IP 216.73.216.185 has been banned until the end of time because of VPN Detected
If you couldn't possibly be guilty of what you're banned for, the person we banned probably had a dynamic IP address and so do you. Please email soysneed@soyjak.st or post in the /q/ thread.
See http://whatismyipaddress.com/dynamic-static for more information.
Advertisement
Image
Commenting
Comment Formatting Options
Want to report a comment? Report the post itself with relevant details.
Advertisement
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
not everything has to be about you attetionwhore
Projecting mutt, you made zoophile porn attentionwhore.
- Reply
it didn't depict genitalia nor any sexual organ so you can't really classify it as porn
- Reply
Yes it does since it is sexually indicative and that's not the definition of sexual content nice try.
I swear Garf and Korg got to be another d4rk_jony and be in cord kahoots with astrofene
- Reply
Definist fallacy
Me and Jony are cool but believe it or not; Astrofene sent me a PM on his banned account calling Korg and Garf degenerate. Not joking.
- Reply
Go ahead and substantiate how that's a definist fallacy when I'm using an analytical definition.
- Reply
- Reply
You're trying to generalize the definiton of "sexual content", it usually refers to nudity
What you are doing is a definist fallacy and that's NOT what it means you special.
It means when I change the entire definition despite the fact I'm using an analytical truth.
Nice try though.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
I'm still trying to learn
In case Astrofene actually said that, remind him that he made porn of Jesus (not even a suggestive pose, not even cropped, full on porn)
As if you didnt make BBC porn but alright transkween.
- Reply
- Reply
You're acting as if you didn't create that incredible gassy edit of Garf
- Reply
It wasn't NSFW, I deleted out the dildo. It was just a fat Garf.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Well in the same way I could argue that the weird bunny posts I made aren't NSFW because they don't show genitalia
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Again, they are sexual content and we already had this convo.
- Reply
whatever noon, as if the fat garf isn't sexual content considering the majority of this site knows what it's traced from
- Reply
It being based off of something doesn't equate to it being sexual content special.
Not sexual content.
- Reply
- Reply
What a fucking specialed argument, look at the post right now and tell me how that DOESN'T resemble incredible gassy
I just addressed this claim. It being based off of something doesn't equate to it being sexual content special.
- Reply
pure copium, next time you try to shame me for those bunny posts remember that you took the time of your life to trace an animation of a fat mr incredible jumping on a dildo
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
-korg
- Reply
- Reply
now you're just trying to deny what we saw.
It's animal porn noon
- Reply
- Reply
being shaped like a human excuse is similar to the argument for lolicon diddys who bring up the inflated bodyparts in the drawn kids
- Reply
like when someone hears "animal porn" they'd think of something way more disgusting
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
1: It's mainly an analogy
2: I think tvrkicwarrior is a minor anyway. Even if you are as well it's still making 'p
- Reply
all I gotta say is, I'm a minor too so it's impossible for me to be a diddyblud
imagine saying this when you got specials like garf straight up mentioning their "Sexual preferences" to people
Stfu projecting cunt
- Reply
- Reply
(even doe^2 nobody takes spades seriously)