1. Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team
    Dismiss Notice

Things that bother me

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Ashrem, Aug 7, 2017.

  1. Eideann of Daidu

    Eideann of Daidu New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Barony of Fettburg
    1) LMNOP = nice way to use humor to minimize a point you disagree with. Minimize and lightly ridicule. If something is funny, it doesn't have to be taken seriously.

    2) No. Just no. No one in the responsible portion of the LGBTQA community has EVER said that any way your sexuality hangs out is okay. Never nonconsenting. Never between those below the age of consent and those above it, and while there may be no firm way to psychologically draw that line in the sand, we, as a culture, have made a valid attempt. Not perfect, but valid, and ignoring/minimizing/dismissing that line is not useful as all it does is encourage those with the P word that you so lightly add to that acronym (more about that later) to also ignore it. Oh, AJ says it's meaningless, see! Not claiming that as your intent, not even really saying you have that kind of influence, but if you add that attitude to the public discourse, that is part of what you're saying. Please consider more than your intended interpretation when you say things.

    If it has been transformed into such, and I don't agree that it has, it is not by us.

    3) As the person who actually added the A to the original poster who commented on the LGBTQ community, I would like to say that it is not amusing, it is not funny, and it is not minor to be excluded. You who (I presume) are part of the majority seem to think it is, but it really isn't. I am asexual. I don't want sex. With anyone. Ever. And that's okay. But I am a person with a sexuality that is different than yours, and I know that some people (not saying you, so don't react as if I am, please) are threatened by this. My own mother can't accept that I feel no desire for sexual intercourse. She'd be happier if I were gay because she can understand that.

    ... but it was the effect. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact, but by adding pedophilia so blandly to the list, you did equate that with all the others. To start with, I'd like to remind you of what I said above. Please pay attention to more than your own interpretation of your words. If I compare someone's beliefs with those of Hitler, they may very well get upset, even if I was talking about their belief in their own artistic talent. If you indeed did not intend that addition to be offensive, then, whether you intended the offense or not, you nevertheless offended. If you are being disingenuous, then you know what I'm saying and did it on purpose. I can't know which, and your telling me it was accidental doesn't actually mean anything. I'll either believe you or I won't, and thus far, I'm not sure. Interpretation is such a sticky problem, you see. What you may have said in all innocence may yet make people think ill of you.

    Now, on to other topics. Yes, most people do have their first sexual encounter before the age of 18. Mine was at the age of 7 and involved an adult. Fortunately, most people have theirs at a more reasonable age of around 15 or 16 with another person of that age. It doesn’t even always go “all the way.” This is not what we were talking about with pedophilia. One 15-year-old having sex with another is not pedophilia on either part. An adult having sexual relations with a minor is what pedophilia is about, and that is what I believe was being referenced with the "developing minds" comment. A 26-year-old teacher having sex with a 15-year-old student, whatever their genders, is not appropriate because it's an adult putting adult sexual mores into play with a developing adolescent, possibly skewing their whole worldview and outlook on life. You continue to equate pedophilia with normal human sexual development. It is normal for people to start having sexual feelings at around 13-15 because their bodies are getting ready for maturity. Whether it's a good idea for them to have sex with each other is a different matter, and not what we're really talking about.

    My point is this. By making it about underage sex, you are changing the topic. By making it about pedophilia, you are changing the topic.

    When people who are honest and straightforward about their feelings about sexualities that make them uncomfortable or to which they object, they don't shift the footing and pull in side matters that are not relevant, and to which no one can raise an objection. No one here is going to say pedophilia is a good thing. No one here is going to say that all those 15-year-olds out there should start getting it on. Those are not what we're talking about.

    I have listened to a lot of other points of view. I've read posts and articles and long-winded narratives and well thought out essays on other points of view. When we're talking about sexuality, what they usually all come down to is "the way that isn't mine is wrong because it isn't mine." Rarely have I come across one that doesn't. For example, yours comes down to "that way is wrong because the logic of it justifies people who are awful doing things that are awful." Sorry, but logic isn't your strong suit. Me being in a long term relationship with another asexual woman does not in any way suggest that a pedophile acting on his/her leanings is okay. My friends who have been married for years in their church and for fewer years in the eyes of the law, and who have raised two children to brilliant and responsible adulthood do not encourage underage sex by their very existence. Apples. Oranges.

    Now, this is the real fallacy. I don't believe that anyone proposed "falling in love" as the logic behind supporting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer and Asexual lifestyles. It can certainly be a symptom of fitting into one of those groups, but it isn't a justification. The justification is that they all exist. Nobody woke up one morning and said, "I think I'll court society's disapproval and have sex with people of my own gender." Well, probably a few people did, but those few don't invalidate my point. Very, very few people are out there saying, "Hey, I don't want to fit in!" or "Come on, beat me up because I'm different!" What you're saying is the same old tired argument: "We shouldn't let people have these kinds of relationships openly because they're just choosing to be out of step with the rest of us. When they choose to get back in step, they can join in again. Till then, leave them out in the cold."

    Stating that you don't like it is fine, but trying to deny its validity by saying allowing people to feel that way publicly is the same as saying that 26-year-olds can have sex with 14-year-olds is not logic, it's fear-mongering and shifting the argument to more winnable ground. If you were actually posing an argument against the lifestyles of adults, you would use arguments about adults. We aren't discussing pedophilia - or we weren't until you inserted it into the conversation, said you didn't mean to imply anything by it, and then kept bringing it up again and again. You may really believe that you didn't intend to imply a connection, but if you reread your posts, you just can't stop harping on it. You finally shift to underage sex, but that's still not the issue. And that's the point. You start with a post about adult relationships and argue it into a support for pedophilia and underage sex. And you seem to think you're arguing the same topic. Just a hint, you're not.

    Another point on the "justification" for LGBTQA relationships is that there's nothing to justify. It's none of your business what consenting adults do together. Moreover, arguing about what constitutes "adult" and whether it's valid or not is just persiflage, meant to obscure the real issues. As a note, it isn't the LGBTQA community that decreed what "adult" means, it's the government, and they did it a while ago.

    I asked myself if it was repetitious, and I'm afraid the answer was yes.

    Unfortunately, most of your points aren't to the point, so to speak. You very politely tell us queers and gays, etc, that our request to have our lifestyles recognized and acknowledged as valid just provides justification for pedophiles to molest and children to fornicate. Several times. Using different approaches.

    I'd be very interested in a cogent argument on this topic that doesn't stray into areas that aren't relevant and aren't designed to make it hard to disagree with.

    Amusingly, all the original poster was saying was that they didn't believe that God would cast someone into hell for falling in love. @burningeden, if it even needs said at this point, I agree.

    PS. I see that other people have responded before I finished writing. I apologize if I have repeated their points. It took a while to compose this … and then edit it to fit.
     
  2. mucksterme

    mucksterme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Location:
    PA





    At first I had no idea what you were talking about.
    You quoted my post but your reply seemed to have no relation to what I had said.
    Then I realized you were referring to my sig, which you did not quote.
    So your attempt to be clever by piggy backing on my joke was a failure.
    And your attempt to expand on my humor was just sad.
     
  3. Eideann of Daidu

    Eideann of Daidu New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Barony of Fettburg
    You know what bothers me?
    • People who don't know how to merge.
    • People who change lanes and then slow down in front of me
    • People who think they don't have to get out of the fast lane because they're going the speed limit even though everyone around them is going 10-20 mph above it (in my state you can get a ticket for that, even if going faster would break the speed limit -- backwards, I know, but it's true)
    • People moving super-wide and/or super-slow objects during rush hour on two-lane roads
    • People who think the turn signal is meant to be used WHILE changing lanes, not as a warning BEFORE changing lanes
    • People who are jackasses and react to the turn signal of someone in the next lane as a cause to speed up and cut them off -- it's not a race!! -- and just encourage the people in the previous bullet point to not use their turn signals correctly
    • People who only seem to notice that they're going too slow when you pull out to go around them, and then immediately speed up . . . then drift back to their earlier slower speed when you are forced to pull back in behind them
    • People who see that the lane ahead is ending for whatever reason and decide, instead of merging sanely with the rest of traffic, to pull as far ahead as is feasibly possible and force their way in there -- again, it's not a race!! -- and thus slow the traffic behind them down. About half the hold up at road construction is from people who think that dick move gets them to their destination faster
    Can you tell I've been commuting an extended distance to work for about 15 years, both on freeways and surface streets?
     
  4. ajqtrz

    ajqtrz New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2017
    Hmmm.... I agree with much of this. The "not knowing how to merge" may be a problem is the people in the merging lane are doing "10-20" over the speed limit as the on ramps are designed to give enough time to get up to the speed limit, not over it. Just a thought.

    People who change lanes and are at the speed limit are not "slowing down in front of you," and unless they are going below the speed limit it shouldn't be a bother to you at all since if you are at the limit their slowing down to that limit wouldn't cause you any need to adjust your own speed.

    There is no FAST lane....the far left lane is for through traffic going at the speed limit. Anything over is your problem, not that of the person in that lane.

    People who react to the warning that you are changing lanes by speeding up are just trying to keep you from slowing them down. Seems a bit odd that you complain about somebody in the "fast lane" slowing you down by going as fast as they are legally allowed at the same time you complain about somebody trying to keep you from slowing them down by getting in front of them.

    I could go on in detail, but what I see in your complaints is that you don't like it when people slow you down.

    Now let's examine some of this from the perspective of a "speed limit driver" (SLD) for short.

    The SLD thinks, "I want to be safe on the roads and I want everybody to be safe on the roads but I also want everybody to get to where they wish to go as fast as possible." Both goals are worthy of some effort, but both do not always mean the same thing. What to do?

    No accident has ever occurred when two objects are traveling in the same direction at the same speed. Basic physics there. So how do you get all the objects going in the same direction at the same speed? Hmmm.....how about you put up a sign saying "one way" or have a rule that on one side of the path you go one way and the other you go another? That gets everybody going the same direction, right? Now for speed. Hmmm...oh, I know! A sign saying what speed everybody should do! What a concept! You could call it a "speed limit" and if everybody obeys it all the time nobody gets hurt and there are no accidents. Of course there might be mechanical breakdowns and such, but that's something else entirely. If everybody goes the same speed and the same direction no accidents.

    But wait, how will that get everybody to where they wish to go as fast as possible? It won't. "As fast as possible" means that some people will get their faster and some slower, depending upon conditions. If everybody wants to get there "as fast as possible " and we let them determine just how fast they want to try getting there then we impinge on the safety of all. Why? Because in personally choosing to move at whatever speed the person feels will get them there as fast as possible there will naturally be different speeds...and different directions as people change lanes to go around those going slower. More lane changes, differing speeds and suddenly, we have objects moving in different directions and doing different speeds and thus, colliding on occasion, which, of course, then slows everybody down.

    At the core of the problem as it now stands is that everybody thinks they have the opportunity to get to their destination as fast as they can. They give themselves, 10, 20 and even more "extra" mph over the SLD's and want to blame the SLD's for the frustration they feel. The more people you have with this attitude on the road the more accidents you have because you can't mix the two types of drivers and maintain "one direction, one speed" necessary to avoid accidents.

    The "speed up when you signal you want in my lane," is the same as the "don't travel in the fast lane if you want to do the speed limit only," the 'wait until the last moment to get into the thru lane when a lane is ending" are all symptoms of the same "I want to get there as fast as I can regardless of other's" attitude. And in your list of things you dislike, my friend, you are guilty of being the problem.

    Ask yourself why you speed. You do it for only a few reasons.

    First, you may speed because you know you can get away with it. "The cops give you 10-20 over" (and you get a ticket if you aren't 'keeping up' -- which is double jeopardy btw and has been determined by the courts to be unconstitutional to enforce). Is "I can get away with it" a morally sufficient ground upon which to stand when engaged in law breaking? Would you tell you kid, "good job" if he cheated on a test and got away with it? Stole from a neighbor? Robbed a bank? Sold your car? The idea that getting away with it justifies the behavior is something most of us reject pretty early in life.

    Second, you may speed because you need to bet some place and the current speed is not going to get you there on time. So you speed to make up for the mistake of leaving too late. Again, didn't we learn pretty early that "two wrongs don't make a right?"

    You choose to put everybody in increased risk of an accident because you didn't leave on time? If you are traveling less than 7 miles to your destination and travel 10 mph over the speed limit on city streets you only gain about 15 seconds. 15 seconds! And for that you are going to put others at risk? On a freeway, if all goes well, you can make up about 1 minute. 1 Minute per day for 200 days is, well 200 minutes. Now ask yourself how many times you've been stuck in traffic because somebody had an accident up ahead. The average commuter hits a traffic accident twice a week (not meaning they have an accident but that they come upon one and are delayed because of it). The slow down increases their commute 2 minutes on average. 100 weeks times 2 minutes equals 200 minutes lost per year. So the average all that speeding saves drivers is 0 seconds a day. It's a wash.

    Now this doesn't count the time lost, in hours, when eventually all that speeding results in your being hit by that tailgater as you hit your breaks to avoid that guy who was signalling as he was changing lanes and going slower than you. The average commuter will be in an accident every 7 years. How much time is lost in that scenario?

    So, overall, speeding does nothing to help your commute even if you feel it does. It's a wash at best because "everybody does it" and the results are that nobody actually benefits overall.

    In the end the only way to get everybody where they wish to go as fast as possible and as safe as possible is for everybody to drive in the same direction at the same speed....obey the speed limits, become a SLD.

    All statistics are from the US Department of Transportation. The reasoning is my own.

    Finally, just to add a social aspect to this. Do you want your kids to use the excuses put forth? Do you want them growing up with the idea that everything is okay as long as you can get away with it? That two wrongs can equal a right? That because everybody does it, it's automatically okay? If you don't then model the behaviors noted. For if you have kids in the car they DO notice how your drive and the DO figure out your excuses. Be faithful in the little things and the big things will take care of themselves.

    AJ
     
  5. ajqtrz

    ajqtrz New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2017
    I was once sitting an a gathering of grad students and professors when one professor said, "Well, when I say it's art, it's art!," to which I responded, "unless I say it isn't!" Since I was new to the program and the particular professor at the top, there was a gasp and silence, into which on professor commented, "and he just go here!" Everybody laughed. I tend to be pretty feisty much to my detriment on occasion.

    But point of his remarks and my retort illustrates the difficulties of all sorts of non-measurable judgments. What is art and what is not has been debated for hundreds of years and the only measure anybody has come up with is "art lasts," and even that measure has been debated. I agree with you that our glandular reactions to things as a measure of their quality means that all standards are idiosyncratic and thus, not useful as criticism at all. On the other hand though, feelings do matter and may be a indicator to us that what we are viewing is genuinely artistic. The reason that professor declared his right to declare what is art and what is not, is that he felt he had been trained to do so. Like a gourmand who spend countless years developing his taste until he can distinguish which side of the hill the mushroom grew upon, this professor felt that a long involvement and exposure to art trained his mind and body to respond to it better than the untrained. The counter argument is, of course, that his training was directed by those who inherited a particular strand of understanding and that, since they controlled the means of learning what is art, they merely made students into their image, an argument that gives to the powerful the right to declare something as artistic or not.

    All I ask of my students in criticism is that they tell me why they feel as they do...what, specifically... they experienced in some way in the work.. that they believe impacted them in that manner. In other words, I ask for evidence to support their reaction. Reviews which simply say "I liked it" or "I didn't" are pretty useless as criticism or reviews. Those which say, "I liked it" or "I didn't" and here's why, well, those I can handle, even if I do think they are wrong.

    It's almost impossible to argue with feelings but evidence for why a person feels that way, that you can discuss.

    AJ
     
  6. Ashrem

    Ashrem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    This might be true for many places, including where you live, but probably isn't. In most traffic acts, it is specified that vehicles on highways are required to "keep right, except to pass" which means that if you are not going faster than the car in the right lane, then you should not be in the left lane, regardless of your speed and the speed limit. This is generally to ensure a free-flowing traffic lane for emergency vehicles. It is perfectly possible to be breaking the law by going exactly the speed limit in the left lane.
     
  7. ajqtrz

    ajqtrz New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2017
    I have been watching the Dr. for decades and decades. I love the show. I think it one of the most enjoyable and insightful things on television in the last 50 years and while the Dr. has nearly run out of regeneration (13 was the official number at the beginning but now it could be up to 507) he will live on, no doubt. My favorite Dr. was Colin Baker followed by Tom Baker, BTW. Amy was my favorite companion. I loved the scene where the Dr. shows up at her doorstep after years and finds that they always set a place for him at the Christmas table. Sweet.

    AJ
     
  8. ajqtrz

    ajqtrz New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2017
    True enough, but why, pray tell, are you trying to pass a car doing the speed limit? The only reason for doing so is that you wish to speed. Thus, the "fast lane" is not for speeding, but for passing cars going BELOW the speed limit.

    And if the car in the "passing" lane is doing the speed limit? You still have no reason to pass.

    And as for emergency vehicles, I agree. But then if you are driving in the "passing" lane then you already breaking the law, aren't you? The simple fact is, you have no reason to use the "passing lane" if everybody is doing the speed limit. And if they are below, the "passing lane" is for passing and then resuming the speed limit.

    You can't wiggle out of it so easily.

    AJ
     
  9. mucksterme

    mucksterme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Location:
    PA

    Am I crazy or did this guy just totally say the same thing as Ashrem but try to make it sound like Ash is wrong?
     
  10. Eideann of Daidu

    Eideann of Daidu New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Barony of Fettburg
    @ajqtrz

    Wow, you seem a little put out that I will no longer engage you on the subject you inserted into this thread a while ago. You have gone through and found a bunch of things that I specifically said to disagree with, and one to agree with. The one you apparently agree with proves that you are no actual fan because no one who is actually a fan of the Doctor ever abbreviates the word because it's not a title, it's a name.

    People who don't know how to merge

    Sorry I wasn't more specific to head you off at the pass. I thought most people would understand that I meant the idiots who go 40mph all the way up the on ramp and then try to insert themselves into 70mph traffic. Please, however, don't fault me too much. I wasn't preparing for nitpicking jerk.

    People who slow down in front of you when they change lanes

    I didn't say people going at the speed limit who change lanes in front of you when you're speeding. i said people who slow down in front of you when they change lanes. Way to put words in my mouth and reinterpret what I said based on your own assumptions and interest in getting an argument going. People do change lanes and then hit the brakes for no apparent reason, going the speed limit, going less than the speed limit, going over the speed limit. Whatever. It is a bad idea, and it's rude, to pull in front of someone going, say, the speed limit, and immediately hit the brakes.

    Speed Limit

    #1 Fast lane exists in my state. Whatever you think, it does. There are actual signs. I know there are states where it's not the case, but that's not true of my state. #2 In my state, it is illegal to drive below the speed of traffic on the freeway. The practical upshot of this is that you can be pulled over and ticketed for going the speed limit. I.e., it can be deemed illegal to drive the speed limit in this state. Your information is faulty wherever it comes from. #3 It is impractical and unsafe to drive lower than the speed of the traffic around you for exactly your argument. Physics. Duh. #4 I go fast because I'm driving on freeways where that is the practice. Don't tell me it's stupid to do something unsafe because everyone else is doing it. It's unsafe to go a different speed than the speed of everyone around you. You said it, I said it, apparently the Department of Transportation said it. Also, the source you quote is the people who set the speed limits. Of course they disagree with speeding. Again, duh. Check out accident rates on the Autobahn.

    Oh, and for all that persiflage about how I cause accidents by speeding and people making me slow down when they change lanes going the speed limit and merging and all of that . . . deliberately provocative and irrelevant to the remarks made.

    Criticism

    I didn't mention art. I'm not talking about artistic differences. I'm talking about someone who went to a movie, didn't like it, and then declares publicly that it's bad. It's quite easy to tell the difference between someone who's actually criticizing a movie on its merits and one who is just saying it's badly written, badly directed and/or badly acted because they didn't like it. It is possible to dislike a movie because it doesn't float your boat and yet recognize that it is well directed, well written, and/or well acted, but just isn't your thing. There are, however, a lot of people who mistake their own dislike of something for a value judgement on its quality.

    Doctor Who

    Here's a relevant argument for you. I've met Colin Baker and he was kind of a jerk.

    I really can't believe you actually went through this thread to find and disagree with things I said, saving your only real agreement for something you clearly don't really get and which is entirely unimportant. Why do I think you did that? Because I'm the only one who so honored.

    And disagreeing with Ashrem doesn't count because you simply responded to something Ashrem said in this interchange.

    I repeat, there are signs on my freeways declaring the far left lane the fast lane. I'd take pictures, but taking photos while driving is definitely illegal.

    Look, grow up and stop trolling. There, I called you a troll. I mean it. Sorting through a thread and finding one person's remarks to disagree with is the act of a troll. Sorting through a thread that's about venting things that irritate you for the sole purpose of telling one person that they're wrong almost all the time is the act of a troll. Doing your best to make sure I stop coming here is definitely the act of a troll. I told you flatly that anger is an unhealthy emotion for me. Get over yourself and your superiority complex and stop trying to make me angry. Your opinions are self righteous and uninformed, and I'm neither interested nor impressed. And as for your little tidbit about 'your students', it doesn't convince me that you're a professor or even a teacher. You come across as a late high school, early college dweeb who thinks he's smarter than everybody else and wants to prove it. If that's not the case, you might want to work on the impression you give.
     
  11. Eideann of Daidu

    Eideann of Daidu New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Barony of Fettburg
    @mucksterme

    This guy really seems to want to argue about anything and everything.
     
  12. Ashrem

    Ashrem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    I'm not wiggling out of anything. I'm saying that you can't use the speed limit to justify clogging up the passing lane because that's not the law.. You'll probably never see me in it, but that doesn't change the smarminess of the response earlier that if you're doing the speed limit in the fast lane it's everybody else's tough luck. You have no idea who's in the car that's going faster, and no idea whether they have a legal or moral reason for doing so.

    It's not my place to pass judgement on others for the speed they are doing, and nor is it yours. That's why we pay professionals to make that call.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  13. Ashrem

    Ashrem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Sorry, but I'm definitely a fan, and I definitely abbreviate it. And considering how many characters in the series have said "this is the doctor" the argument falls flat because you don't ever say "this is the Eideann" or "this is the Ashrem." Most characters in the universe definitely think it's a title.
     
  14. ajqtrz

    ajqtrz New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2017
    @Eideann of Daidu,
    Just kind of wondering how you came to the conclusion that I "seem a little put out" about your lack of response to something else. Do please tell me if I've said something in the current thread which indicated I was referring to something previous. I can't find it.

    In addition, I'm wondering if you think I am picking on you? I didn't actually notice that you put the Dr. Who as well as the driving complaint. I usually just read the thing, respond and don't really care who wrote it. What difference does ones name have in the argument. I don't try to anticipate what a persons motives might be, unless they state them pretty clearly and they are pertinent to the discussion. Your posts interest me because they interest me.

    Before discussing the whole driving thread, you are right in our complaint that I used the shorthand Dr. for a name "Doctor." You may be right that nobody ever writes Dr. as I have done, but then I've not READ any of the Doctor Who books, so I have little to go on in terms of it propriety or not. That people think it's a title is evidenced in a number of episodes where is is specifically asked, Doctor of what? I wonder how I knew that if I weren't a fan?.

    As to the driving thread. You may be correct that in some places there is a "fast lane" but in all cases unless the speed limit of that lane is posted differently than the others a ticket given for driving too slow in that lane, when your speed was within the range of what was allowed in all lanes, would be considered double jeopardy. That's in the US. Perhaps you are from some other country where double jeopardy is allowed? If so, I stand corrected.

    It is always, I think better to be clear of that which you speak than allow for a range of interpretation. My assumption was that the person entering the roadway was doing the speed limit once they arrived at the point of merging. I, of course, concur with you that if they are doing significantly below the speed limit they are in the wrong. But in that case it's not the merging, it's the speed they are doing of which you are complaining. But it's a quibble on my part. I agree with you so long as you don't expect the person entering to speed up over the speed limit.

    Actually, I did say you can be pulled over for doing the speed limit...but not legally. It is, as I said, double jeopardy. The state cannot put you into a position where it is impossible to obey all laws because you must break one to obey another. It has been tested in the US Appellate system and found that if you do get a ticket for traveling the speed limit in ANY lane you can challenge and win in a court of law. The reason the cops do it and can get away with it is because the cost of fighting is much, much more than the cost of paying the fine. As for the minimum speed, that too, in most states, is posted. I suspect though that if you were doing more than the minimum yet below the maximum and got a ticket for going too slow, you could fight that too...though I know of no court cases on the matter.

    As for it being "impractical and unsafe" to drive other than the speed of people around me, how do I determine that speed when, in fact, it varies greatly? There are those of us who driver the speed limit. There are those few who driver 3-5 miles below the speed limit. There are those who, apparently like you, who driver 10-20 over the speed limit. And there are even those who driver 50 miles over the speed limit (and cause all kinds or problems since nobody finds it practical or safe to driver that way). My argument, as you know, is exactly that...to get people to drive "practical and safe," the only way to do that is to agree on the speed...something we don't do now. How to do that? Obey the posted limits. So instead of having some kind of "guess the safest speed" contest every morning when I'm in highly variable speed traffic, wouldn't it be easier if we all used the posted speed as our measure. I've spoken to a lot of cops about this matter and most of them prefer everybody traveling at the same speed. Even a small amount of difference in the cars -- as little as 5mph -- leads to more accidents. You want to blame the solution for the problem when the problem is that people won't adopt the solution.

    Now for the fun part. The "everyone is doing it" argument isn't true. Shock! Not everyone on the freeways is speeding. In fact, a significant portion -- between 20 and 90 percent on any given day at any given time or place are doing within 3mph of the speed limit one way or the other. You may not notice it because you are "keeping up" with the crowd doing whatever speed you are doing. It may seem to you that "everybody" is doing it, but they aren't. Again, these statistics come from the US Dept of Transportation, so let's not fool ourselves. In the matter of it being impractical and dangerous it is just as impractical and dangerous to cast your lot with the speeders in your crowd as to cast your lot with the non-speeders you are passing. It's the difference in their speeds that cause the accidents, not what they are doing. So join the most practical and safest crowd (again, the more speed the less safe you are), and do the speed limit, no matter how you feel about it.

    Well how about that, I come across as a lot younger and lot less educated than I am. Not sure if that's a good thing or not. Sort of a mixed bag. LOL. Though I'm not sure why you think it important to tell me this since it doesn't seem to me that the status of my education or age have much to do with the arguments I make. If I were 90 would you believe me any more? Or had a Masters degree? How about if I were a Nobel laureate? Would that make any of my illogical statements suddenly and magically become logical? I think not.

    As for you causing accidents, I don't believe I said that so much as the behaviors you apparently display, cause accidents. Statistically speaking about 30 percent of freeway accidents are caused by third parties absent from the scene. By their sudden shifting of lanes usually, the cause the person in that lane to hit the brakes and the person behind them, traveling too close, rear-ends them. They rarely know they even caused the accident and even more rarely are they caught.

    No, you didn't mention "art." I used the general category "art" and included "film criticism" as a sub category, then made my comments. Just go through and change the references to "art" to "film criticism" and you should be fine. You might have to make a few grammatical corrections of course, but you are perfectly capable of that.

    Thanks,

    AJ
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  15. Ashrem

    Ashrem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    That is not even close to how double jeopardy works. You're pulling that out of thin air. Double jeopardy is exactly one thing in the criminal codes, being charged twice for the same activity.

    The law is full of things that are generally allowed and specifically forbidden or specifically allowed though generally forbidden. From Drinking (but not in a moving vehicle) through city wide speed limits and overnight parking regulations that are unposted among others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with signs that say "keep right except to pass" and charging someone with obstructing traffic which is unconnected to the speed limit.
     
  16. SoggyShorts

    SoggyShorts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canuckistan
    I take a 200 mile (each way) trip to see the folks every month, and the speed limit is 60mph. Like a lot of other drivers on this highway I do around 90mph. That is hours and hours saved each year.
    7 miles? Where are you going, the corner store?
    For work I drive around 750 hours a year, most of the time going about 10-15% over the limit (because they don't give tickets for that here)
    That's ~100 hours a year I'm saving. Call it 70 to account for traffic lights where speed is zero.
    I don't bill for travel time so the less time behind the wheel the more money I make.

    We have signs here with things like "23% of fatal collisions involve speeding, SLOW DOWN!"
    What I read from that is 77% aren't due to speeding, but rather stupidity, and we'd all be better off if cops focused on giving tickets for that. I'm not sure where you live, but here speed limits are set far on the side of caution. There's no actual increased risk for anyone if you are driving 50 in a 35 zone with 2 lanes each way, a 12' median and hardly any turn offs.
     
  17. mucksterme

    mucksterme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Location:
    PA
    This paragraph proves that you are talking through an orifice not generally known for intelligent discourse.
     
  18. SoggyShorts

    SoggyShorts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canuckistan
    Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.

    They even made a movie by the same name--the basic plot is she gets convicted for murdering her husband, goes to jail, does her time, then finds out he is still alive. Now she can murder him for real, and not get charged a second time. -Double Jeopardy.
     
  19. ajqtrz

    ajqtrz New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2017
    You are correct, of course, for longer trips. I did not make it clear that I was speaking of a commuter in 15-30 minute commute, the average. Still, the differences in speed do impact accident rates and I do believe statistics will show that drivign 90 vs 60 adds a lot more danger to the trip both for the ones doing 90 AND the ones doing 60. Again, agreement on doing the same speed is needed and the only way to do that is to get the authorities to raise the speed limit OR to obey the speed limit. You can't shout out your window to each other and discuss the 'proper' speed you will all go and while you might go 10-30 percent over, others have a different idea of what they can get away with.

    The average commute is 7 miles.

    The 10%-15% over remark just points to the excuse, "I can get away with it" so if I come, steal your truck, and get away with it, you are okay with that? Won't bother you a bit? Breaking the law and saying it's okay as long as you get away with it, is a poor basis for a civil and law abiding society. Your, "it's such a small thing" with the speed limit might be my "it's just his truck and he has insurance so nobody is really hurt." Would you like that? Once you decide that "I can get away with it" is a good excuse the only difference between you and the truck thief is where each of you draw the line as to "significance."

    The 77% is a good number. Almost half of the rush hour accidents are caused by following too closely...i.e. I'm in hurry and have pulled up tot he guy in front of me as close as I can before I change lanes and go around him in frustration because he's only doing the speed limit and I'm in a hurry!" Most of the remaining occur during lane changes when a person who wants go even faster than the already speeding person in front of them, tries go go around. Now matter how you cut is speed is not the problem, the difference is speed is. So your decision to go 10%-15% over the posted speed is much more at fault than my decision to obey the traffic laws. You want to do 10%-15%, the guy ahead of you wants to do 5%, the guy in front of him, 30%. Different speeds = more accidents. Agreement on the speed is the basis for safe driving and EVERYBODY who starts with enough time getting to where they are going on time.

    Your personal wallet is a good excuse to break the law? You save 100 hours a year. Nice! Let's see, 100 x $40/hr = $4,000. A good amount, indeed. But wait, if you do that you burn more gas, endanger more lives -- yours included -- and demonstrate to everyone that the law is something you can skirt if you can get away with it. In other words you break the law for personal gain. It's back to my stealing your truck. I'm quite sure it's worth more than $4,000 and you do have insurance, right? Will you have a party when I come take it from you? Of course not. You will be mad as h... right? And if I send you a private email saying it's okay because I got a way with it? Will you not then have a party and celebrate with me my luck?

    As to your second point, the US Department of Transportation data disagrees. For every 5mph over the speed limit you increase the likely hood of an accident by 12%. It may seem to you that it is just as safe, but the best MEASURES say it is not as safe as doing the speed limit.

    I would suggest each person here disagreeing with my point of view go to the US Dept of Transportation and take a look, or if they wish to be more local every state in the US has a similar database. Numbers are the only reliable way to predict outcomes in most cases, this being one of them. Personal testimonies are fine, but they are not as clear for measuring probabilities as actual measurements.

    AJ
     
  20. Ashrem

    Ashrem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    You're really good at ignoring when you get called out for making ludicrous claims like the whole "double jeopardy" fallacy.

    The law says keep right except to pass. It is not your business to tell other people how fast they should drive.
     

Top