Poll

14 votes (36.84%)
20 votes (52.63%)
4 votes (10.52%)

38 members have voted

weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
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
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1
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
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1388
  • Posts: 23333
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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
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
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
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
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
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
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
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
Joined: May 25, 2010
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 67
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
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1388
  • Posts: 23333
Thanks for this post from:
RogerKint
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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Thanks for this post from:
RogerKint
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!

  • Jump to: