860 Forum Posts by "Love"
At 10/25/11 08:31 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:At 10/25/11 08:19 PM, Hybridization wrote: Yes, and yes, I would say it was wrong.That depends entirely on your belief system. Sex outside of marriage isn't objectively immoral.
I believe I made it clear that my statements were entirely subjective - and in no way demanded agreement.
Aside from the fact that it is biologically unhealthy to have multiple partners,Evidence?
I'm going to play the lazy card here and just say I'm taking a related course at the university. Feel free to rage/care at all.
In short - the spread of STD's.
the concept of marriage and love is called into question when you remove the aspect of fidelity and "physical/emotional/spiritual bond".I don't see how he's violated fidelity.
I never said he violated fidelity.
At 10/25/11 08:30 PM, Wagggs wrote:At 10/25/11 08:19 PM, Hybridization wrote: Yes, and yes, I would say it was wrong [...]I definitely get where you're coming from. As for the health issue, that's why I used a condom. Of course, nothing guarantees anything, but its good to significantly diminish the chances of such a problem, right?
Of course; I'm simply offering rule-of-thumbs.
the concept of marriage and love is called into question when you remove the aspect of fidelity and "physical/emotional/spiritual bond".I'll be honest, this statement is currently making me rethink my perception of marriage.
Please do.
So yes, I would say that what you did was wrong - but, I wouldn't call her innocent either.Would you call me a bad person for this act?
Haha, well I wouldn't call anyone a bad person or else I would call everyone a bad person.
I'm definitely old-fashioned and "uncool" for refusing to make sex a trivial matter. And I am constantly ridiculed for doing so.I don't see why. Your belief was the common belief for hundreds of years, it's not some outlandish belief with no backing. I can certainly understand your side of the coin.
It's probably because of the Christian undertones; but, thank you very much.
Coldplay definitely.
It was amazing.
At 10/25/11 07:58 PM, Wagggs wrote: So would you say that me getting into the situation was wrong in the first place? Obviously, not hooking up would have definitely prevented this situation as a whole, but would you say it is wrong?
Yes, and yes, I would say it was wrong. I'm not basing it strictly from the result (because everyone starts out as a virgin, obviously). It is immoral because it was outside of marriage - and the fact that you are apparently 16 makes this more prevalent. If she ends up with someone else, that person may develop some sort of health issue; or, you could have given her something that someone else had (assuming you weren't a virgin either). Aside from the fact that it is biologically unhealthy to have multiple partners, the concept of marriage and love is called into question when you remove the aspect of fidelity and "physical/emotional/spiritual bond".
So yes, I would say that what you did was wrong - but, I wouldn't call her innocent either. The fact of the matter is, though, "what's done is done". I'm definitely old-fashioned and "uncool" for refusing to make sex a trivial matter. And I am constantly ridiculed for doing so. But, it's instances such as these and the now ever-growing complexity of your (and many another teenager's) situation that keep me confident in my belief. The best you can do now is forgive yourself if you believe you have done something wrong.
As for taking care of the current issue (and the girl): it is entirely up to you. Just don't let your "smart" peers influence your physical and mental well-being - unless, of course, you consider sex/marriage to be a pointless joke (in which case, I've wasted about ten minutes giving you advice).
I hope this helps in some way.
WBC hardly believes what they say. They just want someone to assault them so they can sue. I believe most of the members are/were attorneys. I've heard of them "threatening to bring guns" to gatherings; but, since this alone is not a threat outside of the law, the event was shut down and WBC was immune to anything.
I, and about 500 other people, plan on picketing the funeral of every one of those bastards.
And...this is why we have wedding rings.
I'm not going to get into your situation specifically, because what I say will probably be ignored; but, I personally think sex is meant to be between a husband and wife as a secondary expression of love. I could care less about what you do with your life, but stories like this remind me how screwed up this generation is. Virginity was once the most precious trait and most valuable gift - and kids just throw it away for about 10 minutes of "pleasure".
Anyway, good luck - nothing really happened if she doesn't hold similar beliefs about virginity.
inb4stfu_Christian
I've heard some pretty hilarious Obama impressions.
inb4yourmom
At 10/25/11 07:06 PM, Shadowblade2584 wrote: Wow you guys, stop goddamn flaming.
A statement.
Halo sucks and so does Call of Doody : Crap Ops.
A contradiction.
Your logic...it just eats itself.
At 10/25/11 07:04 PM, JoeMation wrote: And I mean a source, not a website that could fabricate it themselves.
That leaves...zero websites.
Africa is a continent, you fucking middle-schooler.
So many details...and they are all nonexistent.
WBC is the epitome of trolling.
Probably has something to do with the sense of being "cool."
At 10/25/11 05:01 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Okay now you're just talking in circles now and trying to turn something around on me. I'm saying your arguments are crap, I have stated this.
I have made my points and you have made yours.
Haha, I'm not talking in circles at all. I've been completely consistent. You're the one saying my argument is crap, yet using my points to defend yours (which, by the way, have been completely void of anything objective).
Therefore I'm done with this thread.
Teehee. You used the word "therefore" then gave up because you know I'm right. Bye-bye, happy posting!
At 10/25/11 04:06 PM, Dent0n wrote: Yes it does take a lot of ammo to take down an enemy shield, that's why i dont choose the machine gun and i always try to assasinate them. It's more fun to assasinate an enemy and it saves ammo aswell.
Go for it, i've succeeded that way on legendary, a very usefull tactic.
I assassinate people every chance I get :), it's very satisfying - especially with the sword!
At 10/25/11 04:22 PM, f-izzle wrote: On a serious note, why do you make a thread saying you hate halo, only stating that it takes too long to kill someone.. Is that the only argument?
I have other issues, but this one is specific to the series as a whole (for the most part). My other problems such as certain maps spawns and vehicular BAMFy are more related to individual ones. But, I admit, I made this thread coming from Reach - so, I should probably narrow it down to just that instead of all Halo (although I had similar problems on H3).
It just seems like you don't like games where the opponent doesn't die in a second.
My advice: you should buy COD
Already have it :). Halo was actually my first multiplayer game, then I started to prefer CoD and Killzone after my 360 red-ringed.
At 10/25/11 02:45 PM, The-Great-One wrote:At 10/25/11 02:31 PM, Hybridization wrote:Okay, now I know you're shitting me. It certainly does not take half to a full clip to take down most of the enemies in that game.
Um, maybe you haven't played the series, but in anything post-H1 (especially Reach): elites in campaign (and brutes), as well as multiplayer characters will absorb nearly 2/3 of an AR's clip into their shields and will probably still be standing after the clip is emptied at medium range (excluding H2, of course). The BR or DMR take an average of 5-7 triggers to gain a kill in a good situation (excluding H3's situational 4-shot). And I don't even want to think about Covenant weapons.
Yeah some of the bigger ones do need more ammo or more of a powerful weapon sure, but that's video game logic, bigger enemy need bigger firepower.
Exactly. Bigger enemies need bigger weapons. The problem is, there are hardly any decent weapons out there - and when you come across one (like a sniper), you get about 1-2 reloads and you're done. If I want a boss-fight every 10 seconds, I'll play Ratchet and Clank not an FPS.
As far as multiplayer goes many people here will tell you that they have successful taken out people with the Assault Rifle and thus does not take much to truly take out.
Oh, I've gotten kills with it plenty of times. I'm just saying I hate the amount of time it takes (not to mention the range might as well be on par with the shotgun). Again, this is just a style of play, and I understand that.
Halo is hard for me because the style of play is different than Call of Duty and Killzone.Well then maybe its style of gameplay isn't for you then. That's fine,
Haven't I been saying that this whole time :)?
but don't go around making shit arguments. That is all you're doing.
Actually my arguments are apparently spot-on considering you agree with most of them enough to say the style is different (lol?).
It's fine to gripe about a game when it's either legitimate or people can see where you're coming from, but this is just baseless accusations that can't hold up.
Hmmm...How strange that some people in this thread agree with my statements. Maybe you should speak for yourself (even though that doesn't seem to be working out very much, logically).
By the way, I don't understand the purpose of the word "accusations"- very strange way of saying "arguments", which you probably meant.
At 10/25/11 01:57 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Sounds to me OP you're just being a whiny bitch.
I think we've already established that I am bitching about it - and I agree. Feel free to keep saying it, though, if that makes you happy.
I'm not gonna make bullshit statements.
You're saying my points are invalid; that it doesn't take half to a full clip to get a kill (especially in campaign)?
OP, all you're doing is saying "this game is hard so therefore it sucks."
Actually I'm saying, "This game is severely imbalanced compared to other sci-fi shooters, therefore I, personally, dislike it." I understand that about +130k people enjoy it at any given time - and that's fine. But, Im not speaking for anyone but myself.
Halo is hard for me because the style of play is different than Call of Duty and Killzone.
What is a philosopher?
Philosophically speaking.
At 10/25/11 01:48 PM, TailsPrower wrote: I'm assuming the transaction is private, otherwise fuck no.
This. Also, what about STD's?
At 10/25/11 10:45 AM, ScaryPicnic wrote: but that is not a legitimate reason, it just looks like you're bitching.
Damn right I'm bitching. Compared to any other FPS, Halo (Reach at least) has by far the strongest units given the weaponry. Explain to me how an Assault rifle, at point blank, can be completely emptied into your shields - and similar situations are not a legitimate reason to hate the gameplay. Even Ratchet&Clank has juggernaut enemies, but you are at least given decent weapons to combat them.
The only gun on Halo I use is the Sniper (and sometimes BR) - otherwise, I'm in vehicles.
At 10/25/11 11:09 AM, Grammer wrote: Is everyone like 12 in this thread?
Lol you're 18. You;re barely out of having a childhood.
At 10/25/11 10:14 AM, JoaoGabriel wrote: I want the old Cartoon Network back.
This. Also, Nickelodeon.
At 10/25/11 10:36 AM, dogpup4 wrote: You are actually a noob though.
I'm a noob at Reach. H1 had the perfect damage ratio, then it progressively got worse until an entire clip is needed to pierce shields.
It takes a few seconds to kill people because the armor has shields.
How is this fun?
Go back to Call of Duty.
Killzone actually :3
It takes an roughly hour to kill one person (multiplayer or campaign) with supposedly powerful and futuristic weapons. And anything Covenant-related is a waste of your time.
inb4you're_a_n00b
At 10/24/11 01:57 PM, tally1989 wrote: Why would they shut it down? They're 2 completely different companies.
This.
I agree. The show is unnecessarily stupid.
It's trying to be as witty as Flapjack, yet as randomly funny as Chowder.
At 10/25/11 09:38 AM, JaY11 wrote:At 10/25/11 09:20 AM, Hybridization wrote:Your logic....it just eats itself.No, it doesn't, but thanks for explaining your point in detail.
Yeah, your logic is a suicidal cannibal.
This was my last one :3
Irony at its finest.
You must feel stupid, huh? You and your hypothetical situation.
At 10/25/11 09:21 AM, Natick wrote:"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.""Let he that would move the world, first move himself."Socrates."The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
"Call no man unhappy until he is married."
