One of the biggest argument for "Bronies are Furries" is the following
- Bronies like a show about anthropomorphic ponies
- Anthropomorphic ponies are anthropomorphic animals
- Furries like anthropomorphic animals
> Therefore, Bronies are furries
Classic A=B, B=C, therefore A=C argument, doesn't always apply to everything.
But that aside, this argument missed one keyword: show. Furries are interested in the concept of anthropomorphic animals in general, while bronies are interested in a specific cartoon show. Sure, it contains anthropomorphic animals, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a show.
A simple hypothetical example would be if all the characters in the show were humans instead of anthropomorphic ponies. Would people still enjoy it? Probably, would these people be the same as furries? Most likely not.
But here's the thing, those who compare bronies with furries based solely on the anthropomorphic characters themselves are missing the point. It is the show that matters, not what composes of the characters. Sure, character is an important part of the show, and since the characters are anthropomorphic animals, some bronies can very much be furries. However, characters are not what all a show is about. While furries, in which its core is entirely based on the concept of appeal in anthropomorphic animals, is very much all about the character.
My conclusion: Bronies can be Furries, Furries can be Bronies, but Bronies are not Furries.