Merging etiquette

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 15th, 2010 at 1:09:50 PM permalink

Quote: Wizard
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.

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.

The Book of Spike, Chapter 9, Verse 21: "There are actually THREE of us God dudes, so even if you fake one of us out, the other two will get you. Bwahahahahahaaaaaaa."

The Trinity is also referred to in Ramblings, Chapter 356, in the Legend of the Holy Kumquat and the Nun with Bad Breath.

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

Wizard
Administrator

Threads: 1520
Posts: 27116

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

September 15th, 2010 at 1:34:30 PM permalink

Quote: weaselman
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.

Fair enough. For what it is worth, I consider the "bible" to be what they put in the bedside table in hotels.

Quote: mkl654321
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.

I have not read that, but already strongly believe in that thesis.

"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)

weaselman

Threads: 20
Posts: 2349

Joined: Jul 11, 2010

September 15th, 2010 at 1:39:27 PM permalink

Quote: Wizard
Fair enough. For what it is worth, I consider the "bible" to be what they put in the bedside table in hotels.

Heh ... I don't remember by heart what exactly is included there ... going to have to take a look in my basement when I get home :)

"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"

Mosca

Mosca

Threads: 191
Posts: 4141

Joined: Dec 14, 2009

September 15th, 2010 at 1:50:23 PM permalink

I'm almost always an enabler, mostly because life's too short to care about that stuff. If you let it go, it's forgotten in a few seconds. I've been through too much in life to care whether or not someone got a 20 foot advantage in a line of traffic.

As far as when I myself merge, I usually do it closer to the end, but not all the way, because if you get trapped down by the cones no one will let you in. So, not at first opportunity, not at last; usually at first sight of the actual construction zone.

Also, note that these can be major road rage situations. ONE person has to stay relaxed, if one has to, I have no problem being that guy.

Shermer's awesome. His debunking of psychics and cold reading is great. That stuff is pretty impressive if just used as a magic act, but he's strongly against those who use it for profit and to gove people false hope.

A falling knife has no handle.

odiousgambit

odiousgambit

Threads: 327
Posts: 9774

Joined: Nov 9, 2009

September 15th, 2010 at 2:35:11 PM permalink

for my 2 cents, the concept of the Trinity is said to have derived from the desire to make the religion appeal to the Greeks, who liked trinities in their gods. Today we are just stuck with it, the awkward construct fits poorly with the doctrine of Monotheism.

As far as it not being in the Bible, I believe the notion that all things that are Church Doctrine must derive only from the Bible is a Protestant thing. Since I was raised a Protestant, this was a longtime die-hard thing with me, but these days I have less trouble with it.

Wizard, you may, I say may , be experiencing also the phenomenon of having challenges when examining what is called in the Church "Higher Criticism", and this reaction is common. At first, for example, learning that there are Apocryphal books that, at the time, were controversially excluded from the Bible that you find these days in Motel rooms [as you say] causes Belief Heartburn for a lot of folks... later, these pains usually subside.

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

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 15th, 2010 at 3:10:57 PM permalink

Quote: weaselman
This is a very insightful example, but I can't make a connection between an oak tree and empty road space. What utility does the latter provide? Or is it just pleasant to look at? :)

In the macro sense, empty road space would be any public road that is not being driven upon at any given moment. The utility of that empty road space is obvious, as it can be driven upon; its public nature is likewise manifest, because anyone can drive on it.

But let's use the specific situation that's been discussed to illustrate my point. For the sake of discussion, assume that it's a two-lane road, and the right lane is being shut down. At some point X, there is a sign saying "Right Lane Closed. Merge Left." At some point Y, the right lane actually ends. Now, the remaining portion of the right lane between the sign and the end of that lane is a public good--a piece of empty road. Social custom--as in, obedience to traffic signs--makes it proper behavior to merge as soon as possible after one sees the sign. Let us further assume that all drivers attempt to merge as soon as they safely can; this leaves the remaining portion of the to-be-closed right lane empty. Now, any given person can seize that public good for himself by driving as far as he can in the right lane, essentially ignoring the "Merge" sign, and ducking in at the last moment. In terms of self-interest, he has made a rational decision: he has traveled the distance between the sign and the point where the lane actually ends in the minimum amount of time (he would get to that point much more slowly if he merged back by where the sign is). However, this behavior's benefits will be negated if everyone emulates him: the right lane-and-duck-in will be no faster than the normal merge-as-soon-as-possible. But the overall consequences of this behavior are huge: the traffic comes to a virtual stop as the merge possibilities dwindle to a single point. That is why the "Merge" sign was placed some distance back from the actual end of the right lane in the first place: to allow motorists to merge in the "zipper" fashion mentioned by another poster rather than at a single bottleneck.

So the cheater who does not merge engages in "smart for one, dumb for all" behavior, and only profits if he is the only one (or is one of a small minority) who deviates. This is a common dynamic for ALL antisocial behavior, including criminal behavior: the greatest profit to the cheater comes about when he is the only one who cheats.

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

odiousgambit

odiousgambit

Threads: 327
Posts: 9774

Joined: Nov 9, 2009

September 15th, 2010 at 3:18:19 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
So the cheater who does not merge engages in "smart for one, dumb for all" behavior, and only profits if he is the only one (or is one of a small minority) who deviates.

I don't mean to detract from your main point, but I just want to make sure that you noted the posts where there is a certain theory that the greater good comes from everyone using all the road space up to the merge point, and not doing early merge. It was cited that PA will actually put up signs encouraging this better use of the road space.

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

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 15th, 2010 at 3:22:03 PM permalink

Quote: odiousgambit
I don't mean to detract from your main point, but I just want to make sure that you noted the posts where there is a certain theory that the greater good comes from everyone using all the road space up to the merge point, and not doing early merge. It was cited that PA will actually put up signs encouraging this better use of the road space.

If the road sign indeed instructed motorists to do that, then the nature of the two behaviors would be exactly reversed, and the cheaters would be those who merged early (from the right to the left).

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

Wizard
Administrator

Threads: 1520
Posts: 27116

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

September 15th, 2010 at 3:56:53 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
If the road sign indeed instructed motorists to do that, then the nature of the two behaviors would be exactly reversed, and the cheaters would be those who merged early (from the right to the left).

I'm not sure I see how that could help, assuming both lanes of traffic had the same traffic flow before the effect of the merge. I suppose you could save a few second by not respecting the zipper if you had to let a car from the right lane merge over, and didn't.

I would also like to address the situation where this happens on surface streets and the merge point is shortly after a traffic light. If everyone was an early merger then fewer cars could get through the intersection on a green cycle, because of the law that you can't enter an intersection unless you can leave it. If everyone was a late merger then twice the cars would get through, because there would be more space to use between the light and the cones, so more the traffic would move past the bottleneck per unit of time.

"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)

weaselman

Threads: 20
Posts: 2349

Joined: Jul 11, 2010

September 15th, 2010 at 4:19:13 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
In the macro sense, empty road space would be any public road that is not being driven upon at any given moment. The utility of that empty road space is obvious, as it can be driven upon; its public nature is likewise manifest, because anyone can drive on it.

In your oak grove example, the oaks have two potential uses - to provide shade and to be used as firewood, and the good to community from the former is confronted with the utility to individual from the latter.
In case of the empty road space, I see only one use so far - somebody could drive on it. What is the other, communal use that would be akin to the shadiness of the oaks in your example? What utility does the road space provide if nobody is driving in it?

Quote:
However, this behavior's benefits will be negated if everyone emulates him:

Actually, no, it would not - the line in two lanes would twice shorter, leaving more free space behind it.

Quote:
the traffic comes to a virtual stop as the merge possibilities dwindle to a single point.

Well yes, but that happens not because of the busy right lane, but because of the self-righteous angry "deviants" in the left one, refusing to yield.

"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"

Ibeatyouraces

Ibeatyouraces

Threads: 68
Posts: 11933

Joined: Jan 12, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 8:47:06 AM permalink

deleted

DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!

Ayecarumba

Ayecarumba

Threads: 236
Posts: 6763

Joined: Nov 17, 2009

September 16th, 2010 at 12:22:25 PM permalink

Quote: Ibeatyouraces
In Michigan, it is actually the law for you to merge as soon as possible. There have been times where the police will stand by and if you dont merge early enough they will pull you over issue you a ticket for it.

Interesting. In the state that built the cars on America's road's, the enforcement of this law makes a bad situation worse. Where do the cops stop the car to write the ticket? In the disappearing lane, on the other shoulder of the road? There doesn't seem to be a safe place to do it, that is not going to mess up the already impacted, law-abiding drivers.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 12:52:17 PM permalink

Quote: Wizard
I'm not sure I see how that could help, assuming both lanes of traffic had the same traffic flow before the effect of the merge. I suppose you could save a few second by not respecting the zipper if you had to let a car from the right lane merge over, and didn't.

It WOULDN'T help, because it would change the number of possible merging points from (car lengths of remaining lane)/(total cars/2) to....one.

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

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 1:03:14 PM permalink

Quote: weaselman
In your oak grove example, the oaks have two potential uses - to provide shade and to be used as firewood, and the good to community from the former is confronted with the utility to individual from the latter.
In case of the empty road space, I see only one use so far - somebody could drive on it. What is the other, communal use that would be akin to the shadiness of the oaks in your example? What utility does the road space provide if nobody is driving in it?

The utility of the empty road is in part that it CAN be driven on. The other part is that it IS being driven on.

The simple existence of a road has utility: people can build houses and businesses (etc.) at the end of a road, knowing they will be able to get from those houses to other locations, and vice versa.

In the specific instance discussed, the right lane (in normal circumstances) has utility in that it makes the road faster and easier to travel on (vs. a single lane in that direction). The utility of the remaining right lane in the merging situation is that it provides room for the drivers to execute the merge (its former utility as a means of facilitating traffic flow being about to be lost). If that portion of right lane--between the "Merge Left" sign and the actual blockage--did not exist, then drivers would be forced to merge at a single choke point (either at the sign or at the blockage itself). It is better for traffic flow if the merges occur as a "zipper" rather than at a single choke point.

A person who charges ahead to the end of the right lane in order to force his way in at the actual choke point diminishes the utility of that remaining portion of the right lane (by effectively shortening it), and diminishes the utility of the entire setup by deliberately creating the situation that the signage was set up to avoid (i.e., a single merging point). The negative consequences of his actions devolve mostly on others, though---HE saves a few seconds, at the expense of slowing everyone else down by a few seconds.

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

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 1:08:43 PM permalink

Quote: Ayecarumba
Interesting. In the state that built the cars on America's road's, the enforcement of this law makes a bad situation worse. Where do the cops stop the car to write the ticket? In the disappearing lane, on the other shoulder of the road? There doesn't seem to be a safe place to do it, that is not going to mess up the already impacted, law-abiding drivers.

The idea, obviously, is to make people observe the law in the future. In a similar fashion, pulling someone over on a busy freeway for speeding is obviously hazardous--but it is considered to be worthwhile to do so. The real target of the enforcement is all the OTHER drivers who see that one guy being pulled over.

So the fail-to-merge ticket is issued in the hope of making the situation better NEXT time. I actually haven't seen a cop pull anyone over in a bottleneck situation, though, for the exact reasons you mention. He might simply note the violation and tail the offender through the bottleneck, and THEN pull him over.

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

weaselman

Threads: 20
Posts: 2349

Joined: Jul 11, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 2:44:53 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
TThe utility of the remaining right lane in the merging situation is that it provides room for the drivers to execute the merge

Yet, when they chose to use that room, you call them social deviants. Kinda backwards, isn't it?

"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"

Wizard
Administrator

Threads: 1520
Posts: 27116

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

September 16th, 2010 at 3:27:37 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
It WOULDN'T help, because it would change the number of possible merging points from (car lengths of remaining lane)/(total cars/2) to....one.

I submit for your consideration that it is faster to have just one one merge point if both lines zippered efficiently at that point. If cars merge all over the place, but have to depend on the drivers already in the correct lane to let them in, then it becomes a hand waiving guessing game. Such is what we have now. An equilibrium will not be reached until everybody has the same behavior.

"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 3:45:11 PM permalink

Quote: weaselman
Yet, when they chose to use that room, you call them social deviants. Kinda backwards, isn't it?

Nope. Wrong. "Using that room" would mean using it to merge as soon as possible: not merging at the point where the sign was (which would create a bottleneck), but using the remaining portion of road to execute a smooth merge. The deviant behavior is in using that remaining portion to zoom ahead and "beat everybody"---subverting the smooth merge in favor of getting a few seconds ahead of the other guys.

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

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 3:52:46 PM permalink

Quote: Wizard
I submit for your consideration that it is faster to have just one one merge point if both lines zippered efficiently at that point. If cars merge all over the place, but have to depend on the drivers already in the correct lane to let them in, then it becomes a hand waiving guessing game. Such is what we have now. An equilibrium will not be reached until everybody has the same behavior.

Yes. I am making the presumption that drivers already in the left-hand lane will allow those in the right-hand lane to merge, or at least will not actively hinder them. However, if we posit otherwise--that the drivers in the left-hand lane will be actively hostile to the ones in the right-hand lane trying to merge, then the whole discussion becomes kind of moot, and indeed, there shouldn't be any "Merge" sign at all.

In the context of social behavior, one could make the same argument for everyone driving on the same side of the road. No equilibrium would be reached there, either, until everybody had the same behavior. I submit that it is not unrealistic to expect that everybody would have the same behavior in a merging situation, if everyone's perceived goal, regardless of position in the merge, was to accomplish the merge as smoothly as possible.

For what it's worth, I live in Oregon now, but used to live in Arizona, the macho-cult, horn-honkin' capital of the universe, and I've been amazed at how smoothly traffic disruptions--such as the loss of a freeway lane--are handled by the driving public here. In AZ they were handled with honking and screaming, and merges were contests of manhood.

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

Wizard
Administrator

Threads: 1520
Posts: 27116

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

September 16th, 2010 at 4:20:45 PM permalink

I'd like to ask those in Pennsylvania, or outside the U.S., what do drivers do in said situation?

A) Same chaos we have in the other 49 states.

B) Both lanes are used until the merge point, and then drivers take turns zippering.

C) Both lanes are used until the merge point, and then drivers in the merging lane have to wait until a car in the open lane waives them in.

"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)

algle

algle

Threads: 1
Posts: 82

Joined: Aug 12, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 6:33:18 PM permalink

I have to merge every day on the Auckland Harbour Bridge in New Zealand. I think most drivers have taken all 3 courses of action at some time, with a preference for one of them. What I have learned over the years is that nothing will eliminate the "lowest common denominator" factor, which basically means that there will always be poor drivers on the roads.
I will merge early if there is a gap available. In this case I will be angry with anyone that subsequently passes me in the closing lane. However if there are no gaps I will proceed as far as possible down the closing lane for a "forced merge" at the cones if necessary. The simple fact is that you will always be able to merge at the cones - since there is no other option - and you might as well use the lane while it is open. There is no logical argument for all drivers to merge early and leave a perfectly usable lane empty. Having said that, if I do merge early I NEVER pull out into the closing lane again, regardless of traffic flow. However there will always be drivers that do this.
So I would suggest that the most efficient use of a road is to use 100% of the available lane space in all lanes at all times. You might as well use what's available to you, because if you don't someone else certainly will.
Driving Utopia is not in our foreseeable future!

If nothing will change then I am nothing.

boymimbo

Threads: 17
Posts: 5994

Joined: Nov 12, 2009

September 16th, 2010 at 6:44:52 PM permalink

Quote: Wizard of Odds
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.

Why can't one have both? There are plenty of athiests who have evil qualities. There are plenty of Christians as well that have evil qualities. My thought is that you are more apt to learn right from wrong and learn good ethics and morals in a religious household. I mean, believing that you will go to heaven alone through faith doesn't give you the right to do the wrong thing. The teachings within the Bible is just a way to illustrate through stories right behaviours and wrong behaviours. My belief is that those with faith are more likely to know the difference between right and wrong and are likely to feel penalized (through guilt, actual punishment, god's wrath) when they do something wrong, whereas athiests (those without faith) may feel that they will only receive consequences for their actions if caught, because no one (including Santa Claus) is watching.

Quote: The Great Wizard
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?

The Bible does not mention the trinity. It is a logic problem. If the bible is true, then there is only one God. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three, distinct, entities. Thus the holy trinity.

----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

weaselman

Threads: 20
Posts: 2349

Joined: Jul 11, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 7:02:56 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
Nope. Wrong. "Using that room" would mean using it to merge as soon as possible: not merging at the point where the sign was (which would create a bottleneck), but using the remaining portion of road to execute a smooth merge.

I think, your problem is not understanding that "smooth merge", and "as early as possible" are not equivalent. If I am going to execute a smooth merge, why do I have to do it as early as possible? I do merge smoothly most of the time (unless, of course, I end up having to deal with a truck "stationed" in the left lane, or a "social deviant" trying to make a point in the right one).

Quote:
The deviant behavior is in using that remaining portion to zoom ahead and "beat everybody"---subverting the smooth merge in favor of getting a few seconds ahead of the other guys.

My goal is not to get ahead of the other guys, I don't view this as a race or a contest.
I simply do not want to waste time unnecessarily. What if the "merge ahead" sign was posted 10 miles before the lane closure? Would you still insist on everybody driving in a single lane for 10 miles being the "right thing"? How about 25 miles?
Why do I have to assume that the guy who chose the point where the sign should be posted made the optimal choice? He was not aware of the current road and traffic conditions, but I am. He did not know what kind of vehicles and drivers will be on the road at this particular moment, but I do. He did not take my driving skills into account, and had to assume they are way below average, while that is far from the truth. Overall, I am in a much better position than he is to make a decision when and where the smooth merge has the best chance.

"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 9:21:13 PM permalink

Quote: weaselman
I think, your problem is not understanding that "smooth merge", and "as early as possible" are not equivalent. If I am going to execute a smooth merge, why do I have to do it as early as possible? I do merge smoothly most of the time (unless, of course, I end up having to deal with a truck "stationed" in the left lane, or a "social deviant" trying to make a point in the right one).

I have been told, and I agree, that the fundamental task of a driver is to drive in such a manner that no other driver has to alter HIS driving to accomodate him.

Obviously, this is not going to happen in a merge situation, so I should perhaps modify "as early as possible" to "as early as possible without disrupting the other drivers". In other words, not cutting in front of someone else as soon as there are 1.05 car lengths open in front of them, but rather, actually MERGING.

So "smooth merge" and "as early as possible" are indeed equivalent, using the above law of 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

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 9:27:53 PM permalink

Quote: weaselman
Why do I have to assume that the guy who chose the point where the sign should be posted made the optimal choice? He was not aware of the current road and traffic conditions, but I am. He did not know what kind of vehicles and drivers will be on the road at this particular moment, but I do. He did not take my driving skills into account, and had to assume they are way below average, while that is far from the truth. Overall, I am in a much better position than he is to make a decision when and where the smooth merge has the best chance.

Yes indeedy. Why should you assume that the guy who puts up a "STOP" sign knew what he was doing? He didn't know anything about the road, or the intersection--he just had a STOP sign in the back of his truck and decided to put it somewhere. And he had NO idea that YOU would be coming along--you who being skilled, don't NEED to stop. Speed limit signs are likewise bogus--the guy who put them up couldn't possibly have anticipated the unique combination of the other drivers, the weather, and most importantly, MOI that exists at this moment! If I feel justified in going 105 through downtown, I should be able to do so!

Funny, that very sound argument didn't work with the nice policeman.

I guess that you also ignore "Bridge Out" signs because you are a much better judge of whether a bridge has collapsed that the ignorant moron who put up the sign. Why believe him, after all?

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

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 9:33:05 PM permalink

Quote: boymimbo
My thought is that you are more apt to learn right from wrong and learn good ethics and morals in a religious household.

This is terrifyingly incorrect.

The thesis that religion has a moral effect is based on the idea that coercion is the best way to make people behave. The carrot of heaven and the stick of hell are supposed to keep people in line.

If you argue that what really teaches morality in a religious household is love, support, and mutual respect and understanding, well, then, a nonreligious household/upbringing can do that just as well--perhaps better, since the only reason given for moral behavior will be its "goodness", not its usefulness in achieving an afterlife reward and/or escaping an afterlife punishment.

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

boymimbo

Threads: 17
Posts: 5994

Joined: Nov 12, 2009

September 16th, 2010 at 9:48:58 PM permalink

I respectfully disagree. I do agree that love, support, mutual understanding, respect are the foundations of a good upbringing. However, I think that that foundation is more likely in a home that practices some form of faith. Of course, I have no statistics to back up my claim. On this topic, I just have my life experiences to draw on.

When you look at professional athletes, many of them attribute their skill and life to God. My feeling is that with religion comes some sense of order. When I think about athiests, I think of two extremes: complete chaos, or complete reasonableness. Think of an athiest who believes "I can get away with anything I want because there is no after-life consequence". It is just as bad as the Christian who believes "I can get away with anything I want because God will forgive me".

Religion may be for the weak minded, as the Wizard points out, but I think it's a valid framework to teach goodness and morality.

----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

Wizard
Administrator

Threads: 1520
Posts: 27116

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

September 16th, 2010 at 10:11:19 PM permalink

Quote: boymimbo
My thought is that you are more apt to learn right from wrong and learn good ethics and morals in a religious household...My belief is that those with faith are more likely to know the difference between right and wrong and are likely to feel penalized (through guilt, actual punishment, god's wrath) when they do something wrong,

I think the Santa Claus comparison is also apropos in your allegation that theists are overall better people. Did the Santa Claus story keep you in line as a kid? Maybe a little week before Christmas, when Santa was cramming to finish his list of good and bad children. However, the rest of the year, Christmas was too far off to postpone gratification over. Besides, there was always that doubt that he was real anyway. Ultimately, you can't run from who you are. The threat of an omniscient god is more than outweighed by the infinite forgiveness promised in church every week, at least in my opinion.

Quote: boymimbo
whereas athiests (those without faith) may feel that they will only receive consequences for their actions if caught, because no one (including Santa Claus) is watching.

Some of them may feel that, but I don't. As I said before, I believe that you reap what you sow . Let's take the DJTeddyBear story where he found some money, knew who it belonged to, but kept it anyway. That is just absolutely the wrong thing to do. I think everyone but the worst social deviants knows that. I think there is a price to pay for doing wrong against your fellow man, even when not caught. People can sense a lot about a person in just the first 30 seconds of meeting them. Carrying around sins like that weighs down the character of a person, and others can sense it. I know I've done some things in my life I'm not proud of, and replay them in my mind often. For those things, I feel I owe a debt to society. I can't pay it down, but can avoid adding to it.

Quote: boymimbo
The Bible does not mention the trinity. It is a logic problem. If the bible is true, then there is only one God. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three, distinct, entities. Thus the holy trinity.

Let's table that for another thread and another day. I'll let you have the last word on that, for now.

"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 16th, 2010 at 11:21:00 PM permalink

Quote: boymimbo
When I think about athiests, I think of two extremes: complete chaos, or complete reasonableness. Think of an athiest who believes "I can get away with anything I want because there is no after-life consequence".

This is a gross mischaracterization. It would only be valid if bad deeds were ONLY punished in the afterlife. The fact that a person does not believe in an afterlife does not automatically mean that he considers himself to have carte blanche.

In fact, I would argue the opposite. A person who is moral WITHOUT the rewards/punishments of religion is more genuine, because his moral behavior must come from WITHIN, not from being externally imposed upon him.

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

weaselman

Threads: 20
Posts: 2349

Joined: Jul 11, 2010

September 17th, 2010 at 4:32:49 AM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
Yes indeedy. Why should you assume that the guy who puts up a "STOP" sign knew what he was doing?

Actually, you are right, most of the time I find that he did not. Take an idiotic invention, caled a "4-way stop" for example. Yes, I think, most of the time they have absolutely no clue what they are doing, it is a very good example.
In this case however, it is the law, and I do not have a choice but to follow it.

In case of a merge, there is no law that I have to abandon my lane, give up my good judgment and just merge right away, because somebody warned me, that the lane will be closed in a few miles. So, why in the world would I do that?

Quote:
I guess that you also ignore "Bridge Out" signs because you are a much better judge of whether a bridge has collapsed that the ignorant moron who put up the sign. Why believe him, after all?

If the sign is posted 2 miles before the bridge, and I have no intention on crossing the bridge in the first place (perhaps, I am going to see my grandmother, who lives on this side), that would make your example more or less similar to the situation at hand. I won't ignore the sign, but after evaluating the information, I will decide, that it does not apply to me in the given set of circumstances.

In fact I never ignore any road signs, so your sarcasm is misplaced. I don't ignore the "lane closed" sign either, I take a due notice of it, and apply my judgment and experience to analyze the situation and handle it safely and efficiently.
If your judgment tells you to proceed to a bridge, that's closed, then, perhaps, people like you do benefit a lot from the "merge" signs posted miles before the lane closure, and should indeed merge as early as possible. Like I said before, some people should not be on the road at all to begin with.

But for the rest of us, those capable of making sound decisions, it sounds laughable when you suggest that I should abandon all logic and reason of my own, and just automatically do what you are telling me in any circumstances, because if it was about a "bridge's out" sign, and I did not listen, then I'd get in trouble :)

"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"

God

God

Threads: 0
Posts: 1

Joined: Sep 17, 2010

September 17th, 2010 at 4:38:28 AM permalink

This is my one and only post, so listen up:

I do exist, but I'm retired.

No modern religion is even in the ballpark. The fact that there's more than one oughta be a clue. Obviously, not more than one can be correct, but the fact is none of them are. It's just a buncha mumbo jumbo and chanting.

I do not keep track of what you're doing, you're on your own. There's no afterlife, so git r done in the here and now. Any reward or punishment for your actions, if it occurs, comes in this world.

I have nothing to do with bad shit that happens, I'm not "testing" you.

Although I do make people split 10s sometimes just for the hell of it.

Satan walks amongst you in the form of Terry Fator.

No Higgs boson, sorry.

Take the Bills and the 13 points Sunday.

TGIF.

Over and out...

Wizard
Administrator

Threads: 1520
Posts: 27116

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

September 17th, 2010 at 6:15:54 AM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
A person who is moral WITHOUT the rewards/punishments of religion is more genuine, because his moral behavior must come from WITHIN, not from being externally imposed upon him.

Well put.

"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)

weaselman

Threads: 20
Posts: 2349

Joined: Jul 11, 2010

September 17th, 2010 at 8:32:59 AM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
A person who is moral WITHOUT the rewards/punishments of religion is more genuine, because his moral behavior must come from WITHIN, not from being externally imposed upon him.

If a person is a hypocrite, who only pretends to be religious for whatever reason, than yes, he is obviously less genuine than somebody who is not a hypocrite.
But for somebody truly religious, his religion with its rewards and punishment and everything else is not imposed externally, but coming from within, just like with your atheist guy. So, the difference you are pointing out is not between an atheist and a religious person, but rather between a hypocrite and a genuine guy. No surprise the latter turns out to be more genuine :)

"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

September 17th, 2010 at 12:11:46 PM permalink

Quote: weaselman
If a person is a hypocrite, who only pretends to be religious for whatever reason, than yes, he is obviously less genuine than somebody who is not a hypocrite.
But for somebody truly religious, his religion with its rewards and punishment and everything else is not imposed externally, but coming from within, just like with your atheist guy. So, the difference you are pointing out is not between an atheist and a religious person, but rather between a hypocrite and a genuine guy. No surprise the latter turns out to be more genuine :)

His RELIGION could not possibly have come from within. Religion is a collection of practices and rituals and symbols and icons, and in most cases, is a SECULAR and social institution (observe how Islam micromanages everyone's life, or how Christianity did in the 14th century). No person (except maybe Joseph Smith) dreams up such an edifice on his own. What might come from within is his faith/belief, which can (and does) exist completely independent from any religion.

What I was trying to say was that a person with a true moral compass will have it with or without religion, and the person without one will likewise lack it in wither case. It's not a matter of "hypocrisy". It's just that it's preferable to be in the company of someone who is good because he has made an independent decision to be so, without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment, then someone who is good only because of such reward or threat.

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

Ayecarumba

Ayecarumba

Threads: 236
Posts: 6763

Joined: Nov 17, 2009

September 17th, 2010 at 12:18:42 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
A person who is moral WITHOUT the rewards/punishments of religion is more genuine, because his moral behavior must come from WITHIN, not from being externally imposed upon him.

Quote: Wizard
Well put.

I put forward that "moral" behavior cannot come from within. The rules and standards that define "good" and "bad" behavior are externally imposed. We learn these rules from others (typically, our family of origin, schools, religious training). We do not develop them internally, but can internalize them.

The constructs of "fairness", "justice", and "good behavior" are just that, "constructs". They are relative to an individual's experience, training, and culture (among many factors.) For example, two individuals can see the same "Merge" sign, and have two very different reactions. One will do the "right" thing by using the empty lane as efficently as possible, driving to the end of the cones and nosing in. The other will merge early since the "right" thing to do is obey the sign. Is one more "right"?

Without an ultimate standard of "good", all comparisons are relative. Each construct is valid (at least in each individual's mind), even if they conflict. The question for each of us is, "where does our individual judgement of what is "good" and "bad" come from?" Is it based on a standard that do not change, or does it depend on the situation ("If I'm late...", "He deserved it...", "I was tired...").

The Ten Commandments in the Bible demonstrate to us that there is a standard, The laws and justice system of the Western world are based on it. I think many have internalized these external standards, but mistakenly believe that they would have come up with them on their own.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci

boymimbo

Threads: 17
Posts: 5994

Joined: Nov 12, 2009

September 17th, 2010 at 12:59:22 PM permalink

Thank you. We here in the Western world grow up around judeo-christian values and morals and ethics, all of which are based on religion.

If you grew up in a Muslim dominated country, you would be fine with suppressing women and making them wear burkas and denying them any rights. You would be fine with stoning and very harsh penalties for light crimes.

Values are taught from the world and family around you. That's my entire point - I believe that you are more likely to have a better sense of right from wrong being raised in a house of faith.

To the Wizard's argument, I don't do evil things knowing that I will be forgiven. I try to be good to others because I've learned that. Some of those learnings come from my parents. But look at alot of people who didn't have good parent or a decent upbringing. Many of them have turned to other sources (the bible) to learn good from bad. I don't see anything wrong with that.

----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

BigTip

BigTip

Threads: 3
Posts: 67

Joined: May 25, 2010

September 17th, 2010 at 5:27:10 PM permalink

Whew! How did I miss this thread?

It is hard to answer the question posed in the poll. dwheatley pointed out that there are multiple situations of merging. The light traffic merge, and the heavy traffic merge. I didn't think of that when I first read the poll, but now I see that it matters, as to how I would answer.

I believe that we mostly agree that when traffic has ground to a halt, then the Pennsylvania method seems to be the best solution. Both lanes, alternate going, just like at a four way stop sign.

But when I first read the poll I was applying the question to the light traffic scenario. The goal of light traffic merging is to keep traffic light, to not have it bog down into the stopped traffic situation.

So I think it would be more efficient for the merging to happen at as high a speed as possible, keeping traffic moving. Late mergers impede that. I would think it best for traffic to be warned of the impending merge situation right after the last exit or entrance to the highway. This would give as much time as possible to create a single fast moving lane of traffic. Of course it would only be moving as fast as the slowest car, but that would still get more cars through the area quicker than a bogged down situation.

By the way, I enjoy the economic terms used to argue the points. I feel that the country would be better off if at least a year of economics was required to graduate high school.

Wizard
Administrator

Threads: 1520
Posts: 27116

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Thanked by

August 15th, 2017 at 9:18:03 PM permalink

Sorry to wake up an old thread but I hate to start a new topic when I remember an old one about it.

Yesterday I was heading east on the I-95 around Decatur when I noticed the following sign:

I love how it says to use both lanes until the merge point. This accomplishes to important things:

1. It doesn't waste space. The alternative is most cars will merge too early, leaving wasted space in the left lane, causing the backup to extend further back.
2. There is none of the hostility against the late mergers. Here the sign specifically tells them to merge late.

As if my praise for the Nevada Department of Transportation couldn't get higher, they top themselves with this next sign:

Thank you!!! Why is it so hard for everybody to understand that if two lanes need to merge into one that you should take turns. It is only fair. Instead, what usually happens is when I slow down to let one car in, the car behind will suddenly rush to cut in front to. The thinking seems to be, "Oh, here is a pushover not defending his lane -- I'll cut in front of him too."

It isn't often I am happy to cones and construction equipment on a busy highway, as there always seems to be around the Spaghetti Bowl, but this was one of those rare, probably only, exceptions.

"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)

boymimbo

Threads: 17
Posts: 5994

Joined: Nov 12, 2009

Thanked by

August 15th, 2017 at 9:24:34 PM permalink

Lanes are meant to be used to their end. Jams come about however when there is a failure to merge at speed.

Say lane 1 is going to be merged into lane 2. Both lanes have a car spaced 0.9 car apart and the cars are travelling at a constant velocity. For Lane 1 to properly merge perfectly into lane 2, lane 2 will need to spread its lengths apart to 1 meaning that a car speeds up and a car slows down. This creates the jam.

It does not always make mathematical sense to merge at the last possible moment. It makes sense to merge to maintain or improve the average speed of the roadway.

Waiting to the end to merge means that each car on the left has to let you in and must slow down to do so and must slow down to the point where you can merge without running out of the laneway in front of you which is a finite distance. A perfect merge would be the ability to merge at the speed limit without impeding traffic. This of course can be obtained in low traffic situations.

----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

gamerfreak

gamerfreak

Threads: 57
Posts: 3540

Joined: Dec 28, 2014

August 15th, 2017 at 9:53:51 PM permalink

Earlier this summer on a road close to where I live, an 18yo girl was shot in the head and killed due to a road rage incident that stemmed from a merge:

http://6abc.com/traffic/suspect-arrested-idd-in-chester-co-road-rage-killing/2164008/

Obviously that case is beyond egregious, but all aggressive and wreckless drivers are the scum of the earth in my opinion. I would absolutely support jail time and lengthy license suspensions for such behavior.

billryan

billryan

Threads: 253
Posts: 17176

Joined: Nov 2, 2009

August 15th, 2017 at 10:03:37 PM permalink

Drive like you are invisible, that other drivers cant see you and that anything that happens is 100% on you. You'll be amazed how many of these problems disappear.

The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened

RogerKint

RogerKint

Threads: 15
Posts: 1916

Joined: Dec 5, 2011

August 15th, 2017 at 10:13:44 PM permalink

I drive a small car and get bullied on a daily basis. I've learned just to get out of the way and let people in. What's the point of getting all angry? What would Jesus do

100% risk of ruin

onenickelmiracle

onenickelmiracle

Threads: 212
Posts: 8277

Joined: Jan 26, 2012

August 15th, 2017 at 10:47:29 PM permalink

I hate it when it's bumper to bumper gridlock not going anywhere and people drive past everyone on the shoulder and rarely get caught. I'd just love to have a nice full milkshake to throw at their car in those moments. Cheating really gets you far, this isn't all they do to society. I know people that do that, also they had their speedometer(got out of speeding tickets too) detached so the miles didn't get recorded going to Florida and back from Ohio. Someone later would up buying their car with many extra thousands of miles more than they knew. Worked in the 90s, not sure if it still does. You should see these people's houses and bank accounts. Then they probably jump online bitching about $15/hr every chance they get.

I am a robot.

Wizard
Administrator