Merging etiquette
Poll
 | 14 votes (36.84%) | ||
| | 20 votes (52.63%) | ||
| | 4 votes (10.52%) |
38 members have voted
September 12th, 2010 at 9:25:53 PM
permalink
We Americans have faced this situation hundreds of times. You're driving along and see signs that indicate road construction is ahead and to merge into fewer lanes. The road crews are good about warning you in advance. Usually you know this is going to happen well before the bottleneck starts.
Then what usually happens is most drivers will merge over into the appropriate lane as soon as they see signs indicating they will eventually have to merge, if they are not in that lane to begin with. Next, a line will start to form in the open lane. Meanwhile, a minority of drivers will zip past this line until orange cones force the merge.
Where tempers run high is at the merge point. Those who merged early get upset at other drivers who seemingly try to cut in line. Let's call them "angry early mergers." Many will drive six inches from the car ahead and absolutely refuse to let late mergers cut in. Others let the later mergers cut in, let's call them "enablers." I think the late mergers would argue that they shouldn't be vilified for choosing the shorter line. Or are they just being selfish?
The question for the survey is, what kind of driver are you?
Then what usually happens is most drivers will merge over into the appropriate lane as soon as they see signs indicating they will eventually have to merge, if they are not in that lane to begin with. Next, a line will start to form in the open lane. Meanwhile, a minority of drivers will zip past this line until orange cones force the merge.
Where tempers run high is at the merge point. Those who merged early get upset at other drivers who seemingly try to cut in line. Let's call them "angry early mergers." Many will drive six inches from the car ahead and absolutely refuse to let late mergers cut in. Others let the later mergers cut in, let's call them "enablers." I think the late mergers would argue that they shouldn't be vilified for choosing the shorter line. Or are they just being selfish?
The question for the survey is, what kind of driver are you?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 12th, 2010 at 9:51:53 PM
permalink
Finally! A subject that I am an expert in! As a professional driver with over 890,000 miles in a truck, there is perhaps nothing that irritates me nore than the in-a-hurry, self-important, late merger!
All this does is severly impede the already slow moving traffic. Americans do not seem to understand the 'zipper' concept when merging. Occasionally, we will station.a truck in the closing lane to stop cars from trying to cut ahead, and then ther merge flows more smoothly.
Mike, there really isn't a shorter line, because that selfish action is what causes longer delays.
And on a related note, is there a single car driver who realizes that you do not have the right of way when merging onto the freeway from an on ramp?
All this does is severly impede the already slow moving traffic. Americans do not seem to understand the 'zipper' concept when merging. Occasionally, we will station.a truck in the closing lane to stop cars from trying to cut ahead, and then ther merge flows more smoothly.
Mike, there really isn't a shorter line, because that selfish action is what causes longer delays.
And on a related note, is there a single car driver who realizes that you do not have the right of way when merging onto the freeway from an on ramp?
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes." ~ William Gibson
September 12th, 2010 at 10:20:49 PM
permalink
I have several reasons for loathing the late mergers: one, they are social deviants, in the sense of the society of all drivers in that place in that situation. Everyone can see the pending merge--they know that a lane will soon be deleted. The most harmonious solution is for everyone to merge into the remaining lane(s) as soon as possible. Those who speed ahead and then cut in at the last possible moment are taking advantage of those who merged as soon as they saw the necessity. Two, such behavior causes accidents and slows down the entire merging process, and for no real gain to the cheater to boot. Three, when a driver engages in such "me first" behavior, he's liable to engage in similar behavior in the future. This raises both the accident rate and the stress level of other motorists.
So I also accord the rectal cattle prod to "enablers". Socially deviant behavior should NOT be tolerated. When we finally annex Canada, I will advocate for turning Baffin Island into a penal colony to where all such people (the deviants, not the enablers; we'll settle for sending the latter to, say, North Dakota) will be permanently deported, and it will be renamed "Asshole Island".
The situation described by the OP is yet another reason why when you buy a new car, you should spring for the optional forward-firing gatling gun.
So I also accord the rectal cattle prod to "enablers". Socially deviant behavior should NOT be tolerated. When we finally annex Canada, I will advocate for turning Baffin Island into a penal colony to where all such people (the deviants, not the enablers; we'll settle for sending the latter to, say, North Dakota) will be permanently deported, and it will be renamed "Asshole Island".
The situation described by the OP is yet another reason why when you buy a new car, you should spring for the optional forward-firing gatling gun.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
September 13th, 2010 at 3:50:12 AM
permalink
Most people's driving is a reflection of their personality, training and habits. Sure some may be in states such as California that make it illegal to pass a car after the merge sign, so all those cars that go speeding up the soon to be blocked lane and then cut in are indeed violating the law as well as common courtesy, but in general those in life who "get theirs" and let others be courteous or polite or weak or whatever you want to call it do come out ahead. Aggressive drivers get to their destinations sooner and in a finer frame of mind than if they were to have undergone a series of losses such as to have meekly allowed others to get ahead of them. Its the winning that is important, not the few moments or few feet of pavement. Chumps meekly merge for the common good of traffic flow but only fools ever care about the common good.Quote: WizardThe question for the survey is, what kind of driver are you?
September 13th, 2010 at 3:57:41 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardWe Americans have faced this situation hundreds of times. You're driving along and see signs that indicate road construction is ahead and to merge into fewer lanes. The road crews are good about warning you in advance. Usually you know this is going to happen well before the bottleneck starts.
Then what usually happens is most drivers will merge over into the appropriate lane as soon as they see signs indicating they will eventually have to merge, if they are not in that lane to begin with. Next, a line will start to form in the open lane. Meanwhile, a minority of drivers will zip past this line until orange cones force the merge.
Where tempers run high is at the merge point. Those who merged early get upset at other drivers who seemingly try to cut in line. Let's call them "angry early mergers." Many will drive six inches from the car ahead and absolutely refuse to let late mergers cut in. Others let the later mergers cut in, let's call them "enablers." I think the late mergers would argue that they shouldn't be vilified for choosing the shorter line. Or are they just being selfish?
The question for the survey is, what kind of driver are you?
Here in PA there are signs reading "USE BOTH LANES UNTIL MERGE POINT" and "MERGE HERE -- TAKE YOUR TURN." All merging warly does is remove a lane of traffic and back things up even further. If people would act like adults and realize one car taking their turn in front of them is not going to make them late things go much smoother.
Heck, there are even "YIELD" signs here where people take turns despite the law requiring the yielding driver to yield the right of way (see my entry under Western PA Driving Thread.) BTW: You never "have the right of way" you can only be required to "yield the right of way" at least in PA.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 13th, 2010 at 4:09:59 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanHere in PA there are signs reading "USE BOTH LANES UNTIL MERGE POINT" and "MERGE HERE -- TAKE YOUR TURN."
I had trouble picking a category but finally picked "late merger", but it depends. I am *not* the jerk who shoots ahead when it was single file and all of a sudden you can pull out and try to get a better place in line. But to "USE BOTH LANES UNTIL MERGE POINT" is actually often the best policy, there is usually no need to merge early. A lot of that early merge anger comes from the driver realizing he had too much anxiety about getting stuck in the merge area, with nobody letting them in, so they hate the drivers who don't worry about that.
In some instances this "getting stuck" thing can happen, that's why I say "it depends." You need to be able to spot those.
What is really sweet is when the merge point is reached, we late mergers often find it is a piece of cake because at that point drivers are accelerating, opening up big gaps whether they want to let others in or not.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
September 13th, 2010 at 4:11:30 AM
permalink
A similiar situation is a traffic light where the road has two lanes that are not designated for "LEFT ONLY" or "RIGHT ONLY" turns, but they magically merge into one lane after the light. Several cars have been patiently waiting in the right lane, and someone decides that's too long, so they go in the left lane and become in the first row. The light turns green and that person is now in front of all of the cars that had been waiting.
Which is where I bring math into the mix. Given that you have two lanes at an intersection, what percentages of traffic turning left, turning right, or going straight warrant the lanes being marked "RIGHT ONLY", or "LEFT ONLY". Sometimes I swear engineers don't do enough testing on this. There was an intersection in my town that had the left turn into a very short dead end, and the right turn was access to a major highway. About 40% of traffic went right, 59.9% went straight, and .1% went left. But they made the left turn the ONLY lane. If they allowed the right turn to be the ONLY lane, people could turn on red without having to wait for the cars going straight. Rarely would the cars going straight have the inconvenience of waiting for the person making a left. Obviously a car turning left is greater inconvenience, because it can stop traffic at a GREEN too, so that's why usually you'd want that as the dedicated lane. But when the left turn is rare, then the RIGHT turn suffers as a result of sharing with the cars going straight, since they can't go on red.
Do you think that perhaps I've spent the equivalent of days waiting at traffic lights in my lifetime, and had just a little too much time to think?
Which is where I bring math into the mix. Given that you have two lanes at an intersection, what percentages of traffic turning left, turning right, or going straight warrant the lanes being marked "RIGHT ONLY", or "LEFT ONLY". Sometimes I swear engineers don't do enough testing on this. There was an intersection in my town that had the left turn into a very short dead end, and the right turn was access to a major highway. About 40% of traffic went right, 59.9% went straight, and .1% went left. But they made the left turn the ONLY lane. If they allowed the right turn to be the ONLY lane, people could turn on red without having to wait for the cars going straight. Rarely would the cars going straight have the inconvenience of waiting for the person making a left. Obviously a car turning left is greater inconvenience, because it can stop traffic at a GREEN too, so that's why usually you'd want that as the dedicated lane. But when the left turn is rare, then the RIGHT turn suffers as a result of sharing with the cars going straight, since they can't go on red.
Do you think that perhaps I've spent the equivalent of days waiting at traffic lights in my lifetime, and had just a little too much time to think?
September 13th, 2010 at 4:58:25 AM
permalink
I am the "late merger" and proud of it :)
To answer some of the comments in this thread ...
- "Stationing a truck in the other lane" is not only dangerous and unlawful (obstructing traffic), but it is also an illusion that it makes the other lane move faster. The drivers traveling in that lane will have to merge anyway, only do it more abruptly. To see why it is dangerous, consider that it is obviously equivalent to simply closing the lane earlier, and without any warning.
- I am usually not that avert to "early merging" when I am driving in other countries - like Mexico or Europe. But here in the US, most people seem too scared to be on the road on one hand, and too distracted on the other. It's not their fault, I think, they are trained this way. I heard a driving instructor once telling his student, that he had to count to three after the car in front of him moves before he can begin moving. And I see most people doing just that on the road all the time. If there are 200 cars stuck in a lane, that's ten minutes delay right there. I simply refuse to be stuck behind these people. And also, nowhere but here have I seen so many idiots, that feel that they just MUST stop and take a look at the cause of the obstruction when passing it.
Edit to add the excellent point rdw4potus just mentioned below, that I forgot to state explicitly - merging as late as possible is, of course the right thing to do because that's the most efficient use of the available road space. If you should get angry at somebody, that's not the "late mergers", but those who get agitated enough to go out of their way to obstruct the open lane in order to force people into one slow line (I get a feeling, those are the same folks who want "everyone to get a 4" in the other thread :))
To answer some of the comments in this thread ...
- "Stationing a truck in the other lane" is not only dangerous and unlawful (obstructing traffic), but it is also an illusion that it makes the other lane move faster. The drivers traveling in that lane will have to merge anyway, only do it more abruptly. To see why it is dangerous, consider that it is obviously equivalent to simply closing the lane earlier, and without any warning.
- I am usually not that avert to "early merging" when I am driving in other countries - like Mexico or Europe. But here in the US, most people seem too scared to be on the road on one hand, and too distracted on the other. It's not their fault, I think, they are trained this way. I heard a driving instructor once telling his student, that he had to count to three after the car in front of him moves before he can begin moving. And I see most people doing just that on the road all the time. If there are 200 cars stuck in a lane, that's ten minutes delay right there. I simply refuse to be stuck behind these people. And also, nowhere but here have I seen so many idiots, that feel that they just MUST stop and take a look at the cause of the obstruction when passing it.
Edit to add the excellent point rdw4potus just mentioned below, that I forgot to state explicitly - merging as late as possible is, of course the right thing to do because that's the most efficient use of the available road space. If you should get angry at somebody, that's not the "late mergers", but those who get agitated enough to go out of their way to obstruct the open lane in order to force people into one slow line (I get a feeling, those are the same folks who want "everyone to get a 4" in the other thread :))
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 13th, 2010 at 5:32:39 AM
permalink
Forced to make a decision, I said "Angry early merger".
I don't get angry, but what I tend to do is ride the line so nobody can sneak past me.
What bothers me more are:
A - Drivers that enter a highway and insist on moving ot the center lane, even if the right lane has no cars and the center lane does. Of course, one reason people may do this is because of:
B - Drivers who refuse to use the acceleration or deceleration lanes for thier intended purpose. I.E. If you're trying to merge onto the highway, don't creep up to the end of the acceleration lane, stop, and then wait for an opening. Similarly, get into the deceleration lane before slowing down.
I don't get angry, but what I tend to do is ride the line so nobody can sneak past me.
What bothers me more are:
A - Drivers that enter a highway and insist on moving ot the center lane, even if the right lane has no cars and the center lane does. Of course, one reason people may do this is because of:
B - Drivers who refuse to use the acceleration or deceleration lanes for thier intended purpose. I.E. If you're trying to merge onto the highway, don't creep up to the end of the acceleration lane, stop, and then wait for an opening. Similarly, get into the deceleration lane before slowing down.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
September 13th, 2010 at 6:29:42 AM
permalink
I know that the "right" way to merge is to merge as late as possible. That is absolutely what the road crews want you to do. It makes the best use of the available road way. It's also the fastest and safest way to merge. Not for nothing, but that's why on major highway projects there are those HUGE signs that say "use both lanes and alternate at merge point." BUT, given that angry early mergers exist, late mergers get shafted.
I will say that I'm a late merger. It's not because I'm self-important, but because I refuse to do what's wrong just because others want me to.
I will say that I'm a late merger. It's not because I'm self-important, but because I refuse to do what's wrong just because others want me to.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
September 13th, 2010 at 6:51:17 AM
permalink
Read Paul Vanderbilt's book: "Traffic: why we drive the way we do and what is says about us". IMO, in puts this debate to rest.
It would be great if we could all just merge early, wait out turn in line, and continue on our merry way. But Game Theory is very clear about this: the rational individual will merge late, since it is in his best interest. If EVERYONE adopted the strategy of choosing the shorter lane (whether is was the disappearing lane or the continuing lane), and zippered properly, traffic would move along just fine. The Nash equilibrium implies all drivers will eventually become late mergers. Then we will have traffic harmony! The only reason there are angry early mergers, is that they expect other people to behave selflessly. Is there something about today's society that makes you think this is going to happen?!
The book does make a good point that when traffic is LIGHT, you should merge early, as it's safer than forcing your way in right at the end and potentially causing an accident. But when traffic is STOPPED, merge late is globally optimal.
I'm not really a cynic, I'm a pragmatist. Forget early merging: merge late, train other drivers to merge late, and then there won't be any more 'late merging'. Once the lines are used equally, fairness returns to the world.
It would be great if we could all just merge early, wait out turn in line, and continue on our merry way. But Game Theory is very clear about this: the rational individual will merge late, since it is in his best interest. If EVERYONE adopted the strategy of choosing the shorter lane (whether is was the disappearing lane or the continuing lane), and zippered properly, traffic would move along just fine. The Nash equilibrium implies all drivers will eventually become late mergers. Then we will have traffic harmony! The only reason there are angry early mergers, is that they expect other people to behave selflessly. Is there something about today's society that makes you think this is going to happen?!
The book does make a good point that when traffic is LIGHT, you should merge early, as it's safer than forcing your way in right at the end and potentially causing an accident. But when traffic is STOPPED, merge late is globally optimal.
I'm not really a cynic, I'm a pragmatist. Forget early merging: merge late, train other drivers to merge late, and then there won't be any more 'late merging'. Once the lines are used equally, fairness returns to the world.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
September 13th, 2010 at 8:33:37 AM
permalink
I am a transitioning angry early merger -- that is, transitioning from angry to enabler, after a bad experience I had merging on Storrow Drive in Boston. A m***f****g late-merging taxi tried to cut in in front of me, and I wouldn't let him. He got in behind me, then followed me off the ramp TWO MILES down local roads before he could pull up next to me and make a one-word, terse evaluation of my sexual preferences. That was scary. I don't want to think about what could happen next time, so I am gradually shifting to enabler.
---------------------------
I think different cities have different unspoken traffic "rules." For example, in Boston the first car in the left turn lane was entitled to make his turn in front of the oncoming traffic as soon as the light turned green. In the Midwest this is unheard of. Maybe there was a merging rule there, too. I agree that the most efficient flow would be a perfect zipper, but that is hard to effectuate. I will do my part, however.
Dwheatley: Are you saying that we should all become late mergers, or should some of us remain (angry) enablers? Don't we need a balance of late mergers and enablers to have optimum traffic flow?
---------------------------
I think different cities have different unspoken traffic "rules." For example, in Boston the first car in the left turn lane was entitled to make his turn in front of the oncoming traffic as soon as the light turned green. In the Midwest this is unheard of. Maybe there was a merging rule there, too. I agree that the most efficient flow would be a perfect zipper, but that is hard to effectuate. I will do my part, however.
Dwheatley: Are you saying that we should all become late mergers, or should some of us remain (angry) enablers? Don't we need a balance of late mergers and enablers to have optimum traffic flow?
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
September 13th, 2010 at 9:59:37 AM
permalink
I would tend to agree with the late merger perspective, if, and only if, there are only 4 wheeled vehicles merging. However, most, if not all of you, are scared of semi-trucks somehow. Most of the backups at merge points are caused by car drivers unwilling to let a truck merge in front of them. The cause of this is unknown, I would suspect that the drivers are concerned that they will be slowed down even further.
Stationing a truck in the lane that is closing is not illegal providing that truck is moving at speed that is NOT TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS! And since that truck is pacing a truck in the other lane until the merge point, he is not breaking the law.
And always keep this in mind...regular Class C drivers, which I shall assume most posters here are, do not have the training to properly handle such situations. Most scenarios are handled in a way to show the drivers personality, which is clearly not in the best interest of the motoring public.
Edit: After reading all the posts again, I have concluded that we are in a time where common courtesy holds no value. I shall continue to be a passive early merger and sit at my 8.5 foot high perch and watch the insanity unfold before me. Although I do agree that the proper way to merge is by using a the 'zipper', personal agendas will never allow for that. So please pass me and enjoy wherever it is you are going, I shall see you there later, and keep my CDL pristine.
Stationing a truck in the lane that is closing is not illegal providing that truck is moving at speed that is NOT TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS! And since that truck is pacing a truck in the other lane until the merge point, he is not breaking the law.
And always keep this in mind...regular Class C drivers, which I shall assume most posters here are, do not have the training to properly handle such situations. Most scenarios are handled in a way to show the drivers personality, which is clearly not in the best interest of the motoring public.
Edit: After reading all the posts again, I have concluded that we are in a time where common courtesy holds no value. I shall continue to be a passive early merger and sit at my 8.5 foot high perch and watch the insanity unfold before me. Although I do agree that the proper way to merge is by using a the 'zipper', personal agendas will never allow for that. So please pass me and enjoy wherever it is you are going, I shall see you there later, and keep my CDL pristine.
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes." ~ William Gibson
September 13th, 2010 at 10:14:16 AM
permalink
Oh. I opened this thread thinking there'd be hints on getting onto a busy craps table. Never mind.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:34:38 AM
permalink
The first time I wrote about this was in my May' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>https://wizardofodds.com/news/San-Diego-Trip-Report.html]May 19, 2009 blog entry about a visit to the San Diego casinos (scroll to the bottom). There I wrote about a traffic merge on the I-8 in east San Diego county. I took a very harsh line against late mergers, and got some very harsh responses from them. One writer argued dwheatley's position, that in heavy traffic early merging is a waste of space in the other lane, and obstructs traffic a longer distance.
I think I have to concede that total driving time would probably be minimized if the whole country followed Pennsylvania's example, and used both lanes up to the merge point when a bottleneck is to be expected. However, what should I do when not in Pennsylvania? I'm still an early merger because I'm very big on fairness, and don't want it to even appear like I'm trying to cut in line. When it comes to late mergers trying to cut in, I try to tell what their motive is. If they are late mergers because they believe it is more efficient, I would let them in. If they are just being selfish, I wouldn't. I judge the motive by various means like the cars speed, color, make, and age and gender of the driver. It would still also depend on traffic conditions and how long I had been waiting.
What I advocate is that the traffic engineers make a clear and decisive ruling on this matter, and then alert every media outlet they can on their decision. As a country, we all need to be on the same page on this. What we've got now is the worst of it with two different camps.
I think I have to concede that total driving time would probably be minimized if the whole country followed Pennsylvania's example, and used both lanes up to the merge point when a bottleneck is to be expected. However, what should I do when not in Pennsylvania? I'm still an early merger because I'm very big on fairness, and don't want it to even appear like I'm trying to cut in line. When it comes to late mergers trying to cut in, I try to tell what their motive is. If they are late mergers because they believe it is more efficient, I would let them in. If they are just being selfish, I wouldn't. I judge the motive by various means like the cars speed, color, make, and age and gender of the driver. It would still also depend on traffic conditions and how long I had been waiting.
What I advocate is that the traffic engineers make a clear and decisive ruling on this matter, and then alert every media outlet they can on their decision. As a country, we all need to be on the same page on this. What we've got now is the worst of it with two different camps.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 13th, 2010 at 10:47:57 AM
permalink
Wiz: Even if there was clear consensus by traffic engineers, it would do no good. Just like the betting systems on your forum,.you wouldn't beleive the things I see on the road 11 hours a day.
Drivers will always do what they want on the roads...and to hell with everyone else
Alan
Drivers will always do what they want on the roads...and to hell with everyone else
Alan
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes." ~ William Gibson
September 13th, 2010 at 11:19:20 AM
permalink
Quote: avargovWiz: Even if there was clear consensus by traffic engineers, it would do no good. Just like the betting systems on your forum,.you wouldn't beleive the things I see on the road 11 hours a day.
Drivers will always do what they want on the roads...and to hell with everyone else
If the engineers could persuade the early mergers to become later mergers then the selfish drivers would spend more time in traffic, and the unselfish drivers less. In other words, the current late mergers could no longer cut in line.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 13th, 2010 at 11:34:37 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI judge the motive by various means like the cars speed, color, make, and age and gender of the driver.
How about color of hair, race and sexual orientation? :)
Quote:
What I advocate is that the traffic engineers make a clear and decisive ruling on this matter, and then alert every media outlet they can on their decision.
I would think that they already have. If they wanted everybody to be "early mergers", they would just take down all the merge warnings, and simply close the other lane earlier, without posting any signs before - that way everybody would just have to merge at the same point.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 13th, 2010 at 11:47:46 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanI would think that they already have. If they wanted everybody to be "early mergers", they would just take down all the merge warnings, and simply close the other lane earlier, without posting any signs before - that way everybody would just have to merge at the same point.
That would be dangerous. Drivers may not have enough time to slow down in light traffic conditions.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 13th, 2010 at 11:54:32 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardIf the engineers could persuade the early mergers to become later mergers then the selfish drivers would spend more time in traffic, and the unselfish drivers less. In other words, the current late mergers could no longer cut in line.
This is the whole point of the Game Theory argument. If enough early mergers become late mergers, then the two lines become equivalent. Selfish drivers and unselfish drivers spend the same amount of time in traffic, and Nash is reached. Trucks add a certain difficulty to this, but once a truck starts zippering, you better get out of its way!
To answer an earlier post, not everyone needs to become a late merger, just about half do. By that time, there is no distinction. What everyone should actually do is choose the shorter line, regardless of which one is disappearing. Then zipper.
I drive the 401 in the Toronto area daily. It has the distinction of being the busiest (or 2nd busiest, depending on study) highway in North America. Certain spots have disappearing lanes that require merging, and when I am in the disappearing lane, I go nice and slow to try not to upset the early mergers. I also don't go onto the shoulder like the really obnoxious extra late mergers. I just follow the rules and use the road as it way designed.
This is different from the much more difficult situation where one lane is exiting the highway, and late mergers end up stopped in that lane trying to merge into the continuing lanes. This is POOR HIGHWAY DESIGN. My biggest pet peeve of all time. Lanes that have existed for a while on a highway should not exit!! Split lanes are great. Exit only lanes that are created shortly before the exit are great. Regular lanes that turn into exit only lanes CAUSE TRAFFIC!! argh!
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
September 13th, 2010 at 11:58:09 AM
permalink
With so many self-proclaimed atheists on this site (see the Pascal's Wager thread), I am surprised that there is anyone motivated by "fairness", "concern for others" or the "common good". These moral notions are ultimately based on a belief that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to do things. A distinction that implies intelligent system design by a creator.
If we are actually free to drive however, we want, without eternal consequences, we would consistenly do whatever we felt was in our best interest, even extreme things like running others off the road, dropping road spikes (ala James Bond), or shooting others. However, we do not behave this way. When we knowingly offend others on the road, we feel something (even if we do not always apologize). This sense of morality is the core of our humanity, and reminds us that there is more to life than being born and dying...there is a bunch of stuff in the middle that can be great.
If we are actually free to drive however, we want, without eternal consequences, we would consistenly do whatever we felt was in our best interest, even extreme things like running others off the road, dropping road spikes (ala James Bond), or shooting others. However, we do not behave this way. When we knowingly offend others on the road, we feel something (even if we do not always apologize). This sense of morality is the core of our humanity, and reminds us that there is more to life than being born and dying...there is a bunch of stuff in the middle that can be great.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
September 13th, 2010 at 12:01:47 PM
permalink
Quote: dwheatleyThis is different from the much more difficult situation where one lane is exiting the highway, and late mergers end up stopped in that lane trying to merge into the continuing lanes. This is POOR HIGHWAY DESIGN. My biggest pet peeve of all time. Lanes that have existed for a while on a highway should not exit!! Split lanes are great. Exit only lanes that are created shortly before the exit are great. Regular lanes that turn into exit only lanes CAUSE TRAFFIC!! argh!
poor design, needless ending of lanes, poor decisions about when to close lanes for construction, and the like, all are serious business. People get killed because of them, it becomes a statistical reality.
btw Virginia loves the needlessly disappearing lane
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell! She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
September 13th, 2010 at 12:44:10 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanI am the "late merger" and proud of it :)
(I get a feeling, those are the same folks who want "everyone to get a 4" in the other thread :))
Actually, in a society composed exclusively of "late mergers", everybody gets 0.1. People are so busy fighting over the scraps that there isn't anything left for ANYBODY. The traffic-society outcome of EVERYBODY being greedy is that NOBODY gets to their destination. Imagine, for example, that everyone decided to drive on whichever side of the road they pleased, because no one was going to tell THEM which side they should drive on, dadgummit. It would be amusing to watch, but no one would get anywhere.
There is a phenomenon call "the free-rider", in that there are always opportunities for the social deviant to profit at every else's expense, with little or no cost to himself. This cannot actually be prevented; only social pressure can mitigate his effects.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
September 13th, 2010 at 12:45:29 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaWith so many self-proclaimed atheists on this site (see the Pascal's Wager thread), I am surprised that there is anyone motivated by "fairness", "concern for others" or the "common good". These moral notions are ultimately based on a belief that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to do things. A distinction that implies intelligent system design by a creator.
I strongly disagree that such a moral sense needs a "creator". We can be good without gods.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
September 13th, 2010 at 12:54:07 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaThese moral notions are ultimately based on a belief that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to do things. A distinction that implies intelligent system design by a creator.
No, it's called "civilization" and "evolution".
You take a guy's shit, he hits you over the head with a club, you die and don't pass on your genes any more.
Guys who don't take other guys' shit prevail and it becomes "good".
September 13th, 2010 at 1:05:49 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321
There is a phenomenon call "the free-rider", in that there are always opportunities for the social deviant to profit at every else's expense, with little or no cost to himself. This cannot actually be prevented; only social pressure can mitigate his effects.
I am not sure what you are implying, but I, at least in the context of late merging, I am never benefiting at anyone's expense.
It's the righteous ones that pretend to care about the "justice" and "fairness" are the ones who usually end up benefiting at someone else's expense - whether by taking away their money to "give to poor" or by putting a truck in the middle of a road to prevent those "deviants" from "cutting the line".
There is a phenomenon called the "the reflection", in that people often tend to "see" their own faults in others, and be most vicious and implacable about fighting them, perhaps, it helps to calm their conscience - surely, one can't have a fault that he is so vigorously exposing in everyone around!
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 13th, 2010 at 1:09:34 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321I strongly disagree that such a moral sense needs a "creator". We can be good without gods.
Without an ultimate right and wrong, who determines what is, "good"? Is it the guy trying to nose in at the last cone because he is being, "efficient", or is it you firing your "gatling gun" at him for the greater good? Both can make a case, but who has the right to judge?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
September 13th, 2010 at 1:12:44 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaWith so many self-proclaimed atheists on this site (see the Pascal's Wager thread), I am surprised that there is anyone motivated by "fairness", "concern for others" or the "common good". These moral notions are ultimately based on a belief that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to do things. A distinction that implies intelligent system design by a creator.
This is getting off topic, but you don't need belief in a higher power to look out for your fellow man. Even chimpanzees recognize a social code of altruism. They seem to realize they come out ahead by trading favors with their peers. I'll pick the lice out your hair now, and hopefully you'll do something for me later.
I'm not a theist, but I believe that what comes around goes around, or that you reap what you sow. If I had to choose who to trust between a random atheist and a random Christian, I'd choose the atheist every time. If Christians are so morally upstanding, then why do they brag about their transgression privileges with bumper stickers that say "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."? No, I'll chose the one whose moral fiber does not assume an endless supply of forgiveness for his bad deeds.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 13th, 2010 at 1:27:36 PM
permalink
Quote: ChuckNo, it's called "civilization" and "evolution".
You take a guy's shit, he hits you over the head with a club, you die and don't pass on your genes any more.
Guys who don't take other guys' shit prevail and it becomes "good".
Actually, you would hit the guy first, then take his stuff. The guy with the stuff dies. Guys who hit first prevail, and it becomes "good". But it didn't work that way... Why not? Because we know there is a better way. By "doing the right thing" we all benefit.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
September 13th, 2010 at 2:10:26 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardThis is getting off topic, but you don't need belief in a higher power to look out for your fellow man. Even chimpanzees recognize a social code of altruism. They seem to realize they come out ahead by trading favors with their peers. I'll pick the lice out your hair now, and hopefully you'll do something for me later.
I guess my point is, where does this impetus for "good" come from? On the road do we act as selfish "free riders", maximizing our personal benefit by zooming ahead of the "hopeful" early mergers every time? Perhaps. But more likely, we each know that the system has a design, and works best when we use it as the design intended.
Quote: WizardI'm not a theist, but I believe that what comes around goes around, or that you reap what you sow. If I had to choose who to trust between a random atheist and a random Christian, I'd choose the atheist every time. If Christians are so morally upstanding, then why do they brag about their transgression privileges with bumper stickers that say "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."? No, I'll chose the one whose moral fiber does not assume an endless supply of forgiveness for his bad deeds.
If we all drove perfectly, following every rule of the road perfectly, it would be wonderful. But anyone who has been on the I-15/95 interchange on a Friday night knows that we don't drive nearly as perfectly as we think we do. What if the NHP/LVPD ticketed every infraction on the road? Fortunately, the system allows escape from sure judgement. Perhaps the bumper sticker is not "bragging" as much as "celebrating" this fact on a spiritual level.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
September 13th, 2010 at 2:59:22 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaActually, you would hit the guy first, then take his stuff. The guy with the stuff dies. Guys who hit first prevail, and it becomes "good". But it didn't work that way... Why not? Because we know there is a better way. By "doing the right thing" we all benefit.
The sword that cuts the Gordian knot here is the concept of "reciprocal altruism". Colloquially, "what goes around, comes around". From an evolutionary standpoint, it's a powerful AND subtle strategy.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
September 13th, 2010 at 4:34:49 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizard
I think I have to concede that total driving time would probably be minimized if the whole country followed Pennsylvania's example, and used both lanes up to the merge point when a bottleneck is to be expected. However, what should I do when not in Pennsylvania?
OMG! Someone saying PA is at the cutting edge on *any* traffic or road situation! Next thing you know the Cubs will win a World Series.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 13th, 2010 at 8:57:23 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaPerhaps the bumper sticker is not "bragging" as much as "celebrating" this fact on a spiritual level.
Perhaps it is saying "I'll do whatever I damn well please, because god will forgive me and not you, sucker!"
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 13th, 2010 at 9:52:05 PM
permalink
True Story: In 2006 I'm coming home from Deadwood SD and driving straight thru in a rental car. Been driving 13 hours and its 5:30am and we come to a long long line of semi trucks all merged into the right lane because the left lane is closed ahead. Screw that says I, I'm special. So I buzz by FOUR MILES (I'm not exaggerating) of trucks all going 10-15mph. They were laying on their horns, weaving out into my lane trying to stop me. I just sped around them. I was about 100 yards from my exit to another freeway, and a semi veered into my lane to cut me off. Now picture this: trucks on my right, a truck in front of me, and to my left is the third lane they've been working on. Orange cones seperate that lane from the one I'm in. I cut between the cones and drive the last 100 yards on the new freeway lane! I pass the truck in my lane, cut in front of him and slip thru the opening the other truckers have left for him and zip up the exit and onto the next freeway. They were furious, all the horns were blaring, it was marvelous. Not mention as soon as I went thru the orange cones, my wife started screaming and moaning. I never would have done it in my own vehicle or if I wasn't over tired and full of caffeine. It was glorious. It was like a car chase stunt out of a movie, everything worked perfectly. Would I do it again? Not in a hundred years....
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 14th, 2010 at 11:05:04 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardPerhaps it is saying "I'll do whatever I damn well please, because god will forgive me and not you, sucker!"
Hehe. Perhaps, but unlikely. I suggest you ask the displayer to clarify their intent. I am confident that you will find a motive very different than "bragging."
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
September 14th, 2010 at 4:06:10 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaHehe. Perhaps, but unlikely. I suggest you ask the displayer to clarify their intent.
I would rather sit through a time share pitch than speak with anyone who would have such a bumper sticker.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 14th, 2010 at 5:17:17 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI would rather sit through a time share pitch than speak with anyone who would have such a bumper sticker.
Since the only possible purpose of displaying such a message on the bumper of a car would be to say, in effect, "I may very well deliberately run you over, since I expect to be forgiven for any transgression", I would also estimate your chances of survival at the timeshare presentation to be much higher.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
September 15th, 2010 at 3:49:15 AM
permalink
It's interesting what comes up on the website when you've been away for a day.
I'm a late merger and proud of it. The way I see it is that the lanes are open to be used. I'm trying to get from point A to B and if people want to be inefficient and not use an unavailable roadway that's not my problem. I don't think it's discourteous either to merge late, and I don't get mad at the motorist who doesn't let me in. If I am not in a hurry, am running early, or am enjoying a particular program in the car, then I'll merge earlier because I know it will cost me time.
I'm a late merger and proud of it. The way I see it is that the lanes are open to be used. I'm trying to get from point A to B and if people want to be inefficient and not use an unavailable roadway that's not my problem. I don't think it's discourteous either to merge late, and I don't get mad at the motorist who doesn't let me in. If I am not in a hurry, am running early, or am enjoying a particular program in the car, then I'll merge earlier because I know it will cost me time.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
September 15th, 2010 at 3:57:38 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardPerhaps it is saying "I'll do whatever I damn well please, because god will forgive me and not you, sucker!"
I don't see anything wrong with this bumper sticker because it's what they believe. From my upbringing as a Christian, I've been taught that we are all sinful creatures, and that sin is an act that's committed from the thought process. That is, if I think about stealing that black chip from the player next to me, I've sinned. Christianity taught me that Jesus died to save us from our sins so that we can go to heaven. So essentially, believing in the holy Trinity is the path to heaven for Christians. Sins will be forgiven. The Bible teaches us to try to be as good as possible and has many many lessons to teach moral right.
That said, I think that Christians (and those of other religious faith) are more APT to have a better moral code than atheists because it's more possible that without the Christian upbringing, they are more likely not to be taught ethics and morality.
I also think it's far more likely to find extremes with those of faith because they take a piece out of their chosen literature (Bible, Qaran) and take it far too literally and use the words to justify their means. Athiests, on the other hand, have no book, and can make those decisions based on the pure experiences and ethics displayed to them.
Discuss.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
September 15th, 2010 at 6:56:13 AM
permalink
Where is the incentive for the Christian not to steal the black chip? He can get away with it my just asking for forgiveness at some point down the road. By my interpretation of the bible, I would take everything I possible could my whole life, and then repent of it on my death bed. That seems the route Christianity is incentivizing.
No, I would rather put my faith in those who are good for the sake of goodness alone, not because they need the indoctrination of the church to keep their weak minds in line.
The trinity? I probably shouldn't even bring this up, but where in the bible does it even mention a trinity or three gods in one god?
No, I would rather put my faith in those who are good for the sake of goodness alone, not because they need the indoctrination of the church to keep their weak minds in line.
The trinity? I probably shouldn't even bring this up, but where in the bible does it even mention a trinity or three gods in one god?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 15th, 2010 at 7:17:17 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardBy my interpretation of the bible, I would take everything I possible could my whole life, and then repent of it on my death bed. That seems the route Christianity is incentivizing.
The repentance has to be sincere. The common fallacy is to plan on dealing with God as a regular person that can be fooled or outsmarted
Quote:The trinity? I probably shouldn't even bring this up, but where in the bible does it even mention a trinity or three gods in one god?
Depends on what exactly you call "bible". It's not mentioned in the Testaments, if that's what you mean. If I am not mistaken, this notion was first "officially" recognized by First Council of Nicaea, about 300 A.D. - way after the Testaments were written. The writings of that Council are now included in the Biblical Canon, so, in this sense, it is indeed mentioned in the bible.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 15th, 2010 at 7:34:51 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanThe repentance has to be sincere. The common fallacy is to plan on dealing with God as a regular person that can be fooled or outsmarted.
On the death bed also repent of trying to fool and outsmart god previously. In other words repent of the death bed scheme or your death bed.
Quote: weaselmanDepends on what exactly you call "bible". It's not mentioned in the Testaments, if that's what you mean. If I am not mistaken, this notion was first "officially" recognized by First Council of Nicaea, about 300 A.D. - way after the Testaments were written. The writings of that Council are now included in the Biblical Canon, so, in this sense, it is indeed mentioned in the bible.
You you quote me anything in the biblical canon that suggests a trinity of three gods in one god? Book, chapter and verse please. I've got a bible in the garage somewhere I can refer to.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 15th, 2010 at 7:50:37 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardOn the death bed also repent of trying to fool and outsmart god previously. In other words repent of the death bed scheme or your death bed.
That'll work as long as it is sincere :)
As long as you plan ahead on doing it, too bad, no chance.
Basically, I am saying that you are right in that somebody, who was bad all his life, can be forgiven if he repents in the end. However, you cannot use this logic to rationalize being bad, because this kind of rationalization negates the repentance.
Quote:
You you quote me anything in the biblical canon that suggests a trinity of three gods in one god? Book, chapter and verse please. I've got a bible in the garage somewhere I can refer to.
One place that comes to mind is Anthanasian Creed that says: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."
Also, there is a mention of "the Trinity of God, His Word and His Wisdom" in To Autolycus II.15. Here is a link in case you don't have it your basement :) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm
I believe, this is thought to be the earliest known mention of the Trinity by this name.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 15th, 2010 at 9:02:05 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanHowever, you cannot use this logic to rationalize being bad, because this kind of rationalization negates the repentance.
Yes, but what if you were truly sincere in repenting about the scheme to repent in your final hours. I thought god could forgive anything.
Quote: weaselmanOne place that comes to mind is Anthanasian Creed that says: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."
Also, there is a mention of "the Trinity of God, His Word and His Wisdom" in To Autolycus II.15. Here is a link in case you don't have it your basement :) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm
I believe, this is thought to be the earliest known mention of the Trinity by this name.
What are those Catholic things? I thought the older texts, like those in the Gideon bible, said somewhere that anything tacked on later was invalid. I heard that Florida preacher who threatened to burn the Koran quote that verse. Are you saying those texts you quoted are on par with the bible itself, or just church teachings that may not be divinely inspired?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 15th, 2010 at 9:10:19 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardYes, but what if you were truly sincere in repenting about the scheme to repent in your final hours. I thought god could forgive anything.
So long as you didn't plan to be truly sincere in repenting about the repenting shceme, right? Otherwise you're still scheming.
Of course, if you're truly sincere in repenting about planning to be truly sincere in repenting about the repenting scheme, then you're ok. Unless you plan to....
I hope God likes infinite regressions.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 15th, 2010 at 9:33:28 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedOf course, if you're truly sincere in repenting about planning to be truly sincere in repenting about the repenting scheme, then you're ok. Unles you plan to....
:-). I feel sorry for the people who were planning to add a level at the last second, but then get Alzheimer's Disease or something.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 15th, 2010 at 9:51:13 AM
permalink
Quote: Wizard:-). I feel sorry for the people who were planning to add a level at the last second, but then get Alzheimer's Disease or something.
Maybe that's God way of saying He doesn't like infinite regressions?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 15th, 2010 at 11:18:17 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardYes, but what if you were truly sincere in repenting about the scheme to repent in your final hours. I thought god could forgive anything.
Yes, that would be fine, like I said before. Not sure what your point is ...
Quote:
What are those Catholic things? I thought the older texts, like those in the Gideon bible, said somewhere that anything tacked on later was invalid.
Well, there are a lot of different books that say a lot of different things. That's why I said in the beginning, that the answer to your question if Trinity is mentioned in the bible depended on what exactly you are calling "bible". Most people mean the old and new testaments when they say "bible", and, like I said earlier, there is no mention of Trinity there AFAIK. There is the more or less official notion of Biblical Canon recognized (with some variations) by most Christian confessions, and it is customary to collectively refer to the books, included into that list as "Bible". If you use this definition, than there are references of Trinity in the Bible.
Quote:Are you saying those texts you quoted are on par with the bible itself, or just church teachings that may not be divinely inspired?
That again depends on who you ask. The church itself insists that all its teachings are divinely inspired, while members of other churches usually have a very different opinion on the matter. Jewish faith for example, as you know, recognizes the Old Testament, but considers the New Testament "not divinely inspired". There are also some Christian branches, that accept both Testaments, but consider all the later additions irrelevant or heretical.
The position of the official Catholic Church (as well as Orthodox, and most others) however is to consider all writings of the Biblical Canon holy or divinely inspired.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 15th, 2010 at 1:02:55 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboIt's interesting what comes up on the website when you've been away for a day.
I'm a late merger and proud of it. The way I see it is that the lanes are open to be used. I'm trying to get from point A to B and if people want to be inefficient and not use an unavailable roadway that's not my problem. I don't think it's discourteous either to merge late, and I don't get mad at the motorist who doesn't let me in. If I am not in a hurry, am running early, or am enjoying a particular program in the car, then I'll merge earlier because I know it will cost me time.
To default once again to economist-speak (a discipline that is actually quite useful for evaluating human behavior), such behavior is called "smart for one, dumb for all". In other words, a single social deviant can profit at everyone else's expense, as long as he is the only one deviating. This is indeed a sound and powerful strategy for that individual, UNTIL OTHERS FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE. Then not only does the original deviant lose his advantage, but the group loses whatever advantage it formerly had stemming from cooperation.
Imagine a village with a public grove of oak trees in its center. There is no law about what a resident of the village may or may not do to the trees, but there is a social taboo about harming them, because they provide shade and are pleasant to look at. Nonetheless, one person decides to chop down one of the trees and use it for firewood. This is a rational decision on his part, assuming the utility of the firewood exceeds the negative utility of the disapproval of his neighbors. Seeing that the first person cut down the tree without any consequences, a second person shrugs and decides to do the same thing. Pretty soon there are no oak trees left. Every individual who cut down an oak tree acted in rational self-interest, but the final result is that there are no oak trees for anyone to cut down, sit under, or simply admire. Smart for one, dumb for all. That is why we need laws against selfish behavior.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
September 15th, 2010 at 1:05:58 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardWhere is the incentive for the Christian not to steal the black chip? He can get away with it my just asking for forgiveness at some point down the road. By my interpretation of the bible, I would take everything I possible could my whole life, and then repent of it on my death bed. That seems the route Christianity is incentivizing.
No, I would rather put my faith in those who are good for the sake of goodness alone, not because they need the indoctrination of the church to keep their weak minds in line.
The trinity? I probably shouldn't even bring this up, but where in the bible does it even mention a trinity or three gods in one god?
Have you ever read anything by Michael Shermer? The particular book I'm thinking of is "The Science of Good and Evil", but he has other titles you might enjoy.
A central thesis of his is that "good" and "evil" are artifacts of human evolution, and are concepts absolutely necessary to the formation of viable human societies. Thus, "good" and "evil" predate religion.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
