>>/6505/
> The discussions of "what is *furry* [to you]?" are beyond the scope not only of this thread, but quite possibly anything shy of the full breadth of the whole human experience.
well,considering that this community has always been asking the same questions over and over, repeating the same patterns as usual, then it goes further than we can reach. 

> But for me, "furry" isn't about shoving people-traits onto things, but elevating animals (specifically mammals) up to being people.
so your definition of furry aims at the broadest and most generic concept for any fictional character that is not human but has human qualities. According to what you are presenting here, everyone who has watched a cartoon since the 1920´s (Mickey Mouse, Betty Boop...) or consumed media about characters that aren´t humans but are portrayed in that physical manner with human qualities, is furry. Almost like politics but this is more the implicit definition of it. However, you continue your post by stating...

> Ponies are furries because they have to consider the ramification of a mane in the middle of their long neck, and of having a single digit at the end of each limb -- still animals -- but also the ramifications of fitting the 9-5 work schedule in with game-night with friends (1st-world problems 101).
that the human routine is what tells an animal between furry and not furry is that they establish said schedule to their daily lives like humans do. This seems fair because you can tell that ponies,griffons, changelings, dragons... all of them behave like humans and follow their own timestamps at what they do. You compare them with Fluttershy´s animals and other non talkative species and you can tell perfectly which ones follow a rational role that any human would follow.

In fact, you have posted in fact a picture of Fluttershy and the most suitable example of this extreme would be the division among the butterflies and the breezies. Despite their small size, the latter follow the ramification in order to follow the custom routine that resembles the human one.

> To say "everything is 'furry'" feels a bit like a cop-out.
well, one cops out because it is not a matter of aptitude but a matter of attitude. 

People tend to reject that term despite fitting for the generic definition. There is a certain amount of reluctance towards that word not for what it legitimate could mean but what implies. Sometimes it´s not the definition what implies a problem  but the sheer amount of obsession of trying to include every person, the more the better to convince them that they are furries when they don´t want to know anything about them, hence people tend to classify a fan according to a franchise in particular despite fitting into that definition and not what the core furry culture implies, the reference that a fan should follow.

As soon as I notice that attitude of going after their prey and trying to shoehorn them into their cultural cause, then I turn off my brain and deliver simple answers without thinking at all. If one voluntarily wants to venture into Furaffinity and the specific furry sites, perfect as long as that user decides for himself what to do without anyone telling what to do. If it´s because of furries chasing other people who are clueless, then it´s no wonder that others adapt a defensive mode and there is a certain amount of hatred out there, looking askance at them. Unlike particular franchises that establish a clear line in order to tell the differences, furries try to stake with an all in move. 

Unless there are two words in order to tell what defines the fan and the concept, the terms are going to carry that correlation forever and thus, some people could trigger the red alarm because of that lack of difference in semantics.