>>98805297>>98805839>>98807544You're either a carnivore or a herbivore, a strict 'one drop' style policy is in effect and even if you're an omnivore you'll still be judged accordingly.
It's based on dietary needs obviously, but it's also based on your physiology: we see dozens of pigs, boars, etc.. And despite them being omnivores (pigs will eat anything or anyone if they can get away with it) they're treated as herbivores; same as all the mice, voles, moles and maybe even the insectivores (if they ever had an anteater or an aardvark in the series that might flesh things out a bit more).
Basically if you're an animal that has claws and fangs you're a carnivore. The bears are carnivores and I know they used polar bears in the film, but I'm sure if they were black or brown ones they'd be treated the same.
>>98810406>before this thread inevitably 404's because of our own rampant degeneracy, is this movie actually good, or can furries just not tell the difference?It's pretty good. It's a better pixar film than the shit pixar has been spitting out as of late.
>>98811106>>98811174>>98811205The creators talk about this in interviews, but they made an effort to disclude two certain animals:
-Non-Mammals. Because if they started piling in birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, there'd be even less for the carnivores to fucking eat and it'd become more and more difficult to justify certain things and the comfort and convenience they have on society n' so forth. It'd over crowd and complicate the world they created and would stretch themselves out far too thin.
-No Apes. This might seem as an odd one, but they specifically demanded 'no apes' because they KNEW the audience would make assumptions, hen peck their world building, and it'd just be distracting to the premise.
