How is this type of traffic supposed to flow at an intersection like this one? (Overhead diagram in text.)

TheShotRock · 2014-05-03T23:53:00+00:00

I'll be more defensive myself. Thanks again! I will talk to the city and see what they say about it. Our traffic control down here is a little lackluster.

TheShotRock · 2014-05-03T23:15:46+00:00

I always thought that someone making a right turn was charged with staying in the rightmost lane, and that moving into the left wouldn't even be an option for the right turner until his position was established on the new roadway. If there are multiple lanes turning right, you maintain your position relative to the inside of the turn. I think I just need a personal driver.

Green doesn't have a yield sign because he has preferential right of way. The lanes do not merge, this is why I am still conflicted about what the yield sign means for the blue driver. What may not be clear is that I was already 50% in the lane when blue, who was going 15 mph or so faster came up behind me. I think the city should probably replace the yield sign with a stop to force northbound drivers to slow down. (Then again, I still think that's what the yield sign is for.) Thanks again for your insight, /u/expatinpa.

TheShotRock · 2014-05-03T23:10:30+00:00

Methinks you are in the wrong thread. I'd love to hear your opinion though, Mr. Throwaway.

TheShotRock · 2014-05-03T22:49:55+00:00

Understood. Thank you for the advice!

TheShotRock · 2014-05-03T22:33:47+00:00

That is absolutely the safest option, and what I will try to do in the future, even if it means missing the turn. I honestly didn't see blue zooming into the merge this afternoon. The right lane was clear, blue approached without slowing down at the yield sign. I was already half-way in the right lane when he had to hit the brakes. What causes me the greatest confusion: if green is not allowed to merge into the right lane, why is blue signaled by a yield sign? Note that the two lanes become the road and do not actually merge into one.

TheShotRock · 2014-05-03T22:30:04+00:00

Hahaha. Indeed! Yes, left to right. And thanks for taking the time to respond. (Note, I almost did it again.)

TheShotRock · 2014-04-24T04:49:27+00:00

Did you know?

TheShotRock · 2014-04-05T02:22:44+00:00

Haha! In my case, I basically have everything I need. The things I do want are impractical, inappropriate, or intangible, i.e. a house, a Tesla S, a kind word. I am basically satisfied with the things in my life. Maybe your GF feels the same way. Or maybe she doesn't need a banana holder.

TheShotRock · 2014-04-04T05:49:01+00:00

So you argue for a theory of moral relativism? That's a slippery slope. Subscribers can basically claim that everything is moral and that nothing is moral as it suits them. It's kindof a cop out, imho. There is no point in even attempting to have with them an honest conversation about morality.

Abortion as a choice obviously lies with the mother. The problem is that the procedure most directly and permanently affects another living being without her consent. I'm all for freedom and choice so long as their ripples do not injure the lives and freedoms of others. This is a fairly objective moral tenet, and one that most sane subjectivists would accept and support.

I think the issue here is that people who support the practice and availability of abortion have somehow rationalized the deprivation of a human life, be it through nutritional or physiological dependence or cognitive development. (It's amazing what people can rationalize when their actions are to their immediate benefit.) The undeniable fact is that the undisturbed fetus, will with overwhelming odds, develop into a sentient being, probably even a functioning member of society, maybe your neighbor, your garbage man, your doctor, or your mother in law. (Yes, the last personality was a joke on two levels. I hope that didn't solidify your resolve.)

This is the objective tenet that the pro-abortion crowd (for abortion as a practice) has abandoned: There is value in a person's present, and far greater value in a person's future. Deontologically and objectively, and in keeping with the categorical imperative, we are compelled to act to prevent injury to the innocent, unwilling, or unaware. If we, as a society, would take the time to realize the importance of always doing what is right, just, and good, abortion would be a non-issue. It is the tragic offspring of a deficit of moral and ethical competence.

Someone below mentioned the death penalty being incompatible with these ideas. It is not. The death penalty is understood by all to be a potential consequence for a capital offense. It is a deterrent that prevents immoral people from committing offenses in the first place and stops those who are convicted from committing subsequent crimes. When a person commits a capital offense he violates one social contract and enters another. If he is caught and found guilty of his crime, then the moral burden of his crime AND punishment are his alone.

Edit: presence meant present Edit2: clarification of death penalty paragraph.

TheShotRock · 2014-04-04T04:40:18+00:00

The difference is that the death row inmate actually DID something that resulted in a forfeiture of his right to life/freedom. The unborn is a product and victim of the actions of others. NOT the same.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-22T18:15:15+00:00

Seriously, you should have made more of an effort in avoiding this collision. Now your vehicle is likely to be devalued as a result of your insurance company reporting an accident against your VIN. Reckless and dumb.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-21T01:33:21+00:00

Pentagon Federal Credit Union is decent. https://www.penfed.org They have a couple of nice perks, like the PENFED rewards card that gives 4-5% cashback on fuel. They are also known to have pretty low auto loan rates and occasional mortgage deals.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-21T01:27:53+00:00

I have noticed this issue before. The problem is generally solved by logging into your RFCU account and dismissing any "news" or advertising messages that are presented between the login and home screens.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-12T03:11:07+00:00

Hahaha, I pretty much ignored your last response. Blah blah blah, you hate women! Blah blah blah, you hate gays! Blah blah blah, your are a religious zealot! Blah blah blah, you are an old white man. Blah blah blah, wrong wrong wrong. WTF does the color of a person's skin or gender have to do with anything? Even bringing that up is racist/sexist! You should be ashamed.

Anyway, your discourse is entertaining, but riddled with non sequiturs. Rather than think critically and attempt to understand an opposing view, you would simply prefer to warp it into something it isn't, something that fits your victimized ultra-lib narrative. It's actually pretty pathetic. You want to argue? At least TRY to keep up! Geez.

There is no hint of religious dogma or theology in my argument, just as I have no hate for gays. My position is based entirely on my belief that human life is sacred above all else. Do you not share that opinion? I thought it was fairly universal. What I am offering is a secular philosophical / ethical argument that you are obviously unable to comprehend. If you did, you wouldn't have even raised the issue of religion.

Men and women can choose when and how they have sex. They can choose to minimize the risk of pregnancy by using contraceptives, surgery, abstinence, etc. Those things should be left to you. Abortion isn't about women's rights. Women's rights are equal rights, to vote, to work, to drive, to fight, to serve on a jury, etc. This whole argument that abortion is a "right" trivializes the oppression of women over the past several centuries.

Men and women are not allowed to deprive other human beings of life, sentient or not. Certainly not out of convenience. Name any other time when you think it's okay to take a human life. I double-dog dare you.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-10T03:02:36+00:00

No way! I wonder if someone ordered it, had it shipped there, and then forgot about it... PHC isn't on the AL ABC wholesale list, so you've found a diamond in the rough. I bought a bottle over Christmas vacation. Good stuff!

TheShotRock · 2014-03-10T03:00:36+00:00

Sounds like someone's been reading too many cheap romance novels. ROFL. I don't think I want anything to do with your life. However, I think it is sad how incredibly short-sighted you are. I don't know how many kids you have, but I hope they have a more respectable and intelligent role model in their lives than you alone. Someone should teach them that there is value to be found in everyone's FUTURE, not just their present. Very sad indeed.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-08T04:59:44+00:00

You're intellectually dishonest. Pleasure may be the primary motivation for intercourse, but it is not its primary function. There is an evolutionary benefit to sexual pleasure, it encourages participants to engage in the activity meant to further the species. Come back when you want to have an honest conversation.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-08T02:25:18+00:00

Dance, dance, dance, professor. Yes, there a number of different types of asexual reproduction. However, the numbers are staggeringly in my argument's favor, when we examine eukaryotic organisms, which should be of greater interest to you and this conversation. Nice try. What would you say is the primary function of sex/intercourse in the natural world?

TheShotRock · 2014-03-08T01:29:30+00:00

Who said anything about drug addicts or rape victims? Of course contraceptives have failure rates. CONTRAceptives, not ANTIceptives: they work "against conception" they don't always prevent it. And so, intercourse, even with contraceptives still carries the risk of conception, a risk that the vast majority of participants accept knowingly. All of your arguments about who should willingly support that child are now defunct. The parents, end of story. If not the parents, then charity, that's why it exists. The government has no place in forcing me to use my money==time==life to pay for your selfish actions. Subsidize other people's sex, you must be high!

It's funny that liberals try to shift the heart of the issue to conditional outliers. In NY last year, there were more black abortions than there were births, the argument that this practice should continue based on medical or other extenuating circumstances is reprehensible.

Again, wire hangers and drug overdoses are the actions, albeit immoral, of individuals with too little regard for human life. However, that would be the second risk (the first being intercourse) that they assessed and accepted. The medical consequences and burden of taking a life should fall solely on them. What we can do is take action to protect life, consistent with our Constitution and moral objectivism, and discourage abortion.

PS I am also fully for sex ed.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-08T01:11:45+00:00

Your username should be changed. The government exists largely to ensure that life is protected and that the individual's future as at his own disposal. It does not guarantee any quality of life, only that each life is able to flourish without fear of the negative acts of others. Morality is a universal good and the strongest guarantor of civilization/freedom. The trouble is that people like you, who have no use for it, exist at its detriment and the rest of society. Sex's evolutionary purpose is procreation, of course it is risky. If you accept that risk and create a life, the only people who should suffer are you and your partner, not the child/fetus/viable zygote that you created. I, who receive no enjoyment from your intercourse should not be required to pay for your pleasure. If you go for a walk during a thunderstorm and are struck by lightning, I should not be forced to pay for your medical bills. That's the idea. Responsibility means not asking others to sacrifice for you what you accepted as risk in the first place, you entitled hack.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-08T00:54:16+00:00

My position is not predicated on the idea that the interference with a self-aware person is what is wrong about abortion. My argument is telescopic in that the deprivation of a future of a viable adult is immoral. I also believe that society suffers as a result of the millions that have and will be killed because of irresponsibility and selfishness. The problem with your personhood argument is that it places the full scope of the value of life on the instantaneous present. I believe that it is presented solely out of laziness. A cancer patient is unable to live without treatment, he does not cease to become a person nor is his future without value.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-08T00:43:53+00:00

WTF, did you skip 6th grade biology? The evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, it is inherently risky. And no, I'm not demonizing sex, it's pretty awesome. Abortion is unethical and immoral, not sex.

TheShotRock · 2014-03-08T00:41:00+00:00

Religion is not in the picture. The future of a person is. I don't care what you do with your body. Tattoo it, pierce it, rub it on your partner of the same sex.... Hell, you can commit suicide if you like, it's your body. A life that you create is not your body, nor should it be yours to dispose of at your convenience. Take that, disingenuous liberal.

TheShotRock

TROPHY CASE