IP 216.73.216.47 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 mustard@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
Link to Post
SoyBooru
not everything has to be about you attetionwhore
Projecting mutt, you made zoophile porn attentionwhore.
it didn't depict genitalia nor any sexual organ so you can't really classify it as porn
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
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.
Go ahead and substantiate how that's a definist fallacy when I'm using an analytical definition.
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.
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.
You're acting as if you didn't create that incredible gassy edit of Garf
It wasn't NSFW, I deleted out the dildo. It was just a fat Garf.
Well in the same way I could argue that the weird bunny posts I made aren't NSFW because they don't show genitalia
Again, they are sexual content and we already had this convo.
whatever noon, as if the fat garf isn't sexual content considering the majority of this site knows what it's traced from
It being based off of something doesn't equate to it being sexual content special.
Not sexual content.
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.
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
-korg
now you're just trying to deny what we saw.
It's animal porn noon
being shaped like a human excuse is similar to the argument for lolicon diddys who bring up the inflated bodyparts in the drawn kids
like when someone hears "animal porn" they'd think of something way more disgusting
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
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
(even doe^2 nobody takes spades seriously)