Message from @Schedrevka
Discord ID: 477906863757983762
I propose a gaming debate. Legend of Zelda's Rito and Zora are not anthropomorphic (furries). Change my mind. <@&464233153654030360>
Fuck you you're just a furry in denial
define furry
accept that you want to fuck the anthro fish
hello?
Uh, scalies
oy vey, don't disturb me when I'm palying Crash Bandicoot
no
bad
mee6 keeps on supressing my posts
I can accept the Zora being alien and unique enough not to count as furry, but the Rito definitely are unless you're arguing that birds don't count because they lack fur
like wtf
I'm arguing that they're not human-shaped birds.
antros are antros
they are not human
BY THE WAY
Rito are actually evolved Zora.
is mee6 supressing you too?
What makes a fantasy race not an anthro, in your opinion?
i seen that blip off for me
You can say that they're their own race, but from a design standpoint they're absolutely anthropomorphized birds
they are literally a different intelligent species
In my opinion, they would be, by all definition, a form of x animal.
if a furry is a "anthropomorphized animal" then it would logically need to have a real-life counter part for this definition to work, i.e., fox-furry, horse-furry, etc
Hylians arent even human, they are more akin to elves
doesnt need to exist in real life to count
See: Dragons
but then it leaves out shit like dragons
it's all semantics
what is a furry even?
I actually associate Hylians more as humans, and the Zora as a type of sea elves.
OK, but that doesn't mean they aren't furry.
@Schedrevka define furry
anthropomorphized animal
Are Ewoks furries?
so it needs a real life counterpart?
different species imo
So, would you argue there's a distinction from an animal with human qualities
Ewoks are a different species imo
And a human with animal qualities?
Their real life counterpart is bird
as are Zora and Rita