>>2726604"He" is the subject of the artwork.
Furry is the category of the artwork itself, it is not a descriptive adjective of the subject in the artwork. Learn to compartmentalize. This is basic grade school reading comprehension.
The artwork is not pornographic - therefore it is not furry. Even though you can describe the character as having a "furry" appearance. That is a misnomer. You can not read the genre name, a noun, as simultaneously being an adjective. That is not how the English language works.
Freak'n /co/ has Bojack Horsemen threads all the time. By your retarded interpretation of the rules, those threads would be banned because he's ""furry"". So obviously you're wrong.
In the Disney Men threads on /y/, you don't automatically ban all the images of Gaston with The Beast in them. Yes, The Beast is "furry" but if he's not participating in a sexual act then the image - I repeat, the image. Not the context - is not classified as furry.
You also see in Disney Men threads are Hercules wearing a lion skin. Does that make him a furfag? Maybe. Does that make the poster a furfag? maybe.
But neither of those things have anything to do with the image itself.
This isn't rocket science. This is how it's always been. Why is everyone acting so retarded lately?
Is your drinking water contaminated with lead or something?
