The Bitching Thread

[Ero-Fan]

That would be great, a whole country sued for sexual harassment! roflmao!

[Knives122]

Damn it!!!

My God-damn mom didn't pay the fucking internet bill so now I have to fucking wait till wednesday to have it fucking back (which fucking means that I can't watch any of the damn anime I usually watch).

this fucking sucks.

[Board of Command]

Buy a wireless network adapter and see if anyone in your neighborhood is leaking their connection [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Knives122]

yeah about that, I'm the "only" one in my neighborhood with a good internet connection.

[Death BOO Z]

I'm in the army.

*enter endless bitching*


it fuckin' sucks.


by the way, the moment that you hate school the most is when you realize that they (the teachers, the system, etc) were right and you were the idiot for not listenning.

[el_boss]

I feel your pain Death BOO Z. You just have to learn to turn of your brain and not care what anyone says to you. It's funny I almost have no memories from my military service, I just pretended all the time that it wasn't real. Like it was a game or something and it would be over soon. It will get a little easire when you find some friends to share your miserability with.

Now some of my own bitching. I fucking hate the military and all military related things as well. I mean, it's the worlds biggest unnecessary expence. With the money put in to military bullshit we could solve almost every problem we have on this planet. Starvation, shortage of water, pollution and poverty, all that shit could be remedied or at least become less.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: el_boss
Now some of my own bitching. I fucking hate the military and all military related things as well. I mean, it's the worlds biggest unnecessary expence. With the money put in to military bullshit we could solve almost every problem we have on this planet. Starvation, shortage of water, pollution and poverty, all that shit could be remedied or at least become less.

Thus, is the reason humanity is pathetic.

[ChaosK]

on a plus side, its been a while since we heard from DBZ.

and some bitching.

i hate how my suitemate's a fuckin idiot.

[Uchiha Barles]

Originally posted by: God#2

Originally posted by: el_boss
Now some of my own bitching. I fucking hate the military and all military related things as well. I mean, it's the worlds biggest unnecessary expence. With the money put in to military bullshit we could solve almost every problem we have on this planet. Starvation, shortage of water, pollution and poverty, all that shit could be remedied or at least become less.

Thus, is the reason humanity is pathetic.

You know, you guys are probably right. But hypothetically speaking, if we were to stop spending a huge amount of money to retain military supremacy, how long do you think others would allow us to, if we were so inclined, solve all these problems? I'll bet we'd be as close to defenseless prey as it gets. Yup, humanity is garbage.

[DB_Hunter]

Just playing devil's advocate here... but its because people have gone to war that you are sitting where you are now and can say in the comfort of your home how pathetic humanity is for fighting each other. Surely there is an irony there?

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Just playing devil's advocate here... but its because people have gone to war that you are sitting where you are now and can say in the comfort of your home how pathetic humanity is for fighting each other. Surely there is an irony there?

yes, it is ironic.Lol[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img] But it doesnt change the fact that Humanity HAS gone to war over and over again. As sime others have said, yes, it has helped advance in society, infact its one of the major roles for advance in society, but at this level in current modern day USA I dont think we need a war to advance in technology. Dell didnt release their new 30" Flat Panel LCD moniter because we went into Iraq. But what is pathetic is how pplz are controlled into wanting to go to war. And as I think it was el_boss who said it, if we didnt spend money on building a militaries (and not just militaries, but other things as well. ie: Mayor Bloomberg spent i think $80 million on advertising his campaign to be elected mayor when that money could have gone to some poor third world country and started an econemy there) we'd have alot of money to help eachother and others who are in need of the money. If we didnt have to spend 2 trillion dollars (i think it was that much) on the war in Iraq, we could have spent it on *insert large number here* third world countries and help those who are in poverty.

[Board of Command]

Fighting amongst ourselves is what makes us human. Don't call it pathetic. It's human nature to strive for supremacy and nothing will ever change that.

[Uchiha Barles]

Originally posted by: BOARD_of_command
Fighting amongst ourselves is what makes us human. Don't call it pathetic. It's human nature to strive for supremacy and nothing will ever change that.

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Just playing devil's advocate here... but its because people have gone to war that you are sitting where you are now and can say in the comfort of your home how pathetic humanity is for fighting each other. Surely there is an irony there?

Sure there's irony in that, plenty of it. All these wars are either direct or indirect causes causes all these comforts, or more accurately, advance in technology. That leads to people living longer, which of course increases the need for more wars to curb overpopulation. More wars fuel more advances in technology...so and so forth. But of course, with advances in technology comes more devasting ways of murdering each other. Seeing as we don't get any less ruthless as time passes, we're eventually going to wipe ourselves out.

Pathetic.

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: Uchiha Barles
Sure there's irony in that, plenty of it. All these wars are either direct or indirect causes causes all these comforts, or more accurately, advance in technology. That leads to people living longer, which of course increases the need for more wars to curb overpopulation. More wars fuel more advances in technology...so and so forth. But of course, with advances in technology comes more devasting ways of murdering each other. Seeing as we don't get any less ruthless as time passes, we're eventually going to wipe ourselves out.

Pathetic.

Human intellect is what allows us to be who we are. Wars is one of the effects of our striving for supremacy. Who said we'd wipe ourselves out? Supremacy is the ability to rule over others, so what's the point of killing all but yourself? War is not the downfall of mankind.

If humans are pathetic then surely everything you do is pathetic. Your post is pathetic, my post is pathetic. After all, these are all products of human intellect, no?

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: BOARD_of_command

Originally posted by: Uchiha Barles
Sure there's irony in that, plenty of it. All these wars are either direct or indirect causes causes all these comforts, or more accurately, advance in technology. That leads to people living longer, which of course increases the need for more wars to curb overpopulation. More wars fuel more advances in technology...so and so forth. But of course, with advances in technology comes more devasting ways of murdering each other. Seeing as we don't get any less ruthless as time passes, we're eventually going to wipe ourselves out.

Pathetic.

Human intellect is what allows us to be who we are. Wars is one of the effects of our striving for supremacy. Who said we'd wipe ourselves out? Supremacy is the ability to rule over others, so what's the point of killing all but yourself? War is not the downfall of mankind.

If humans are pathetic then surely everything you do is pathetic. Your post is pathetic, my post is pathetic. After all, these are all products of human intellect, no?

Your right, these posts are pathetic. But not EVERYTHING that humans do is pathetic. For one, there is art.

[DB_Hunter]

The fact is that people do actions, be it as individuals or as a collective nation, to ahcieve their interests. When a group of people unite in a manner that will fulfill their interests they will stop fighting each other and work with each other. If you look at the historical devlelopment of many nations, then you will see that at one point or another they were fighting each other (civil war type thing). Yet eventually the fighting stopped, when the people were all able to follow one way of living. This could either be by discussion or subjugation by force. These people now have thier interests defined by the set of ideas they believe in and hence they will move to fulfull their interests. Example, the US and the the USSR. The US was engulfed in a civil war at one point, but when it got over that it began to progress and became a major power. Similar things happened with the USSR.

When the interests of people diverge then you will see clashes. So in summary what I am getting at is that it is not humans per se that we should be condemning, we should be analysing their interests, ans see what gives them those interests. Example, the US believes in Capitalism and has worked to spread it around the world, or at the very least defend where it exists. The USSR when it was around did the same thing with communism. Both acted in accordance with their beliefs. It is these beliefs we should look at in every conflict.

[Uchiha Barles]

Originally posted by: BOARD_of_command

Human intellect is what allows us to be who we are. Wars is one of the effects of our striving for supremacy. Who said we'd wipe ourselves out? Supremacy is the ability to rule over others, so what's the point of killing all but yourself? War is not the downfall of mankind.

If humans are pathetic then surely everything you do is pathetic. Your post is pathetic, my post is pathetic. After all, these are all products of human intellect, no?

Yes and no. With the advent of nuclear weapons came the ability for humans to wipe themselves off of the face the earth. Not everyone fights for supremacy. In fact, I don't think the basic reason to fight is to rule over others. I think the basic reason to fight is to provide for oneself and ones interests when it must come at the expense of another. A second reason, which if you think about it is closely related to the first in several respects, is to free oneself from the oppression of another. Ruling over others is simply one method of this.

Let us combine these reasons with our current technological, and world-wide sociological/political standpoint. Take any two countries between which there is a severe gap in military technology and financial resources. You want to know how that gap can bridged, effective rendering null any advantage the richer country may have? You guessed it! Nuclear warheads and the capability of delivering them to enemy territories. Nuclear wepons and their delivery systems are cheap enough so as to be possesed by lot of countries who don't have anywhere near the military might and budget of first world nations. If any first world world country were to start interfering with the very basics of the interests of poorer countries with nuclear capabilities (these interests include resources to feed their people, and the maintenance of their autonomy), what do you think would happen?

Since you speak of human nature, lets use a smaller, more manageable hypothetical situation. If two persons were to get into a fight, which of the two persons do you think is more willing to take the fight furthur (relative to the other fighter)? In general, that would be the one that has the least to lose. So, lets try and put a measurement to this, as in describe the difference between what both fighters have to lose. The first fighter is well off financially, is happily engaged, has a child on the way that he's looking forward to raising. The second fighter is poor. He saw his wife and his two kids die in a robbery, one which he himself almost died in. Now, this is a fight to the death. The first fighter's family is there, so is the remainder of the poor fighter's family, say, his ailing and aging mother. Whichever fighter wins gets 200k. Both of them have hand grenades, the detonation of which would kill everyone in the arena, however the rules state that neither fighter is allowed to use them. If the poor fighter was to predict that he was going to lose, do you think that he'd be willing to detonate the grenade? Ok, lets add this final tidbit. What if the poorer fighter were to blame the richer fighter for his woes. Say the richer fighter was the robber. Would the poor fighter detonate it then?

As ridiculous as that situation seems, there are a lot of instances where this represents a scaled down version of the reality of international relationships. You say it is human nature to strive for supremacy? Then it is also human nature to gamble more when there is less to lose. It is human nature, given the ability, to do things in spite when the feeling of helplessness and bitterness overcomes. The factor that human nature plays in the actions of people does not disappear at the level of a nation's goverment. I am almost positive that one day, a country who has little to lose is going to launch a nuclear attack against another country who has far more to lose, over whatever conflict they may be having. I am also not optimistic about the ability of the world's nations to control themselves enough to not respond in kind, or take action that will cause furthur nuclear retaliation.

Simply put, I don't think humans as a whole have it in them to curb their "nature" even if it will result in their ultimate destruction. The higher intellect we supposedly have should be the means by which we are able to overcome that nature, but we are not. Instead, it is the means by which we overcome nature itself, and will result in us being the cause of our own destruction. Seriously, I don't see how this falls anything short of being absolutely pathetic.

[Board of Command]

Firstly, I don't believe anyone in the future is going to use nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are what keeps major powers from fighting each other. I can tell you with 100% certainly that USA and China will never fight each other as long as they both have nuclear weapons. Since the bombing of Japan, there has been no usage of nuclear weapons. That was the first time, and that is the last time. Launching a nuclear warhead isn't as easy as pressing a little red button. No matter how desperate a country is, they will simply not have the guts to say "Alright fuck the world, here goes nothing." Throughout history, swords have killed more people than all nuclear weapons added together. On a political level, nuclear weapons are what keeps the world stable. Just imagine what it would be like today if nobody had nuclear weapons.

Secondly, how can humans overcome human nature? It's not a choice, it's an impossibility. Humans are humans, it's not like there's a good nature and bad nature from which we can pick from. By curbing our own nature we cease to be human. Have you read 1984? or seen Equilibrium? Those are societies where human nature is nonexistent and war does not exist in the true sense of the word. Those are "perfect" societies. Humans are not pathetic for simply being human. If being human means we will eventually cause our own destruction, then so be it. In our measely 10000 years of existence on Earth, we've had a bigger impact on the world than any life form in the past 4 billion years. If being so unique a life form is what it means to be human, then I'm perfectly happy with it. I don't believe my ability as a human being to type this stuff is pathetic at all.

[darkmetal505]

well i wouldnt its impossible to overcome human nature. There are weirdos in every group. Human nature is not necessairly instinctive or innate, its just a general term.

[Uchiha Barles]

Well, I'll first explain what I meant by overcoming nature. I'm making a few assumptions. 1) humans are doomed, 2) they wouldn't be if they weren't so smart. Now the explanation. Without death, population of a species increases exponentially. The greater the size of the population in an area with limited resources, the greater the number of conflicts among members of the species on account of those limited resources. Usually, the fighting will cause death which decreases numbers. The fighting will also cause some to move to and seek out new territories containing relatively untapped resources, thus lowering the concentration of individuals competing for resources, and decreasing the number of conflicts. This is one of nature's ways of ensuring the survival of a species. As time goes by, this applies less and less to humans, because the population continually increases, the available, desireable, and habitable areas are for the most part well populated (thus you can't realistically spread out the species over larger areas). This is a result of technological advances that allow us better methods of locomotion and greater survivability rates, both of which are results of our intellect. So now, you have conflict, which should thin out numbers in a way so as to allow us to survive as a species. The problem is that, as a result of our intellect, and malice, we've developed weapons capable of destroying most humans on earth, and redering the others unable to reproduce. So conflict has the potential not just to thin out the human population, but to wipe it out, making that aspect of nature's providence null, or as I put it, defeated.

Secondly, like you said, nuclear weapons are what keeps major powers from fighting each other. But my point is still valid. The furthur away from a major power you are, the more willing you will be to use the weapons which bridge the gap between your powers, even if its dangerous to yourself, because the greater that gap, the more your enemy has to lose relative to you. But I really can't argue with you on this point. You seem to have more faith in humanity then I do.

Lastly, I have not read 1984, but I have seen equilibrium, and I've also read brave new world. Let me make this clear. I'm not suggest that human beings give up their free will, or even their nature for that matter. I would just like to see that they do not allow their "nature" to cause their ultimate demise. This should be doable without creating a world similar to those depicted in the stories you've mentioned. You say if that's the case, so be it. I say, pathetic. Yet you don't think that's the case, because you don't think people have "the guts". I don't think they have "the guts", I think they have "the hatred", "the spite", and "the desperation" enough to do that. If they feel they have nothing at all to lose, and feel like victims, I seriously doubt they'll give a damn about the survival of another who does not fall in the group of compromised interests that they are grieving.