#1 Posted by Hizang (8532 posts) -
#2 Posted by Nightriff (5335 posts) -

Yes, fur is hair, some back hair is fur, depends how thick, no pictures please

#3 Edited by MooseyMcMan (11390 posts) -

Of course it is. If an animal is shedding, and you see the individual hairs, they are call hairs! They're not called furs. Furs are the whole thing, like what you trade in ACIII.

First sentence from Wikipedia: "Fur is a synonym for hair..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur

#4 Edited by Kerned (1169 posts) -

I voted for "no," but then I looked it up and learned that I was wrong. Hooray for learning something new before 9:00 AM.

#5 Posted by DuskVamp (681 posts) -
#6 Posted by IBurningStar (2190 posts) -

Yeah, it is. It is stupid to think otherwise.

#7 Posted by ProfessorEss (7518 posts) -

@Kerned said:

I voted for "no," but then I looked it up and learned that I was wrong. Hooray for learning something new before 9:00 AM.

Same here :)

#8 Posted by Brendan (8131 posts) -

I voted no because that's what a dog owner told me once, but it turns out I was wrong.

#9 Posted by MonkeyMitcho (115 posts) -

I suppose the only diffrence is fur grows all over the body.(ALL over)

#10 Posted by BeachThunder (12409 posts) -

@Kerned said:

I voted for "no," but then I looked it up and learned that I was wrong. Hooray for learning something new before 9:00 AM.

Online
#11 Posted by Zor (667 posts) -

I am going to vote no, since hair isn't murder... that and fur makes me sneeze while hair doesn't.

#12 Posted by Hizang (8532 posts) -

I totally sided with Jeff and his "Oh my god"

#13 Edited by ExplodeMode (852 posts) -

So fur is hair but hair isn't fur. I'm calling it.

#14 Posted by Little_Socrates (5711 posts) -

@ExplodeMode said:

So fur is hair but hair isn't fur. I'm calling it.

You've called it correctly!

#15 Posted by Levio (1786 posts) -

I think people get confused since fur is usually softer. But there are some women who have incredibly soft hair too.

#16 Posted by MildMolasses (3229 posts) -

@MonkeyMitcho said:

I suppose the only diffrence is fur grows all over the body.(ALL over)

Most people have hair over most of their bodies, however they tend to be very tiny and without colour

#17 Posted by brownsfantb (399 posts) -

I voted yes. I always assumed that fur was hair that grew on the whole body in a way that you could make a fur pelt. So humans don't have fur, just hair, since you can't make a human fur pelt.

Or could you? I need to stop thinking about this.

#18 Posted by TooWalrus (13256 posts) -

'course it is. Don't be dumb.

#19 Edited by Chaser324 (6742 posts) -

@Little_Socrates said:

@ExplodeMode said:

So fur is hair but hair isn't fur. I'm calling it.

You've called it correctly!

This seems pretty accurate. It seems to me like fur is a subset of hair: fur is hair, but hair may or may not be fur.

Moderator
#20 Posted by BaconGames (3574 posts) -

Yes but fur is not exclusively hair. According to the wiki page, fur usually involves at least two layers of hair and can also describe the overall "coat" of the animal and the underlying skin that holds the hair when its skinned. So in that sense, hair makes up fur and fur is made up of hair but they're not exactly the same.

The problem is in semantics as we tend to assume different words for things necessarily mean that makes them different as Ryan did on the Bombcast. Just because we only use the word "fur" for animals and "hair" for humans most of the time doesn't necessarily make them different or mutually exclusive. It does in this case, in a way, but in usage calling fur hair is perfectly fine because it's hair but a bit more complicated.

#21 Posted by NegativeCero (3039 posts) -

Yes, it totally is.

#22 Edited by Brodehouse (10129 posts) -

Fur is a collection of hair.

Or as someone said, Fur is Hair, but Hair is not necessarily Fur.

Also, start the fursecution.

#23 Posted by RenMcKormack (1074 posts) -

NO