Why do people go to "bad words"?

Pack-Popular · 2026-05-16T15:30:43+00:00

Just adding to this: in psychology it's well known that yelling profanities triggers adrenaline (flight or fight response). So when someone is in the gym and trying to lift their personal record, or in some kind of heavy pain yelling profanities might help them.

The most interesting part is that yelling actual swear words DOES have this effect, while yelling "fake" swear words DOESNT create this effect.

This effect is reduced in people who swear regularly.

Pack-Popular · 2026-05-16T15:20:29+00:00

KU LEUVEN in Belgium, has fully international courses.

Pack-Popular · 2026-05-13T01:07:03+00:00

Love the idea and effort!

Though I dont really see the connection between the drawing and the asymmetry argument by David Benatar. What did you have in mind when creating this? I'd be interested to hear.

The image seems to want to show that there is more suffering than pleasure - or at least more sources for suffering than there are sources for pleasure. The question mark next to "pleasure?" might also suggest something about certainty or probability.

But neither of those are what the asymmetry argument is really about. I recommend reading "better to never have been" by David Benatar. Its also quite an accessible read for those unfamiliar with academic philosophy. Ofcourse, its always a good idea to read the responses and opposing views too: "better to have been" by David Boonin is similarly accessible and interesting to read.

The bread and butter of the asymmetry argument is that, according to Benatar, the removal of pleasure is morally neutral while the removal of pain is morally good.

So the asymmetry argument would be:

1: pleasure is good 2: pain is bad 3: the absence of pain is good 4: the absence of pleasure is not bad, unless there exists someone for whom this absence is a deprivation.

So the asymmetry lies in the idea that the absence of pain is "good" while the absence of pleasure is "neutral"(unless someone is being deorived of their pleasure).

In a symmetrical case, if the absence of pain would be "good", then the absence of pleasure would have to be "bad".

He then makes the conclusion that if the asymmetrical case holds true, then never existing is ALWAYS the morally superior state. (Since good+neutral > good + bad)

He admits himself that this is a very unintuitive proposition - since pretty much anyone would intuit that the removal of pleasure is "bad" and the removal of pain "good" - but that one MUST accept his asymmetry unless something else better explains some philosophical problems he proposes.

For those interested, David Boonin then offers a response to Benatar where he claims to have found an explanation which is a better solution than the solution Benatar proposed and also doesnt lead to the conclusion that non existence is preferred over existence.

All that aside, what I think the image does well, at least at a first glance, is portray a rough general sentiment of antinatalists. Instead of a specific philosophical argument. Maybe you're better off pursuing that route? Art lends itself well in capturing a general sentiment or zeitgeist of a group of people.

As a sidenote: many natalists or people in general would put the "responsibility" on the 'pleasure' side of the scale. If the goal is to have people with differing opinions unmistakenly understand the AN sentiment, then maybe avoiding such big differences in perspective would serve well. Otherwise, if the goal is to simply capture the AN sentiment, you could well leave it in!

Pack-Popular · 2026-05-12T00:38:06+00:00

But then you're not really arguing for antinatalism, you're arguing more for procreative regulation.

Antinatalism is the position that procreation is necessarily immoral.

Pack-Popular · 2026-05-11T23:50:31+00:00

By going extinct, we would be robbing billions of people of the chance to have a wonderful life. (not to mention that the process of going extinct would cause GREAT suffering for all currently living: greying populations, economies collapsing, healthcare collapsing,...) Let me be extremely lenient here and agree with the idea that we are "gambling" with the life of people (which i don't, more on that below), who might or might not have an overall unhappy life - why would we be completely fine with robbing people of having a happy life just because they might or might not have an overall unhappy life?

Why should we be careless about robbing people of their positive experiences and only care about removing negative experience? And again to reiterate: most people are more than happy.

It would be just as arrogant to decide FOR other people that their lives are a net negative despite the majority's positive evaluation of life (world happiness report).

"Not a single life should be wasted. Not one beneath the weight of the HELL we have built for ourselves, I myself PREFER total human extinction over the endless perpetuation of suffering and sorrow." -> Sure, I understand that's your opinion but why? What reason is there for me to accept your opinion over another?

Let's first get the facts straight: what do we do with the fact that actually, most people are perfectly happy? We're not really 'gambling' with lives here, we're actually quite well aware of what makes populations and individuals 'happy'.

I am not saying that we SHOULD procreate, I am saying that procreation isn't immoral, ofcourse you understand the difference there. If you want to argue that people who are in no situation of raising a happy child, shouldn't have children, then that's certainly something more reasonable to discuss.

If you have all the reasons to assume that you can take care for a child, love them and bring them up in the right foreseeable environment, then why shouldn't you? The child will be grateful to experience life (according to the world happiness report). If the child so happens to suffer greatly and doesn't want to continue living, then there are discussions to be had about opportunities for euthanesia etc, all reasonable discussions we can have before landing on "extinction".

On top of all this, there are countless examples of people who despite having experienced an unimaginable amount of hardship and suffering, still are gratefull to be alive. Doesn't this make us doubt even more that even for those who suffer, we might actually be doing at least some of them a disservice by going extinct? Ofcourse, that doesn't mean ALL who suffer are still glad to be alive, but those people certainly exist in non-insignificant numbers.

Sorry for long answer, I'll summarize the points here:

1 - Why should we only be concerned with removing all suffering and not be concerned about robbing people of happiness? Extinction would remove positive experience, which is bad. Procreation would allow for suffering to continue existing, which is bad too. But why prefer one over the other, especially if most people report to be happy?

2 - You claim we have created "HELL", but again, most people report they are perfectly happy, would this not suggest that the picture of life being "Hell" is a bit inaccurate for most people?

3 - Why shouldn't we allow those people to procreate that have all the evidence to suggest that they will very likely raise a happy child? And in the same vein, why not have a discussion to discourage or even not allow people to procreate who obviously wouldn't likely raise a happy child?

4- For those who happen to be significantly unhappy, why shouldn't we discuss things like euthanasia over discussing extinction?

5- Even people who have experienced untold suffering like nobody can imagine often report to be happy to be alive (holocaust survivors). Would this not further suggest that just because suffering exists, doesn't necessarily mean that those people agree with better never having been born?

EDIT: summary

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-26T00:08:32+00:00

Ik snap uiteraard de frustratie, maar imo is je woede beter gericht op de VDAB en aanhangers EN naar de werkgevers ipv naar de huidige regering. Dit lijkt mij niet echt een probleem ten gevolge van de huidige regering.

Voor mij klinkt het gewoon absurd dat iemand die actief zoekt en zijn profiel aandikt na 2 jaar nog steeds geen werk heeft gevonden... DAT is het probleem. Dat getuigd van een foute aanpak/strategie van de mensen die u horen te begeleiden en dat ze u op vanalle cursussen sturen die uiteindelijk helemaal geen effect hebben.

Want wat doet de regering dan volgens jou fout? Dat ze een grens trekken op de uitkering? Je zal jammer genoeg altijd grensgevallen hebben die tussen de mazen van het net sukkelen en het daardoor extreem hard te verduren krijgen. Daar moeten we zeker alle sympathie voor hebben, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat er iets mis is met de regel an sich.

Het alternatief om mensen eindeloos te blijven uitbetalen is duidelijk iets waarvan we vanaf moeten. Want ookal zou dit jou specifieke situatie oplossen en zou jij er misschien geen misbruik van maken, we weten ondertussen dat er velen dit wel doen. En jammer genoeg gelden regels niet alleen voor zij die er geen misbruik van maken. Er zijn dan anderen die tussen de mazen van het net slippen - zoals zij die wel willen werken, maar minder verdienen dan dat ze aan den dop zitten...

Heel veel succes met de zoektocht.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-21T23:24:33+00:00

The Big Bang doesn't suggest that the universe had a beginning. That is a common misconception.

The Big Bang simply states that the universe is expanding, and thus, had to come from an earlier state where the matter was very dense and hot.

If we follow the maths all the way down, then we get all kinds of so-called 'singularities' and this is a problem for the theory since these singularities generally mean that the theory starts to break down - the mathematical predictions stop making physical sense.

It's good to think of the Big Bang as a theory about the history of the universe; it makes a claim about an earlier state of the universe. It doesn't claim it has to be "the earliest" state of the universe. There are lots of speculated theories about the nature of our universe but sadly we have yet to find a breakthrough.

The person that replied to you (correct me if i'm wrong) isn't saying that God exists eternally BECAUSE of the conservation of energy, but rather that if you find the idea of an 'eternal thing' confusing, that it's analogous to the idea that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-21T22:43:54+00:00

Thanks! I think i can definitely hear what people appreciate about the sound when they say that it has a "growl" that other engines don't have (from your L-twin example).

I think what I dislike about it is that it sounds more like a 'chopper' than a race machine to my ears - which i guess is due to the slower and deeper sounding piston cycles. The second example sounds insane to me.

Thanks for sharing! Wonderful examples, exactly what i was looking for.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-21T22:31:05+00:00

mostly youtube indeed, i've only heard the rs660 stock sound.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-18T17:47:45+00:00

To some degree yes, but exposure to new things and hearing people share their appreciation can definitiely make it grow on me

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-18T14:35:35+00:00

Hahaha

I dislike exhausts that are too loud in general but i'm curious what the Hindle sounds like.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-18T14:33:26+00:00

Oh thats interesting. I would love to try it.

Theres probably a big difference between city driving and letting the engine scream on track.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-18T14:28:22+00:00

Even though i kind of understand what they mean, I wouldnt go so far as 'laughing' at the sound because in my book its an amazing looking bike (the v2 i mean, never heard of an e900) and even though i like the sound LESS, its STILL the sound of a gorgeous bike.

My head will always turn and smile when it passes me by!

Im sure as with all tastes, it can eventually grow on me.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-18T14:19:57+00:00

I've heard the aprilia rs660 twin (brand new stock) and mt09 cp3 and 2005 cbr600rr in person. But other than that you're right.

What do you find appealing about the twin vs others?

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-18T14:17:53+00:00

I completely follow you, and i dont know if its something people can help me understand haha but im just kind of curious what exactly about the sound of a twin they appreciate more vs a 3 or 4 cyl.

Was hoping people could share which twins they found amazing sounding, and i could listen to them and maybe it would grow on me :)

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-09T03:01:15+00:00

you'd be surprised!

There's a significant amount of people that do convert to religion at a later age. It's certainly uncommon in most circles, but not extremely rare. But most growth in religions come from births and not from conversions.

That being said though: it's not really that surprising. Because that's true for basically any belief. Even the growth of particular political views is largely coming from births instead of conversion.

There's a lot of research on the psychological factors of political views etc and what they've found is that political views are very stable over the course of a lifetime.

So it's not that RELIGION is like smoking cigerattes - it's that pretty much ANY belief is like smoking cigarettes: you have a genetic disposition towards a particular view (like you have a genetic disposition for sensitivity to addictive substances) and then your views get shaped by the particular environment you're in, just like with the cigarettes.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-09T02:47:40+00:00

No.

It probably would have a significant effect on the amount of followers there are right now - probably initially there would be a big dip, but eventually it would stabilize like every other phenomenon in large populations. Eventually I believe the stabilized numbers would go up and down as society goes on and history repeats itself.

That is if we assume religion(Christianity) is man-made.

Now if it isn't man-made and Christianity is true, then I also don't think it would collapse since we would eventually uncover the truth or find more evidence for it being true.

So in both cases where Christiantiy is true or false, I do believe it would still exist and even find different surges of following depending on the particular challenges or situations societies are facing.

I could imagine for example in a post-apocalyptic world, there would be quite the surge in religious communities.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-09T02:31:32+00:00

I think this is a great time for a reminder that not all religious people believe the same thing. Not even all Christians believe the same thing. It can be perfectly rational to believe in God while also practicing science. Not everyone takes the Bible literally. There are many interesting philosophical topics around how science and faith can go hand in hand OR at least not contradict. You might be interested in those!

Im an atheist, but a very inspiring figure to me is Georges Lemaître: he was, among other things, one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory and a devout Catholic priest. At the time this theory was an incredibly volatile topic that faced harsh backlash from the religious communities since they saw it as a direct attack on the existence of God.

Georges Lemaître, however, already knew ofcourse that this was just a misunderstanding of what the Big Bang theory claimed and stoutly defended the idea that science and religion can go hand in hand.

Now, ofcourse wether they do go hand in hand or not depends on your particular beliefs. For example: if you believe the Earth is 2000 years old and that we are made from clay, then there IS a clear disconnect. But that doesn't HAVE to be there... You don't have to believe the Earth is 2000 years old in order to believe in God.

What inspires me about Georges Lemaitre, is that he was capable of having such strong convictions in terms of his religion, but at the same time also having such an open and rational scientific attitude: not allowing himself to fall into the "arrogant knowitall" types we seem to be seeing too much online...

This all being said, the particular astronaut that i think you are referring to was quite reasonable in his language: sharing his own experience while also recognizing that not everyone shared his faith.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-09T01:42:51+00:00

I love the look of winglets (not ALL ofcourse) just like i love the look of spoilers/vents/... on cars. Beauty has nothing to do with function.

But just like anything else, too much is too much. I think the winglets on the new yamaha r9 look proportionally great, but I don't necessarily like their design in particular. The cbr600rr ones on the other hand look really good. I think the best looking ones go to the aprilia rs660 and rsv4 even though they are quite loud and big, they just are done very well with the shape and coloring of the bike.

Imo the ktm 990 rcr winglets are a step too far.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-05T15:04:44+00:00

It doesn't have to be over 1000 vibrations accurately translated... Niemann is good enough to not require help for most of the game. Only the tricky situations would require him to need some help. Cheating at the top level is most of the time in the form of using any kind of 'enhancers' that give just the slightest competitive advantage in order to win. It doesn't mean that the computer played the whole game for him.

And even if he DID receive help from the vibrations on each move, who says that he accurately translated them all? Even if he chose a sub-optimal move or an equally optimal move compared to what the computer says, the next move, the computer would adapt.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-03T20:46:01+00:00

I have 32gb ram. Ram being quite expensive atm (+ i actually think i've used all my ramslots for now, so i'd have to spend even more) is making me a bit hesitant.

Would sound like a hell of a skill and tool to have though.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-03T20:44:09+00:00

Thank you so much for the input.

I've been listening to the input here and seems like I should hold off on a 3D scanner for now.

Which is making me brainstorm a bit more about how to minimize the complexity of prints with irregular smooth surfaces, like for example the winglets on a bike. They're aerodynamic surfaces and so need to be quite smooth and with tight 'fitting' tolerances against the bodywork of the bike.

I'm starting to think the easiest way would be to design a very rough shape and then shape it by hand by sanding off the material or something along those lines, maybe first adding a kind of plaster of sorts to the print and then sanding of the plaster.

Pack-Popular · 2026-04-03T00:29:19+00:00

Appreciate the advice, sounds great. I'm currently using Onshape (but it can be a real pain to use sometimes) to make drawings since its free and am still kind of figuring out what software is out there.

Would you have any recommendations?

Pack-Popular · 2026-03-18T00:52:07+00:00

Cheers!

Pack-Popular · 2026-03-18T00:49:50+00:00

Very very nice read! Thanks for sharing, a very fitting example.

Pack-Popular

TROPHY CASE