WasatchMan

In Utah they have implemented Continuous Flow Intersections, Divergent Diamond Interchanges, Thru-U-Turn intersections, and reversible lane corridors, all innovative ways to handle more capacity based on traffic engineering analysis and studies. A = A no matter if the state is involved or not. Traffic engineering is a scientific discipline based on empirical data.

Anyone can propose better ideas. Even though the mechanism is the state, they are open to better ways of handling traffic if the data shows that. I work with tons of traffic engineers in the free market (I am not one - I am a design engineer) and they are always modeling traffic and looking for better ideas (because that gets them paid). Roads are traffic engineered, designed, and built by the free-market, and paid for through the use of force.

Traffic engineering is a free market. If people have better solutions, they can do their studies, show better ways of handling things (through empirical results), and make lots of money based off their better ideas.

Ramp meters are implemented for a purpose. There is nothing statist about them, they arise out of a study of empirical data and traffic engineering. They meter the flow of traffic onto the interstate which keeps the freeway operating at better average speeds during high volume time periods. When there is not sufficient gaps in freeway traffic to accept free-flow ramp traffic to merge into the interstate, just letting the free flow happen would result in what is caused a "shock-wave" which would slow the entire operation of the freeway for miles. It is a very simple concept from a traffic modeling perspective and it is implemented because it works. Sure, it may sometimes appear that they are not serving a purpose, but this is a result of the technology used to operate the system causing the implementation of a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Old technology runs off a "time of day" paradigm where they will turn on at the same time everyday based on historically observed traffic patterns. Newer technology allows ramp metering to work based on actual traffic, and they are more effective... and yes, I accept technology would be better in a free market paradigm, but that goes for everything that is heavily statist controlled and does not take away from the empirical observations of the benefits of ramp metering. Are you a bad driver? I don't know. I categorize some more aggressive drivers as "capacity warriors" because their choices help the overall flow of traffic, and their intelligence to predict the system overrides the need to implement "one-size-fits-all" approaches to engineering solutions, but not everyone has the intelligence to judge the situations appropriately and bad choices could impact overall operations and safety.

I listened to this yesterday. Even though they are both hopeless statists, I thought it was a pretty interesting conversation. One thing that kept striking me is that Dan is such a pragmatist that he always wanted to take everything that Sam was saying and immediately frame it around political implementation. I think a lot of the time Sam was just trying to put forward the ethical case for claiming that certain behavior is objectively better than other behavior. However, Sam does seem to have this philosopher king mentality, where some pure agency with only noble intentions is going to able to justly police the world.

This is rough man. I don't know the answer, but I will say that it is not necessarily the right choice to tell your sister and brother about why you are not around. Like you said, she is a hostage, and can't leave, and is only 7. What do you expect her to do with this information? Telling her may only make it harder for her, especially since you can't be around. Like I said, I don't know, but I would consider this.

I have used the analogy that the gay movement fighting for their inclusion in the marriage privilege would have been like the blacks fighting only for equal treatment of blacks during the civil rights era. However, given the current climate, I think that this is a good thing - at least we are no longer being blatantly discriminatory to gay people.

That is a pretty interesting accusation, given the fact that I provided you a quote from the department head over the scientific team that discovered this sulfur bacteria, explaining how the discovery of a lack in evolution of the sulfer bacteria not only is not in conflict with Darwinian evolution but supports it (because they are in a stable environment where mutations would not have been advantageous, and therefore would not have been selected for). After this omission and acting like I did not address your sulfur bacteria nitpick to a demonstrable theory (we have fossils, btw), and even trying to claim I was in a hurry so just missed it, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

Who said giant conspiracy? lol lol. I just said there was likely a bent. Go troll someone else.

I can see that, but I found a way to come up with my best answer even though I didn't agree with the premises (like I said, it is hard to fit anarchists in their boxes). It is just a measure that is imperfect, and probably has some political bent to make most people think they are on the Left Libertarian spectrum. I found it interesting though, and wasn't very emotionally invested into how I "scored".

Saw this political spectrum test on a youtube video: https://www.politicalcompass.org/ It is hard to fit an anarchist in some these boxes, but still interesting. Also has a spanking question which is interesting. I ended up in the middle of the Libertarian Right, with an economic score of 6.5 and a social score of -5.74 Anyone interest in sharing their results? Would be fascinating to see what the spread of this forum looks.

I am choosing not to respond to most of notjams non-sense, however this one I think should be addressed so not to murky peoples understanding of a very important concept. There is no misinterpretation of time in the concept of light year as I put forward. A light year is the distance a light particle travels in a year (velocity x time = distance). If we see light coming from a source one light year away, we know that that light originated one year ago (distance / velocity = time). If we know that the galaxy known as z8_GND_5296 (furthest galaxy ever observed) is 13.1 billion light years away, we know that the light we are seeing originated 13.1 billion years ago, making the universe older than 13.1 billion years because we could not see that light unless enough time had elapsed for that light to travel to us (distance / velocity = time).

Again, you leave out the first two sentences of this paragraph that give the context that I was talking about the biological purpose to counter another biological argument. I have even quoted the whole paragraph to you and clarified that I did in fact mean for the context to be biological. Where you then led me on a path of some abnormal interpretation of the word biological to only come back to this again. I don't see how it was passive-aggressive, since I displayed my full humility that I was making a fallacious statement, vulnerably submitting my emotional experience of it for all to see. Completely separating my argument from my emotion. To me that is being honest of my experience in the moment, not passive aggressive. I admit I am. I ostracize the Denny's down the street from me because I aesthetically don't like their food. Man I am just terrible, aren't I. Please people, be warned, I ostracize eating establishments because I aesthetically dislike their food, I must not be a pleasant person to interact with at all.

Again.. Context. I wasn't trying to universalize purpose (I have already told you the context was the whole paragraph not that one sentence), I was stating that the biological purpose is reproduction. I don't get why this is so hard (no pun intended).

The science of biology is described by neither of your choices. Biology describes them as reproductive organs, which is a name that also desribes their purpose

One hint to what it would mean "biologically speaking" is that in biology they are called "reproductive organs". Not sure where you got that concept of biology.

For some reason you keep dropping the word biological.. which is the context.. very strange.

Context, man, context. You are fighting an argument I am not making.

That is called modifying consequences, not purpose. Wearing a bullet proof vest does not change the purpose of a gun, it modifies the consequences of getting hit with a bullet. Your whole thing was to shame me (Quote: "And if you don't know that [purpose of sex], but act like you know that, then what kind of person does that make you?") for assuming to know the purpose of sex. The biological purpose of sex is objectively to make babies - there is no way to wiggle out of this truth. That is the function it was derived for. I will invite you to read through this again and really try to take in its context (the biological purpose for sex - not any purpose that someone else finds as utility). You seem to be attacking a claim I specifically didn't make (some might say a strawman). I specifically was making the biological purpose claim.

ummm.. because sex is for making babies.. are you really going to disagree with that?

I agree with the evil part. Wrong and bad I am not sure about because they are kind of subjective words that could mean aesthetic preferences. This is also my reasoning for framing my response in the context of "One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming." I know we disagree on this because you think it is wrong to ostracize people for aesthetic preferences, but I am perfectly happy to do so.

That is why I added "and philosophy".. details, I know, details...

I don't. I assume UPB and philosophy applies for both men and women because both have the capacity for rational consciousness. I will not take this away from women.

I think he seems to think that men and women are as different as humans and penguins. Obvious red herring, obvious. We can't blame them, but we can make arguments about why this isn't the best course of action. Just like we can make arguments to women that making yourself up like a sex clown isn't the best course of action. One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming. We are also talking about pursuing recreational sex, which is not why our biological programming even exists. You could even say that nature is combating the rise in recreational sex through the near epidemic levels of STDs now present. Our biological programming exists to keep the species going, not have really great and frequent orgasms and feel like a Masculine King because you can stick your dick inside a lot of women. I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s).

You are right, this community does have a bias, and that is to reason, logic, and consistency.