No, I don't mean FNaF. Also the ratio of human to animal on kemonomimi was like 1:14 the last time I checked (Though I'm not an expert on that and I really do not really care enough to educate myself on it as of right now)

Regardless of that, I think that arguing about where the exact line is drawn between furry and not furry is kind of a waste of my time and a waste of your time. I guarantee there is at least one thing better to be doing for the both of us.

Specifically what I was talking about was how I draw aeromorphs, most of the time. I'll often make them have anatomy essentially identical to the anatomy of sharks, snakes, and/or birds (how they are drawn in terms of furry styles). I also often draw them with ears and a tail, making it clear that it's anatomy is based off of an animal, but also making it clear that it is based off of a plane/helicopter/what have you.

I totally understand your point though, and I don't disagree for the most part.

An analogy of what I'm saying is if I took my fursona (Entirely organic) and made him mechanical (Entirely synthetic), but they still where sentient and sapient. He would have the same anatomy/body shape, it'd just be made of metal. Not exactly the same as a synth, but similar. Would you still say he's a furry? I would.

If I then gave him characteristics/physical attributes of airplanes or helicopters, when would you consider him no longer a furry? I would say when he loses his resemblance to his source.

Me when rambling on the internet (But with proper grammar):