|
This might be the 100th thread about this.
Accept the free money and smile :>
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't anyone else here notice that coinad is gone?
I made a topic about it but it was moved and nobody
responded, but can anyone actually access the website at this time?
|
|
|
|
While I find that disgusting, I don't see why I should be concerned in how other people conduct themselves. It's not something that hurts me and most likely it's not something that in most cases hurts the animal.
Not anymore than eating meat does, anyway. '
Just think of all the sick cows, all together, with huge cysts full of pus and on the other end of a spectrum a girl who just likes getting banged by dogs.
I am compelled to interfere only on the first case because I don't want to eat low quality meat. The second part doesn't bother me in the least. To be perfectly honest I don't even like the idea of pets that much in the first place.
Not eating meat won't stop the meat production. Not using animals for sex will stop the use of animals for sex. |
|
|
|
If you have the time available then posting with a PrimeDice signature. Not sure if you would be able to post enough in your spare time to hit $200, that's about 1100 posts per month at current prices and rates.
I think 1100 per month sounds quite rough, compared to what you'd earn from just having a part time job. I know he said "Online" but you need to be damn dedicated to reach that constructivepost count |
|
|
|
You post short non constructive posts that repeats the same stuff you've already said. We know you think it's disgusting and that people who think rape is ok should die. I call troll..
*Gets roflstomped by arguments* *Puts words and false statements in someone elses mouth* *Calls them troll*  ))))))))))))))))))) |
|
|
|
The law against pedophilia was an example to prove my
point against his logic sounding something like this "durr
there shouldn't be laws against something just because
people think it's wrong".
Every coin has 2 sides? Sure, I'm sure there are people
enjoying sexual relations with animals that take no harm
from it, and if you think that should be legal, feel free to
petition it.
You might get support from some of society's other outcasts.
Also, who is to judge if the animal took damage? You can't 'measure' psychological damage per say ( yes, this also applies to animals ), and even if there is no visible impact or wounds, would you just assume the animal took no damage?
But once again, please do make a public petition about it, and see for yourself if anyone is willing to support you.
Freak.
You are the one with flawed logic. "durr there shouldn't be laws just because people think it's wrong???" - when did either of us say that?. Also you are mixing me up with the guy you originally quoted but guess your pig eyes are too lazy to read who's posting what. Sure we don't know about wether the dog take psychological damage from having an awesome time, but the odds are against it. I am the OP btw who said it was about time and explained that it was removed at the same time homolaws were removed. I dont really give a shit if it's legal or not, as me and some other guy stated earlier this will be like torrenting... It's not like you take your dog out on the town square and let it bang you for all to see? The risk you run of getting caught is if you make a movie of it and show your face, which is a bit darwin-ish. Also calling someone freak for having a fetish is wrong, people are born drawn to animals just as people are drawn to same sex or to kids - sure it's not the most tasteful things around but the people who have them can rarely help it. I am sure you have no fetish mr perfect I'd like to see you come back from this, look at the letters piggy. You are in fact right, it is hard to come back responding to a bunch of letters mashed together that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The quote about his flawed logic was in fact not an actual quote which you may have guessed, but if you look up his original response you'll find that reasoning after quoting me saying "then again why would it be legal". It's one thing to have a fetish for something, abusing children and animals is another. I don't mind that people are sexually attracted to either babies or animals, but if they abuse them sexually that is a problem. 'They can rarely help it' is a really bad excuse and wouldn't hold up in court if caught abusing someone. "As me and some other guy" - The 'other guy' responded to one of -my- posts agreeing with -me-, somehow you're implying he is right and I am wrong? My ground statement was that the law won't in fact change anything, but that being said I think it's right to actually make that law. Even if the animal itself doesn't take any harm, it has no possibility to show consent to the act. Isn't that classified as rape? You pretty much got your back against the wall here. And I did not call anyone a freak based on their 'fetish', but rather on the fact that he/she/they happens to think animal abuse should be legal. You might have confused yourself a little too much fantasizing about dogs humping women. Raping children is wrong yes. If the child "raped" you and you wanted it (lets pretend you were a woman) would it be wrong then? Maybe the word fetish was wrong but you know what I mean. What do you think about pedos watching 5 year olds getting banged in Thailand? Are they just as bad? Are the worse if they pay for it (sponsor them)? There will always be a demand for it since it has been around for thousands of years and as long as there is a demand there will be a supply wether we like it or not. Same goes for doggy porn, or BSDM pain olympics (google it, I dare you to watch the whole thing). As for you and the other guy, that's very relative and depends on what the outcome is. If the outcome is that a father of 2 gets sued for $200k for downloading ONE movie (example, but the numbers were extremly high in one case) while the rest 99.9% goes unpunished WITH the exception that the tax money gets wasted on nothing (so you could make the argument that everybody who works gets punished for the stupid downloading law (yeah it's stupid now that years has passed and we've seen the outcome of this - millions of tax payers money wasted on Pontén and his... gang? Guess they have it pretty good. That law would be better off gone, people would be richer and do the same things we do anyway, didn't some guy once say if a law would make XX % of the inhabitants into criminals it shouldn't be passed? Well there you have a great example of that (I know it has nothing to do with doggysex being forbidden, but it proves that some laws are stupid even if they in theory should be there). No consent? If it jumps the woman and start banging her isn't that the dogs way of giving consent? It's your back that's turned against the wall, not mine. Nobody has said that animal abuse should be legal? There is a different between abuse and use (NOTE that I still dont think it should be legal as it is very backwards but it's a law that will have absolutley no effect whatsoever, except the pervs who go out and sex other peoples horses, but that's illegal today as well I think..). Even tho I haven't slept for 48 hours you seem more confused than me.
I'm not gonna bother, I wasn't referring to your sick example of a dog initiating the act while talking about consent.Also, you fail to understand that a rape isn't a rape if both parts want it to happen, which means if I "wanted it" there is no rape involved and I should if caught be convicted for pedophilia. Also, there sure is a difference between abuse and use, but in that case I'll just change my ground point and say that I'm against 'use' of animals as well. In reality there's no difference of the 2 in this case to me, but I see what you're getting at. @bold part translates to: I can't argue against you anymore, you beat me! I dont fail to understand that, I was making a point - you fail to see the comparison. By societies rules it's wrong yes, but if both wants it why is it wrong? I know you would be convicted for pedophilia, jesus do you look at the world so black and white you can't even discuss stuff in theory? By saying that there is no difference in the 2 "for you" means that you have already made up your mind. People need to be more objective... Oh yeah? I think the bold part translates more to something like this; “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” But whatever makes you sleep at night  |
|
|
|
|
5000 friends? So what if someone reports you and asks you to identify
a few random people browsing through their photos and you have no
chance whatsoever? Seems like a stupid way to waste your money imho.
|
|
|
|
The law against pedophilia was an example to prove my
point against his logic sounding something like this "durr
there shouldn't be laws against something just because
people think it's wrong".
Every coin has 2 sides? Sure, I'm sure there are people
enjoying sexual relations with animals that take no harm
from it, and if you think that should be legal, feel free to
petition it.
You might get support from some of society's other outcasts.
Also, who is to judge if the animal took damage? You can't 'measure' psychological damage per say ( yes, this also applies to animals ), and even if there is no visible impact or wounds, would you just assume the animal took no damage?
But once again, please do make a public petition about it, and see for yourself if anyone is willing to support you.
Freak.
You are the one with flawed logic. "durr there shouldn't be laws just because people think it's wrong???" - when did either of us say that?. Also you are mixing me up with the guy you originally quoted but guess your pig eyes are too lazy to read who's posting what. Sure we don't know about wether the dog take psychological damage from having an awesome time, but the odds are against it. I am the OP btw who said it was about time and explained that it was removed at the same time homolaws were removed. I dont really give a shit if it's legal or not, as me and some other guy stated earlier this will be like torrenting... It's not like you take your dog out on the town square and let it bang you for all to see? The risk you run of getting caught is if you make a movie of it and show your face, which is a bit darwin-ish. Also calling someone freak for having a fetish is wrong, people are born drawn to animals just as people are drawn to same sex or to kids - sure it's not the most tasteful things around but the people who have them can rarely help it. I am sure you have no fetish mr perfect I'd like to see you come back from this, look at the letters piggy. You are in fact right, it is hard to come back responding to a bunch of letters mashed together that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The quote about his flawed logic was in fact not an actual quote which you may have guessed, but if you look up his original response you'll find that reasoning after quoting me saying "then again why would it be legal". It's one thing to have a fetish for something, abusing children and animals is another. I don't mind that people are sexually attracted to either babies or animals, but if they abuse them sexually that is a problem. 'They can rarely help it' is a really bad excuse and wouldn't hold up in court if caught abusing someone. "As me and some other guy" - The 'other guy' responded to one of -my- posts agreeing with -me-, somehow you're implying he is right and I am wrong? My ground statement was that the law won't in fact change anything, but that being said I think it's right to actually make that law. Even if the animal itself doesn't take any harm, it has no possibility to show consent to the act. Isn't that classified as rape? You pretty much got your back against the wall here. And I did not call anyone a freak based on their 'fetish', but rather on the fact that he/she/they happens to think animal abuse should be legal. You might have confused yourself a little too much fantasizing about dogs humping women. Raping children is wrong yes. If the child "raped" you and you wanted it (lets pretend you were a woman) would it be wrong then? Maybe the word fetish was wrong but you know what I mean. What do you think about pedos watching 5 year olds getting banged in Thailand? Are they just as bad? Are the worse if they pay for it (sponsor them)? There will always be a demand for it since it has been around for thousands of years and as long as there is a demand there will be a supply wether we like it or not. Same goes for doggy porn, or BSDM pain olympics (google it, I dare you to watch the whole thing). As for you and the other guy, that's very relative and depends on what the outcome is. If the outcome is that a father of 2 gets sued for $200k for downloading ONE movie (example, but the numbers were extremly high in one case) while the rest 99.9% goes unpunished WITH the exception that the tax money gets wasted on nothing (so you could make the argument that everybody who works gets punished for the stupid downloading law (yeah it's stupid now that years has passed and we've seen the outcome of this - millions of tax payers money wasted on Pontén and his... gang? Guess they have it pretty good. That law would be better off gone, people would be richer and do the same things we do anyway, didn't some guy once say if a law would make XX % of the inhabitants into criminals it shouldn't be passed? Well there you have a great example of that (I know it has nothing to do with doggysex being forbidden, but it proves that some laws are stupid even if they in theory should be there). No consent? If it jumps the woman and start banging her isn't that the dogs way of giving consent? It's your back that's turned against the wall, not mine. Nobody has said that animal abuse should be legal? There is a different between abuse and use (NOTE that I still dont think it should be legal as it is very backwards but it's a law that will have absolutley no effect whatsoever, except the pervs who go out and sex other peoples horses, but that's illegal today as well I think..). Even tho I haven't slept for 48 hours you seem more confused than me. I'm not gonna bother, I wasn't referring to your sick example of a dog initiating the act while talking about consent. Also, you fail to understand that a rape isn't a rape if both parts want it to happen, which means if I "wanted it" there is no rape involved and I should if caught be convicted for pedophilia. Also, there sure is a difference between abuse and use, but in that case I'll just change my ground point and say that I'm against 'use' of animals as well. In reality there's no difference of the 2 in this case to me, but I see what you're getting at. |
|
|
|
Depiction of sex with animals (as children pornography) would have to be outlawed too. No more national Geographic Channel for Sweden then.
How about your cat or dog walking in on you and GF, is that also a sexual violation of your pets rights?
We had this debate in my country some years back about if sex with animals should be outlawed. What came out of it was a lot of right wing politicians stating that government should not interfere with peoples sexual preferences, and then becoming immensely embarrassed, when the journalist as the next question asked if they could come up with any examples...
Depiction of animal-human sex should be illegal, as part of the law against animal abuse. However showing animals having sex in context of a nature show or whatever has always been ok and should be. |
|
|
|
No spam here either. If you find this really annoying , either mark the mails as spam, report them or if your email provider supports that function (e.g. Gmail) you can simply create a filter to auto delete those mails, google will tell you how |
|
|
|
What are the actual benefits from any rank after member tho except for -even- shorter posting restrictions?
I mean even if the restriction was only 5 seconds I don't think many people post more than once per minute anyway.
Probably no other benefits other than the wisdom of age and the glory of the title . Haha so I guessed. Oh well, 'hero' member does sound pretty sweet doesn't it. |
|
|
|
Couple of these out there, faucetsurfer, etc. That one probably has about 50-55 sites, including all of those you had in yours. But thanks for sharing, hope someone benefits from it That's alot of faucets, I wonder how many mine will grow to. I am already looking at ways to organize (categories? time limit?) for ease of use, it is still not efficient enough. That's a good point, faucetsurfer has ( naturally as there are so many faucets in their loop ) faucets with different payout timers. I think they generally try to put the higher times ( 2-4h ) as the first ones, and the 30 minute ones as the last ones. It's still not an optimal system I must say as if you wanna use it after 30 minutes again, you'll have to skip through the first ones with the 2 hour timers etc, that's basically why I stopped using faucet surfer. Maybe you'll be the one to figure out a better way to do it? :> Best of luck! I will definitely figure something out. I just have to remove the ones that you have on cooldown... Too bad its not as easy as it sounds :$ Haha I can imagine  |
|
|
|
The law against pedophilia was an example to prove my
point against his logic sounding something like this "durr
there shouldn't be laws against something just because
people think it's wrong".
Every coin has 2 sides? Sure, I'm sure there are people
enjoying sexual relations with animals that take no harm
from it, and if you think that should be legal, feel free to
petition it.
You might get support from some of society's other outcasts.
Also, who is to judge if the animal took damage? You can't 'measure' psychological damage per say ( yes, this also applies to animals ), and even if there is no visible impact or wounds, would you just assume the animal took no damage?
But once again, please do make a public petition about it, and see for yourself if anyone is willing to support you.
Freak.
You are the one with flawed logic. "durr there shouldn't be laws just because people think it's wrong???" - when did either of us say that?. Also you are mixing me up with the guy you originally quoted but guess your pig eyes are too lazy to read who's posting what. Sure we don't know about wether the dog take psychological damage from having an awesome time, but the odds are against it. I am the OP btw who said it was about time and explained that it was removed at the same time homolaws were removed. I dont really give a shit if it's legal or not, as me and some other guy stated earlier this will be like torrenting... It's not like you take your dog out on the town square and let it bang you for all to see? The risk you run of getting caught is if you make a movie of it and show your face, which is a bit darwin-ish. Also calling someone freak for having a fetish is wrong, people are born drawn to animals just as people are drawn to same sex or to kids - sure it's not the most tasteful things around but the people who have them can rarely help it. I am sure you have no fetish mr perfect I'd like to see you come back from this, look at the letters piggy. You are in fact right, it is hard to come back responding to a bunch of letters mashed together that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The quote about his flawed logic was in fact not an actual quote which you may have guessed, but if you look up his original response you'll find that reasoning after quoting me saying "then again why would it be legal". It's one thing to have a fetish for something, abusing children and animals is another. I don't mind that people are sexually attracted to either babies or animals, but if they abuse them sexually that is a problem. 'They can rarely help it' is a really bad excuse and wouldn't hold up in court if caught abusing someone. "As me and some other guy" - The 'other guy' responded to one of -my- posts agreeing with -me-, somehow you're implying he is right and I am wrong? My ground statement was that the law won't in fact change anything, but that being said I think it's right to actually make that law. Even if the animal itself doesn't take any harm, it has no possibility to show consent to the act. Isn't that classified as rape? You pretty much got your back against the wall here. And I did not call anyone a freak based on their 'fetish', but rather on the fact that he/she/they happens to think animal abuse should be legal. You might have confused yourself a little too much fantasizing about dogs humping women. |
|
|
|
Most of them look nice, voted |
|
|
|
|
What are the actual benefits from any rank after member tho except for -even- shorter posting restrictions?
I mean even if the restriction was only 5 seconds I don't think many people post more than once per minute anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Course he's gonna pay the first of you, then gradually increase whatever he wants you to send.
Fools will be fooled.
|
|
|
|
speaking of pussies I found one in a flower garden  Isn't that just gorgeous? |
|
|
|
Yeah well, for allergies etc it's very important to specify if it contains traces of nuts. Most factory made products do issue a warning even if nuts aren't an ingredient in the product, because there is still a risk. I don't know if this is also applies to home made products, but still it's a valid question. Thanks for the quick response btw Yes, some of these have nuts, so if you have a nut allergy, I would recommend not buying, to be safe Thanks for the reminder! Ah alrighty then Once again thanks for a quick response, and best of luck with your business! |
|
|
|
Yeah well, for allergies etc it's very important to specify if it contains traces of nuts. Most factory made products do issue a warning even if nuts aren't an ingredient in the product, because there is still a risk. I don't know if this is also applies to home made products, but still it's a valid question. Thanks for the quick response btw |
|
|
|
|
So I was just gonna visit coinad and click some ads for today, and it seems as if the site no longer exists.
It just brings you to domain default pages. I assume everyone else is experiencing this?
Thoughts? Have this happened before, is it just temporarily down?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
