Uploaded by Seltonik 
800x600 PNG 429 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
Applejack’s voice is genuine?
Because first she modulated her voice when she dressed elegantly and called herself “Applejewel” and now we see that she can modulate her voice to make several personifications.
And I remember that she used to lie, and she lived for a while in the city, she could have lost her accent and she only modulated her voice.
And for the record, it’s anthro.
Edited
@RascalPascal
Okay, then what is it? You originally said that this hypothetical animal was a cat, just with a human face and therefore not a normal cat. Now you’re saying it’s not a cat at all specifically because of that. So which is it?
My main point is that if a cat has some sort weird physical feature that clearly separates it from any other cat on the planet, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a cat. That’s it.
@RascalPascal
I doubt that anyone says that circles are “usually” round unless they’re being sarcastic. This point is inane.
You’re misinterpreting it by using the definition wrong or not understanding it: you say it’s “generally” refers to a standard or normal feature, and then completely ignore it. If you see what seems to be a cat but it has a human face then it’s obviously not a cat, but something else because cats generally don’t have human faces (short of someone sewing it on it, but nobody sewn a human face on this picture).
You’re misinterpreting by assuming that “generally” means “usually” instead of “standard” which you brought up in the same post. “Generally” and “standard” DO refer to defining features, not optional ones. Cats don’t have human faces and if you find one then it’s because of specific circumstances and not because it sometimes happens and “generally” allows it. If you draw a circle and call it a square people will point out it’s a circle because it’s round and not square - circles are generally round and not square, and if you say “well it says generally so my circle is square” then people will point out that’s not what it means.
I thought I made it pretty clear that the word “generally” means “commonly,” which is just another synonym for “normal” or “standard”, so I’m not sure how you think I’m misinterpreting it or what my narrative is at all.
Just because something is considered a standard, does not mean it is a necessity. This is a crucial point that you keep glossing over. You specifically stated that a nozzle is a defining trait, then preceded to quote a statement that did not say list it as defining trait whatsoever.
If I were to see a cat with a human face, I’d say that it’s really weird-looking cat, but I’m not going to say that it isn’t a cat. It’s not normal. It’s not standard. It’s still a cat. Do you see what I’m getting at?
Your argument regarding this pic isn’t that it isn’t a normal or standard anthro, your argument is that it isn’t anthro at all.
Again, generally means normal and standard for something: a cat losing a leg isn’t standard and you can’t point at a picture of a cat with a human face and say “oh yeah, that’s a normal cats because while generally they don’t have human faces it doesn’t mean it’s mandatory”. All I’m doing is following the definition while you’re trying to interpret it and the definition of world “generally” to fit your narrative, and as I’m finding your accusation dishonest and ironic.
I think you’re missing the point: “generally” does not mean that something has to be the case. Cats generally have 4 legs, but not all do. Anthro animal characters generally have muzzles/nozzles, but not all do. The fact that this particular style is not “standard” doesn’t negate this, nor does it erase all of the other anthro characteristics present.
And my statement about boobs wasn’t meant to be an actual argument, but more of a jab about how you only focused on one anthro trait in the site’s definition (among several listed), skimmed over the use of “generally,” and claimed it to be “the defining feature” of an anthro character. I think that that’s absolutely splitting hairs.
A cat with 3 legs is still a cat, but it’s not how normal or standard cats are, it’s an exception brought on by circumstances which this picture isn’t. If you point to something with a human face but a pony body then ok, that’s anthro because it has mostly animal features, but a human with animal ears isn’t anthro.
And you just tried to use the boob joke as an actual argument, so please don’t point at me and say I’m splitting hair.
Yes, it means that it is a common feature, which is true, since most anthro designs do happen have distinguished muzzles/nozzles. It is not, however, a required feature for something to qualify as anthro. A cat with 3 legs is still a cat.
You’re splitting hairs here.
Except that isn’t how you use “generally”. You don’t say “cats generally have black fur” because some CAN have it, you say “cats generally have 4 legs” - IE the norm that applies in 90% of the cases and exceptions are exceptions for a specific reason. And this wasn’t set up as some exception, it’s a human with animal ears rather than anthro.
And the boobs part was obviously somebody trying to make a joke, c’mon.
@Meanlucario
That doesn’t signify nozzles as a defining feature, just that they CAN have them (the key word used is “generally”). Otherwise, boobs would apparently be another deciding factor.
Please don’t try to argue with a mod when they give the final verdict.
On the description of the tag on this very website:
“Anthros are bipedal versions of four-legged creatures or characters and may have all hooves or hooves and hands or hands and feet, depending on the style of the individual artist. Anthros generally have tails and muzzles. Also boobs.”
@Blossomforth
It clearly doesn’t look like anthro though.
It’s anthro
Based on what criteria? I know you list off your own ideas of separates an anthro from a human, but what specifically says that a nozzle is the defining feature?
Keep in mind, most of the ponies in the series are also known for having very small nozzles. This could very well be this artist’s interpretation of that.
That would be because it’s the defining feature, at least as far as I know:
animal face, hooves, upright stature and human hands = anthro (animals with human features/characteristics)
animal ears, tails, human face, stature etc = kemonomimi (humans with animal features/characteristics)
Or:
Flying machine with wings and jet engines = usually planes
Flying machine with rotors rather than wings = usually choppers
There’s a certain flexibility but this doesn’t look like an anthro to me, but a kemonomimi instead.
I’m more pointing out that that seems to be a rather particular criteria for judging what is and isn’t anthro since you’re arbitrarily focusing solely on one feature while literally ignoring everything else (or at least saying they don’t count).
This isn’t anthro tho, and you correctly deduced that it mainly depends on whether you have a nozzle or not in case of MLP.
Not all anthros have hooves though, which is a “plantigrade anthro” tag exists. The nozzle seems to be the crux of your argument here, but that’s the artist’s general style when drawing anthros.
Edited
They sure have, but those still aren’t features indicative of being an anthro as far as I know, which in case of MLP are mainly nozzles and hooves instead of feet.
Edited
Along with the ears, they also have horns, wings, and tails (and even though the tails aren’t visible here, you can check the artist’s tags for their other anthro works).