what? what? WHAT? HELLO? what? WHAT? what? HELLO? what? what? WHAT? HELLO? what? WHAT? what? HELLO? what? what? WHAT? HELLO? what? WHAT? what? HELLO? what? what? WHAT? HELLO? what? WHAT? what? HELLO? what? what? WHAT? HELLO? what? WHAT? what? HELLO? shut up
cant hear these peasants (AND shrimps!) while im standing on the shoulders of giants! quite pathetic tbh look guys it's a leaked pic of salty! as i expected -- shrimp! no meat on his bones either! SAD! would any of you heathens care to further oppose your master!?
Whose the Reach kid? Man this halo 3 kid is out of the loop. I didn’t think there was anyone here older than Halo 4 except me and Salty
Thanks for taking the time to clarify - thing is, like you said, romantic love and sex are not necessarily bedfellows. The problem is that [romantic love and sex implying each other] is what’s advocated in the current age of homosexual relations; you are what you get a boner at, you love what gives you a boner. To that end, children are taught a completely sanitized and incorrect version of not only how attraction works, but of how sexual relationships of any nature can and often do end up working. So, with regards to your point about homosexuality and exposure, and whether or not that’s entirely true - I already stated that there are of course those who can, without any direct experience of it, decide that they are going to pursue sexual relations with a member of the same sex. But exposure to it, implicit, explicit, and most importantly reinforcement of it and its ancillaries, does a LOT to further that and entrench the physical reward structures in the mind. I’ll never forget, I was doing a spot of mental reorganization after my last relationship fell apart - I had the opportunity to discuss these kinds of things with a gay man, who confirmed to me that he struggled with his identity not because he wasn’t talented at his work, or because he’d been told he was worthless by others, but because he knew his parents wouldn’t want him to be gay. So for some reason he focused on that one thing so much, and it became a reality for him. Given the freedom, and without any cognitive structure to offer an alternative, he sucked himself into that world. That’s part of why I’ve come to my conclusions. It doesn’t matter where that reinforcement comes from. Guitarists and other musicians often do something called ‘shedding’ - it’s the exact same thing. You think about a line or a solo so intently and frequently outside of actual play that you develop the capacity to play that line when you sit down at the instrument. Of course it’s based on a strong foundation of musical ability already, which is very important. The thing about sex is that everyone already has that basic foundation. It’s built in physiologically. And our emotions, if taken at face value without consideration for their nature or origin within the psyche, are awful guides for long-term success, let alone survival - we are higher apes, we have a conceptual consciousness, and we have the ability to deal with vast amounts of abstractions in a relatively short period of time, if we allow ourselves to. That's where productivity comes in, in my view. At base, Heterosexual relations have the potential to fulfil a necessary biological function in the furthering of the species. The pleasure tied to it offers a cognitively and behaviorally self-reinforcing reward to the person engaged in the activity. Your central nervous system is wired to provide these shots of energy and purpose chemically. This is the most basic function of your nervous system and brain. It can't tell you whether or not what you're getting the reward from is good for you or not - nor can it tell if it leads to potential offspring. At base, successful heterosexual relations are productive and fulfil the purpose our reward systems are evolved to carry out. And homosexuality is not. You might be able to have a productive relationship with another person and be gay, but you'll never fulfill that biological teamwork - at best, homosexuality is a 'life hack'. So is promiscuous sexuality, of any kind. But that has more to do with the kinds of relationships that responsible and self-aware people can have in a conceptual society. Homosexuality and other sexual preferences are, again, of course real - but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily something that ought to be acted on or promoted. Identity derived from sexual gratification is antithetical to that. It is self-indulgent and shallow. It allows for no growth save through further indulgence in more extreme sub-related fetishes and specializations in the sexual realm. But because identity is such an important part of implicit self-esteem in a person's life, questioning its origin is rightly experienced as erasure from existence, especially if it is an identity that is as well-entrenched as a sexual/gender identity in the modern age of Gender Performance and ***** Theory, brought on by the rise of 'dialogic' and linguistic philosophy. And the use of 'Homophobia' to scare people who question that - especially those whose belief structure largely underpins the freedoms that are used as justifications for such acceptance and promotion - into accepting it with the threat of "removal from the dialogue of democracy (read: existence)" is not only hypocritical, but also a bunk concept as far as proper inquiry and progress is concerned. We don't let small children look at porn, nor do we let them drive cars in traffic. This entire system also relies on a complete release of the human mind with regards to controlling the urge to pursue nutt, which is at the foundation of all the technological progress of the last 5 centuries. Don't take that to mean that I am saying that sex is only good if it furthers society - but that's not the case. Sex is good for the individuals involved at a profoundly personal level, especially if considered in the proper context of that person's proper flourishing through self-growth and productive activity. And unfortunately, it is exceedingly rare that homosexuality is a prerequisite for the flourishing of Mankind at the individual level - it is even rarer that it is a companion of personal self-worth, save in the context of identity, validation, and performance. This context has no standards, except that you are good for doing whatever it is you do. A big name, a well-known work of art, or mere existence is not the standard of personal virtue. And neither is 'society'. Ultimately an egalitarian/utilitarian approach like this on any front - be it spiritual, monetary, or alimentary - fails, because it requires those who build their identity with productive activity and the careful tending of their own self esteem to sacrifice it to those who do not, and who are not expected to. With that in mind, I don't even think that’s what you were saying. Your view is not just that the needs of society (who and what comprise it?) ought to be the primary beneficiary of any decision each individual makes for them to be considered moral. In this vein, the society does not judge actively, only passively, in the sense that its survival is the standard of what is good, and therefore what is ‘true’. Instead, you state that it is your personal judgement about your close personal relationships that define what benefits society should receive, and what shape it should take. In that sense, you're expressing that it is the individuals who make up a society that are the arbiter of what is good for that society. From what perspective? A legalistic one? A biological one? A financial one? A romantic one? A philosophical one? Because if it is only for that society, then it cannot be a universal principle, unless it's brought back down to the individual's conscious control of his own life. @HeX Reapers is your mic on? Can't hear you bro
I hope this is a joke. Id bet most people here started with Reach. Anyone that was unfortunate enough to start with 4 probably gave up on Halo all together.
Even though I started on 3 I'm definitely a Reach kid at heart. I really don't get why people judge others who started with a newer title. I guaran-****ing-tee I can smash any H3 kid on this forum's ****ing teeth in at the game. Do I want to? No, H3's MP is ass lol.
All of you are Reach kids haha eat my booty like the rappers say haha I hope that I'm not too late to the party haha
Talking about Reach kids, I'm playing Reach again with a buddy. It's just so much fun and I want to complete those 200k kills. First match played and I receive a message. dO You wAnT tO JOin MY miLitAry SParTaN cLAn? miC iS ReQUirEd yOu HaVe To bE OvER 16 yEArs OLd
Woah, take it easy there big guy. Wasn’t judging anyone, settle down you masculine halo ass whooping beast you.
Used to be the last active mythic now I'm probably the only active promethean, I dont know why they went with promethean I would have gone with forerunner personally or Marathon Runner Haha maybe change senior member to ancient member for me at this point @WARHOLIC, also to war thanks for keeping this site up and running it is greatly appreciated.
Are you minds ready for this????????????????????????????????????????????????? East bound and down, loaded up and truckin