• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

Incandescent Light bulb ban.... do you care?

  • I care! The ban is foolish! I want my incandescent bulbs!

    Votes: 13 23.6%
  • I like the ban! Bring on new lighting technology!

    Votes: 17 30.9%
  • I dont care either way!

    Votes: 10 18.2%
  • I like incandescent bulbs and fluorescent ones. But dont make a law about them!

    Votes: 11 20.0%
  • OTHER / I dont know / Chimichanga

    Votes: 4 7.3%

  • Total voters
    55
Well, I think you need to take your argument to the city government.

And if they do not accept my plea, then they are a part of Big Government and should be thrown out of office in the next election.
 
And if they do not accept my plea, then they are a part of Big Government and should be thrown out of office in the next election.

I think you can believe they should be thrown out of office. If the citizens of the city believe that burning things in the park is advantageous, you might win. If not, I believe you will lose.
 
Yeah ya think? This is a ****ing BAN on incandescent light bulbs! Its total bull****. I should be able to buy any kind of ****ing light bulb I want! Luckily I still can. But not in California. After they run out, thats it. And its total crap.

my sympathy for you = your agony from light bulb limitations = zero
 
It sounds like your being selfish, as only one who is selfish would not admit to partaking in the squandering of our children's inheritance. I do not claim to be not guilty of this crime, but I do claim to do my best at being efficient and being non-wasteful as soon as I can. Unlike some people, I can admit that I make mistakes, that I am human. Simply because one is guilty of making poor decisions does not make that decision any less poor.

If you wish to feel guilty about living your life, that is your problem.

Am I saying you should "feel guilty about using a particular light-bulb"? Certainly not as guilty as depleting the earth natural resources by not supporting the cause to stop using non-renewable resources. If you're not for getting off using non-renewable resources, you are against it.

I am for all types of energy and I don't feel guilty in the least.

Denial is the first sign of guilt and a sign of immaturity. One who cannot see their shortcomings, cannot handle the possibility that they are imperfect. The sooner people own up to their mistakes, the sooner we as a race will make progress. Denial of imperfection is pitiful and reflects poorly; it is this way because it is so very clear that no one is able to be perfect and denial of that appears bullheaded.

ROFL! You are a stitch. I drive a gas powered auto and I don't feel guilty about it and it is a big car. If you don't ride a bicycle, you are a hypocrite and you are the one who should feel very, very guilty.

Simply because you feel helpless in a situation, does not require you to distort your beliefs to better serve your ego, i.e. some may say: "there's nothing I can do about it so I will just say there's nothing wrong with it".

I have not distorted my beliefs. For you to say so is simply silly.

Let me ask you .. if everyone in society jumped off a bridge .. would you do that too? Using your logic, if everyone started murdering people, it would be O.K. because "virtually everyone" is guilty of it. Your reasoning holds no water. It just looks more like a cop-out than anything.

More silliness that is not worth a response.
 
I really hate this pitiful argument.

That's understandable .. not many like to admit their faults.

Resources running out is not the end of the world, it doesn't mean the our children's lives will be horrible.

No resources running out is not "the end of the world" ... neither is genocide .. but most still disagree with it.

Everyone that is makes this argument always forgets to mention people are always aware of this kind of thing way before it ever actually occurs and there will be people working on a solution way before it ever comes to be.

Relying on technology to save us is not a good strategy .. how long have people known about cancer? do we have a good treatment yet? how long have we known about AIDS? have we found a treatment yet? People that brush off responsibility by using technological advances to make wasteful actions "O.K." are simply in a state of denial, i.e. people know what their are doing is wrong, yet they do it anyway. Most people can't handle the possibility that they aren't perfect .. this is one of the major causes of cogs in the wheel of progress.

Your argument is basically fear over nothing to try to say that restricting freedom is a good thing. Its a crap argument.

If I were actually proposing that people's freedoms should be restricted more than you would propose, you would have a point; however, if you had actually read my post thoroughly, you would see that I am actually all for supporting people being able to do what they want ("freedom") so long as they are not hurting others. The problem is you are against certain freedoms, e.g. the freedom to be born into a world that is as good than one's peers and ancestors, while you are for other freedoms, e.g. the freedom do whatever one wants to do regardless of the consequences for others.

It appears your driving motives for your argument are quite selfish in nature. You have left it up to our children to fix our mess instead of contributing to cleaning up now. This is the lazy approach that U.S. citizens are so infamous for. You call caring about others "fear" and a consider it a "restriction of freedom".

I have never said that one cannot do whatever they want to .. I have only added the qualifier that one can do whatever they want so long as they are not hurting others. I would find it hard for anyone to find some ethical position that refutes such a philosophy.

I do not think people understand that simply because certain actions that cause other relatively little harm (e.g certain "light-bulbs") does not make that action O.K. This is like saying, "well, its O.K. too steal because its not as bad as murder". Just admit your crimes and do your best to preserve our world for our children .. its not that hard. I'm not suggesting you wallow in your wrongdoings, but simply suggesting that people acknowledge their wrongdoings and do their best to right such wrongs, rather than making excuses and putting the solution to the problem on someone else's shoulders. Most people who cannot find a way to fix a problem, downplay the severity of the problem in order to feel better about themselves.
 
... and if I want to use incandescent light bulbs and pay more for them and the energy they waste, that's my business.

You asked "What are my limits to what? I'll clarify. You stated that the energy they waste is your business. Let's say you had unlimited funds, how much energy could you waste and still have it your business. You are free to waste other shared resources also, so I don't know how you feel limited. What are your limits?
 
Last edited:
If you wish to feel guilty about living your life, that is your problem.

Define what you think feeling guilty means ... in that sentence I was using the term as "acknowledging one's wrongdoings and doing one's best to not harm others" .. as this may be different from your definition of the word and may be slightly inaccurate in the truest sense of the word, the point remains strong. If you want to live in denial of your own wrongdoings and harm others in the process .. that's everyone's problem.

I am for all types of energy and I don't feel guilty in the least.

If you mean you do not acknowledge your wrongdoings and do not do your best to avoid causing harm to others .. it is truly sad and infantile.

ROFL! You are a stitch. I drive a gas powered auto and I don't feel guilty about it and it is a big car. If you don't ride a bicycle, you are a hypocrite and you are the one who should feel very, very guilty.

If one is a hypocrite and speaks the truth, that truth is no less true. It's O.K. to admit your not perfect, you should try it sometime. As I have mentioned, I do not propose people wallow in their wrongdoings, instead I propose people acknowledge their wrongdoings and do their best to not harm others.

I have not distorted my beliefs. For you to say so is simply silly.

Its O.K. .. its natural for people to have distorted realities .. actually, ask any scientist who is well read on perception and interpretation, and they will tell you that people actively create their own realities. There are many empirical approaches to learning something that is near to the truth and using self-serving conclusions is actually something that incorporates bias into one's findings, thus making them less accurate. According to the scientific method, denying your own biases is one of the best ways to become misguided in one's search for understanding.

Getting back to the question you backed out of .. I believe you originally said:

Virtually the entire society is guilty of what you believe to be "selfish" behavior.

Then I said:

Let me ask you .. if everyone in society jumped off a bridge .. would you do that too? Using your logic, if everyone started murdering people, it would be O.K. because "virtually everyone" is guilty of it. Your reasoning holds no water. It just looks more like a cop-out than anything.

And your response was:

More silliness that is not worth a response.

Wow .. you really didn't want to face the holes in your argument aye?
 
Last edited:
Is it because you find freedom tedious and liberty boring?

And why can't I buy cereal with razor blades in it?

And I can't believe they took away those salmonella burgers I used to love so much!

Where's my freedom?!?!?!?
 
That's understandable .. not many like to admit their faults.



No resources running out is not "the end of the world" ... neither is genocide .. but most still disagree with it.



Relying on technology to save us is not a good strategy .. how long have people known about cancer? do we have a good treatment yet? how long have we known about AIDS? have we found a treatment yet? People that brush off responsibility by using technological advances to make wasteful actions "O.K." are simply in a state of denial, i.e. people know what their are doing is wrong, yet they do it anyway. Most people can't handle the possibility that they aren't perfect .. this is one of the major causes of cogs in the wheel of progress.



If I were actually proposing that people's freedoms should be restricted more than you would propose, you would have a point; however, if you had actually read my post thoroughly, you would see that I am actually all for supporting people being able to do what they want ("freedom") so long as they are not hurting others. The problem is you are against certain freedoms, e.g. the freedom to be born into a world that is as good than one's peers and ancestors, while you are for other freedoms, e.g. the freedom do whatever one wants to do regardless of the consequences for others.

It appears your driving motives for your argument are quite selfish in nature. You have left it up to our children to fix our mess instead of contributing to cleaning up now. This is the lazy approach that U.S. citizens are so infamous for. You call caring about others "fear" and a consider it a "restriction of freedom".

I have never said that one cannot do whatever they want to .. I have only added the qualifier that one can do whatever they want so long as they are not hurting others. I would find it hard for anyone to find some ethical position that refutes such a philosophy.

I do not think people understand that simply because certain actions that cause other relatively little harm (e.g certain "light-bulbs") does not make that action O.K. This is like saying, "well, its O.K. too steal because its not as bad as murder". Just admit your crimes and do your best to preserve our world for our children .. its not that hard. I'm not suggesting you wallow in your wrongdoings, but simply suggesting that people acknowledge their wrongdoings and do their best to right such wrongs, rather than making excuses and putting the solution to the problem on someone else's shoulders. Most people who cannot find a way to fix a problem, downplay the severity of the problem in order to feel better about themselves.

Very well said. Your points made are valid for this argument. Furthermore, as a mathematician, I like that your argument holds for many of the issues we debate.
 
You asked "What are my limits to what? I'll clarify. You stated that the energy they waste is your business. Let's say you had unlimited funds, how much energy could you waste and still have it your business.
I would only be limited to the capacity of my facility to intake energy.

You are free to waste other shared resources also, so I don't know how you feel limited.
This thread is not about amounts of energy to be wasted but about choice and limiting that choice for the supposed "greater good". All resources on this earth are finite and shared. However when a choice is removed under the guise of "well that wastes too much energy", I have to ask, "According to who?" Who is making my decision on what "too much" is? I will decide that, based on my particular need, capabilities and resources.

What are your limits?
My limits are my business and my choice. No one elses.
 
Wow .. you really didn't want to face the holes in your argument aye?

Yeah, you caught me. Your arguments are so morally superior to mine that I just cannot offer anything worthwhile.
 
Yeah, you caught me. Your arguments are so morally superior to mine that I just cannot offer anything worthwhile.

Its O.K., I've made mistakes too. I did not mean to hurt your feelings. I suppose I could have gone about stating my argument in a less "righteous" way.
 
And why can't I buy cereal with razor blades in it?

And I can't believe they took away those salmonella burgers I used to love so much!

Where's my freedom?!?!?!?

Wow! Using a lghtbulb is equal to eating cereal with razor blades in it. The silliness continues.
 
Wow! Using a lghtbulb is equal to eating cereal with razor blades in it. The silliness continues.

It's about choice. Why can't I choose cereal with razor blades in it or salmonella tainted food?

Stupid government and it's regulations.
 
And why can't I buy cereal with razor blades in it?

And I can't believe they took away those salmonella burgers I used to love so much!

Where's my freedom?!?!?!?

You have the freedom to eat your cereal with razor blades in it. Just do it in your own home. I encourage you to pursue your freedom.
 
Wow! Using a lghtbulb is equal to eating cereal with razor blades in it. The silliness continues.

LOL :) While FilmFestGuy's analogy may be a bit extreme .. I think you understand the point he is making. He knows the two aren't comparable, but that does not make the principle of the matter any less true.
 
Wow! Using a lghtbulb is equal to eating cereal with razor blades in it. The silliness continues.

His illustration of the absurd is supposed to demean those who wish to have a choice. Given that cereal with razor blades is not currently on the market or purchased through any retailer, the absurd is revealed to be nothing more that just that: absurdity. A valid analogy would be, "Why can't I buy cereal with raisins in it?" when for example, the Government has decided that to create raisins costs too much energy (I'm making this up), and therefore has banned raisins in cereal. FilmFestGuy was simply trying to assert his view of absurdity (because he does not value choice) with an irrelevant analogy.
 
LOL :) While FilmFestGuy's analogy may be a bit extreme .. I think you understand the point he is making. He knows the two aren't comparable, but that does not make the principle of the matter any less true.

Actually, I believe he has the freedom to eat cereal with razor blades in it and I encourage him to pursue his freedom.
 
Actually, I believe he has the freedom to eat cereal with razor blades in it and I encourage him to pursue his freedom.


So Kellogg has such a right to manufacture such a product, yes or no?
 
Back
Top Bottom