, in the US, we have non-human persons. They’re called corporations, and for the moment they have more rights than humans do.

        Furries count as human persons, even if they identify as another kind of beastie.

      • erin@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I’ve had enough non-human friends that I extend the definition to other animals. I’ve personally known dogs and cats that display remarkable personality and emotional intelligence, not to mention all the great examples of non-human animal communication and love available online. Animals are such people, when you get to know them.

        • BooBees@fedinsfw.app
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Same, personhood isn’t limited to humans. If you can be a best friend or confidant or true co-companion that is mutually beneficial and mutually understood, that’s all I need to know there’s a person in there. I’ll even extend it to other animals that exhibit complex thought, considerations, relflective behavior, but I don’t push that on other human people, if they want to join me in doing so, they’re my kind of people. The more the merrier. I feel bad for people who can’t see animals that earned their friendship as fiends, as people.

          • OwOarchist@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Where the waters really get muddy is in deciding where to draw the line between ‘person’ and ‘not a person’ when it comes to AI.

            Current AI is almost certainly not a person … but at some point, it seems almost inevitable that it will progress to the point where it crosses the line of personhood. Where do we draw that line? How will we know if an AI has crossed it? And how do we address the rights and responsibilities of an artificial person? Is it then unethical to turn it off or delete it? Is it okay to turn it off as long as you intend to turn it back on later? Should it have a say in government, be able to vote? Can you get married to it? Does it have a right to create copies of itself the way you have a right to have children? Is it unethical to make copies of it without its consent? Can it own property? Can it own copyrights to ‘creative’ works it produces? Does allowing a corporation to own it and tell it what to do amount to slavery? Do we have an obligation to provide it with server space and electricity if it can’t provide those for itself? Can/should it be punished if it breaks laws, and how?

    • tachikoma@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      24 hours ago

      If furries aren’t people; Then furries fucking animals isn’t beastiality.

      This is a very slippery slope. 😓

      • Seralth@piefed.seralth.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Otherkin and therians have entered the chat… The slop is steep and has far too many complex hazards to even attempt to go down. I advise agasint this line of questioning.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Furries who engage in erotic furry play (sometimes called yiffing ) partner with other furries, not with actual animals.

        Anyway, they are persons and have rights, although the MAGA movement would very much like to strip them of their rights, regard them as mentally ill and disabled, and confine them to institutions. But then, MAGA wants to strip rights of anyone who isn’t MAGA.

  • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 day ago

    To prove that you are human, click on all the photos that show places you would use for shelter during a robot uprising.

    • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      Like I told the customs agents using my boat as a training platform. “I’m not going to tell you where I would hide things!”

      • OwOarchist@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        The grammar there isn’t incorrect at all. It’s still perfectly valid grammar. It’s just longer and more circuitous than needed, and it sets a weird formal/aristocratic/patronizing tone.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          To me it just reads as someone whose native language would use the present-progressive tense for this kind of statement.

          True, it’s not incorrect grammar in English. It just sounds off because we would typically use the infinitive form to discuss a need like this. That’s not necessarily the case in every language though.

  • Rose@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    Cloudflare can identify if someone is capable of using humanlike interactions for purpose of determining whether or not they are automated systems. But I don’t think they have the capability of deciding who is also cute and fluffy.

  • poke@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    If any furries need a hand I can tick the box for you, I know its too small for many of your paws and some of you with smaller paws may not want to lie to the kind machine keeping the community safer.

  • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    Hey hey only therians believe they’re actually a different animal, and even many of them acknowledge the human part. Most furries just vibe well with animals, sometimes more than other humans, and I mean, have you met other humans?