You CAN make money on the internet. People do it all the time, every day. Some people program and design websites, and make big bucks. Some people write freelance and make big bucks. Some people freelance and make smaller bucks, but it's still good money, and they don't have to be as good as the really professional freelancers (more on that later -- it's how I've been paying the bills.)
But other people don't have the time or inclination to make money that way -- they want a little extra with a few minutes a day.
Well, I make an extra 10 bucks or so a day doing very little -- which is 300 dollars a month for not very much work. Want to know how? PTC (Paid to Click) websites.
Elebux
Elebux is the latest PTC in the style of Neobux and Onbux, and it has improved on the model. 4 ads a day at one cent per click, and cashout instantly at $2. There are 4 upgrade levels, with the first costing the same as Onbux's Golden, and with the same benefits. The big difference is the rented refs -- from my experience as well as many others', they are averaging 3.25! Which is HUGE. If you are upgraded you are paying 20 cents a month for a ref, and earning 97.5 cents a month! A modest investment in 100 refs will earn you over 97 dollars a month from refs alone! Sound good? How about I make it better? Click the banner to the right or the Elebux link above and join under me, and I'll give you 10% refback. That's right, for every hundred clicks you make I'll give you 10 cents to your Paypal! Please make sure SaphireScorpion is in the field as your referrer, and email me at blue_roses7@hotmail.com with "elebux ref" in the subject line to let me know you've signed up if you want the refback!
Onbux
Onbux works the same way as Elebux, but the rented refs are less active. Mine average about 1.85, which still makes a generous profit, and is still better than Neobux! Earning 25-40 bucks a month with 100 rented refs still sounds good, doesn't it? And I will honor my 10% refback deal for Onbux as well! Just make sure SaphireScorpio is in the referral field when you sign up, and email me at blue_roses7@hotmail.com with "onbux ref" in the subject line if you want the refback!
JillsClickCorner
Jillsclickcorner is an aurora site that has over 150 ads EVERY DAY, even for standard members. Now, these ads aren't worth a lot, but they add up to about 10 cents per day, even if you have no refs and no upgrade. AND, unlike other PTCs, you can have as many ads open at a time as you want, so open 10 at a time and it doesn't take you any longer to click than any other PTC. With no minimum payout, you can get paid as often as you want! They've paid me about $8 so far. Think about it: with no upgrade or refs at Neobux, it takes almost 2 months to reach $2 and get your money. I get $1 at least twice a month from Jills.
LogiPTC
Did you think you could make 30 cents a day from a PTC, with no upgrades or referrals? Well, you can. Logiptc has a toolbar you can install on your computer which tells you when there are new ads -- which is almost all the time! So surf the internet, but keep one eye on the toolbar -- because the ads are all 1 cent or 0.5 cents so it adds up fast! Cashout is $5 but you'll get there quickly.
I'm making over $120 a month now doing practically nothing -- and so can you if you join up, and keep following this blog for tips and strategies.
I blog, therefore I am.
-xNonsense
Don't Waste Time With Neobux... Come DOUBLE Your Investments!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Tough Sentences For Teens
One of the candidates for the upcoming Canadian federal election, Stephen Harper, is proposing possible life sentences for offenders as young as 14. Keep in mind that in Canada, a life sentence is not just 25 years. Life can actually mean LIFE.
This is entirely ridiculous. Not because murderers should not be punished, but because it represents a terrible double standard that, for some reason, society totally buys into. It is nothing but ageism, plain and simple, to claim that teenagers (in this case, 14 years old and) up are so immature and incapable of forming rational decisions that they should not be allowed to vote, purchase alcohol or tabacco, or have sex at the age and with the person of their choosing, (to further illustrate Harper's hypocrisy, keep in mind that it was his government who upped the age of consent--the age at which it is legal for an individual to have sex with someone of his/her own age--from 14 to 16) but as soon as someone this age does something wrong, all of a sudden they are completely capable of a level of rational thought equivalent to an adult's, and should be punished accordingly. How does this even begin to make sense? Either a person is capable of making informed choices or they are not. They are not somehow incapable of rational judgement when it comes to privileges (society assumes that teenagers will not make rational judgements about alcohol, tabacco, or sex, which is why there exists laws to "protect" them from these things) but when it comes to punishment they are? If people of this age are truly not capable of a rational decision, then there should remain the laws that currently exist, ie: they should be protected from negative consequences of their own actions, including if those actions consist of committing a crime and the protection consists of refusing to put them on trial and sentence them as adults.
I am aware that one possible argument to my position could be phrased thusly: "Most teenagers are incapable of rational, adult thought, but in the cases where a person of this age has clearly thought out and planned a murder (or other violent crime) including provisions for not getting caught, that demonstrates that they are capable of adult thought and should therefore be punished like an adult."
The rebuttals to this argument are numerous. Firstly, a four year old can plan out that he wants to steal a cookie from the pantry, even though he knows it is wrong, and he can make plans for not getting caught, ie: he will tiptoe to the kitchen so his parents cannot hear him. This does not mean we put a four year old in jail for stealing! We give him a punishment appropriate to his age, which may involve a spank it the stealing of cookies is a regular occurance, or perhaps just a time-out and a talk about why stealing is wrong if it is merely a first or second offence. Although the children may be older and the crimes more serious, if we do decide that teenagers are to remain children in the eyes of the law, we must follow this pattern and deliver punishment appropriate to the age, which surely cannot be life in prison! Similarly, just because teenagers demonstrate considerable ingeunuity in procuring alcohol anyway, despite it being illegal for alcohol to be sold to them, we do not take this intelligent and well-thought out planning as evidence that they are capable of making their own decisions and therefore allow them to purchase drink!
Another rebuttal assumes the argument above regarding a child (remember, in the eyes of the law, the 14 year old in question is indeed a child) murderer as having demonstrated rational thought in the carrying out of his crime is valid. If we allow that certain crimes demonstrate the ability to think like an adult in their very execution, and therefore justify adult punishment, we must allow that there are, indeed, some teenagers capable of making rational, adult decisions. It is obviously not possible that every single teenager capable of making adult decisions is a criminal. Therefore, there are, in existence, (and I'm sure everyone has met at least one) children of 14 years of age or even younger, who are mature, responsible, intelligent, and model citizens. The kind of 14 year old that you feel confident in when they babysit your younger children, the kind of 14 year old who organizes a fundraiser at their school to raise money to build a homeless shelter. If we allow our laws to be changed to allow 14 year olds to be sentenced to life in prison, it is these very responsible 14 year olds that we are shortchanging, that we are discriminating against. Remember earlier, when we allowed that in order to justify punishing some teenagers as adults we had to admit that there were some teenagers capable of thinking like adults? Well, it would be sheer hypocrisy if we punished the teenagers who think like adults that do bad things, but did not reward the teenagers who think like adults who do good things, or otherwise behave as normal adult citizens. Those intelligent teenagers mentioned above, the bright ones who may have an interest in politics, should they not be allowed to vote if they are interested, just like any adult? If their peers can be tried as adults, should they not get the privileges of adulthood? It is obviously unfair for society to expect teenagers to act like adults when it comes to following the rules, and yet treat them still like children by witholding privileges.
It has been theorized that much of the "teen angst" (which is a very recent phenomenom, and occurs predominantly in North American culture) occures precisely because of our hypocritcal attitude towards people of this age group. It is the overwhelming frustration of having to follow adult rules while being denied adult privileges that leads to teenagers "rebelling" against adults and their (arbitrary-seeming: when am I an adult and when am I not?) rules at every oppoutunity. Many cultures used to consider a boy a man when he turned 13, capable of a man's work and making a man's decisions, (although, of course, as a "new" or "recent" or "young" man, he often still turned to his father or other men for advice) and a girl a woman at 12 or 13, expecting her to take on the duties of an adult (but also, importantly and crucially, giving them all the privileges adulthood entails.) In these cultures and times, teen angst did not exist. Obviously there is no magical transfer of knowlege that occurs at 13, but neither is there one at 18 (the age of majority in Canada) or 21 (the age of majority in the US) and this transition to "manhood" or "womanhood" was not a complete faith that children would stop making mistakes, but it was an important threshold of respect. Fathers spoke to their sons "man to man" with respect that more than made up for the fact that these former boys now had to do a man's work and pay a man's due to society. Fathers stopped using the cane or the whip on boys when they became men, because after that if they digressed, they digressed against society and were punished by society. Teenagers at the time understood and agreed with this because they were being treated as adults in all areas, not just the ones detrimental to them.
For all of these reasons, it is hypocritical to allow life sentences to be handed down to anyone who is less than the age of majority and has less than the full privileges of adulthood.
***Please note that I am not against setencing for the perpetrators of violent crimes. I merely think it is hypocrisy to treat the same person as a child on one hand (or several hands, actually) but as an adult on the one hand that is detrimental to them. Personally, I think that if we want to choose a younger age at which children can be tried as adults, regardess of whether it is 16, 14, or another age, we must make that also the age at which it is legal to vote, purchase alcohol and tabacco, and have sex. This is not as unorthodox as it sounds. Many European countries have lower drinking ages than we do in North America (France does not have a minimum drinking age at all) and in the cultures there are far fewer problems with teenagers and alcohol. One of the reasons is that an action is not a "rebellion" if you are permitted openly to do it! (Although, of course, we may get rid of the problem of rebellion entirely if--gasp!--we actually started treating teenagers and children like people, instead of wild animals that need to be controlled).
Apologies for the long post.
Over and Out.
This is entirely ridiculous. Not because murderers should not be punished, but because it represents a terrible double standard that, for some reason, society totally buys into. It is nothing but ageism, plain and simple, to claim that teenagers (in this case, 14 years old and) up are so immature and incapable of forming rational decisions that they should not be allowed to vote, purchase alcohol or tabacco, or have sex at the age and with the person of their choosing, (to further illustrate Harper's hypocrisy, keep in mind that it was his government who upped the age of consent--the age at which it is legal for an individual to have sex with someone of his/her own age--from 14 to 16) but as soon as someone this age does something wrong, all of a sudden they are completely capable of a level of rational thought equivalent to an adult's, and should be punished accordingly. How does this even begin to make sense? Either a person is capable of making informed choices or they are not. They are not somehow incapable of rational judgement when it comes to privileges (society assumes that teenagers will not make rational judgements about alcohol, tabacco, or sex, which is why there exists laws to "protect" them from these things) but when it comes to punishment they are? If people of this age are truly not capable of a rational decision, then there should remain the laws that currently exist, ie: they should be protected from negative consequences of their own actions, including if those actions consist of committing a crime and the protection consists of refusing to put them on trial and sentence them as adults.
I am aware that one possible argument to my position could be phrased thusly: "Most teenagers are incapable of rational, adult thought, but in the cases where a person of this age has clearly thought out and planned a murder (or other violent crime) including provisions for not getting caught, that demonstrates that they are capable of adult thought and should therefore be punished like an adult."
The rebuttals to this argument are numerous. Firstly, a four year old can plan out that he wants to steal a cookie from the pantry, even though he knows it is wrong, and he can make plans for not getting caught, ie: he will tiptoe to the kitchen so his parents cannot hear him. This does not mean we put a four year old in jail for stealing! We give him a punishment appropriate to his age, which may involve a spank it the stealing of cookies is a regular occurance, or perhaps just a time-out and a talk about why stealing is wrong if it is merely a first or second offence. Although the children may be older and the crimes more serious, if we do decide that teenagers are to remain children in the eyes of the law, we must follow this pattern and deliver punishment appropriate to the age, which surely cannot be life in prison! Similarly, just because teenagers demonstrate considerable ingeunuity in procuring alcohol anyway, despite it being illegal for alcohol to be sold to them, we do not take this intelligent and well-thought out planning as evidence that they are capable of making their own decisions and therefore allow them to purchase drink!
Another rebuttal assumes the argument above regarding a child (remember, in the eyes of the law, the 14 year old in question is indeed a child) murderer as having demonstrated rational thought in the carrying out of his crime is valid. If we allow that certain crimes demonstrate the ability to think like an adult in their very execution, and therefore justify adult punishment, we must allow that there are, indeed, some teenagers capable of making rational, adult decisions. It is obviously not possible that every single teenager capable of making adult decisions is a criminal. Therefore, there are, in existence, (and I'm sure everyone has met at least one) children of 14 years of age or even younger, who are mature, responsible, intelligent, and model citizens. The kind of 14 year old that you feel confident in when they babysit your younger children, the kind of 14 year old who organizes a fundraiser at their school to raise money to build a homeless shelter. If we allow our laws to be changed to allow 14 year olds to be sentenced to life in prison, it is these very responsible 14 year olds that we are shortchanging, that we are discriminating against. Remember earlier, when we allowed that in order to justify punishing some teenagers as adults we had to admit that there were some teenagers capable of thinking like adults? Well, it would be sheer hypocrisy if we punished the teenagers who think like adults that do bad things, but did not reward the teenagers who think like adults who do good things, or otherwise behave as normal adult citizens. Those intelligent teenagers mentioned above, the bright ones who may have an interest in politics, should they not be allowed to vote if they are interested, just like any adult? If their peers can be tried as adults, should they not get the privileges of adulthood? It is obviously unfair for society to expect teenagers to act like adults when it comes to following the rules, and yet treat them still like children by witholding privileges.
It has been theorized that much of the "teen angst" (which is a very recent phenomenom, and occurs predominantly in North American culture) occures precisely because of our hypocritcal attitude towards people of this age group. It is the overwhelming frustration of having to follow adult rules while being denied adult privileges that leads to teenagers "rebelling" against adults and their (arbitrary-seeming: when am I an adult and when am I not?) rules at every oppoutunity. Many cultures used to consider a boy a man when he turned 13, capable of a man's work and making a man's decisions, (although, of course, as a "new" or "recent" or "young" man, he often still turned to his father or other men for advice) and a girl a woman at 12 or 13, expecting her to take on the duties of an adult (but also, importantly and crucially, giving them all the privileges adulthood entails.) In these cultures and times, teen angst did not exist. Obviously there is no magical transfer of knowlege that occurs at 13, but neither is there one at 18 (the age of majority in Canada) or 21 (the age of majority in the US) and this transition to "manhood" or "womanhood" was not a complete faith that children would stop making mistakes, but it was an important threshold of respect. Fathers spoke to their sons "man to man" with respect that more than made up for the fact that these former boys now had to do a man's work and pay a man's due to society. Fathers stopped using the cane or the whip on boys when they became men, because after that if they digressed, they digressed against society and were punished by society. Teenagers at the time understood and agreed with this because they were being treated as adults in all areas, not just the ones detrimental to them.
For all of these reasons, it is hypocritical to allow life sentences to be handed down to anyone who is less than the age of majority and has less than the full privileges of adulthood.
***Please note that I am not against setencing for the perpetrators of violent crimes. I merely think it is hypocrisy to treat the same person as a child on one hand (or several hands, actually) but as an adult on the one hand that is detrimental to them. Personally, I think that if we want to choose a younger age at which children can be tried as adults, regardess of whether it is 16, 14, or another age, we must make that also the age at which it is legal to vote, purchase alcohol and tabacco, and have sex. This is not as unorthodox as it sounds. Many European countries have lower drinking ages than we do in North America (France does not have a minimum drinking age at all) and in the cultures there are far fewer problems with teenagers and alcohol. One of the reasons is that an action is not a "rebellion" if you are permitted openly to do it! (Although, of course, we may get rid of the problem of rebellion entirely if--gasp!--we actually started treating teenagers and children like people, instead of wild animals that need to be controlled).
Apologies for the long post.
Over and Out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)