As of today, I have coined a new philosophical issue of which we need to solve. I call this dilemma the “Catgirl Uncertainty Principle”. The cause of the principal is that there is no easily defined line at which we can determine something is obviously, without doubt, considered “furry”. The core and belief of my principle is that there is no way to easily define whether or not something is truly “furry”. Of course, we could just consider anything partially animal as “furry” but this would mean catgirls (the namesake of this principle) is furry. This is something almost everyone would disagree with, as catgirls are very far from being furry. We could define furry as anything with fur, but this would leave many, definitely defined furry things as non-furry, such as scaly, a subsection of furry based on lizards/dragons and the like instead of furry animals. The next issue that leads this to be an uncertainty principle is the definition of fur. Typically, fur is just seen and understood as the same thing as hair, meaning the only difference between fur and hair is just whether or not it is on a human, which bring me to the next point. This next point is more of a philosophical quandary on how much we can replace without reaching the point of no longer being human. Of course, there is the argument that as long are your consciousness is intact, you are still you, meaning you are human. Applying this to the furry dilemma, this means that the extent of furry would be as long as something is vaguely human, it’s not furry. This is clearly an issue, as heavily anthropomorphic animals are mostly considered furry. Because of these factors limiting the extents of what is human and what is furry, I deem it impossible to create a clearly defined meaning and line as to determine without any doubt to what is furry and what is not.