• 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
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.

It is obvious to me that the left uses extreme arguments to support their tyranny.
 
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.

I get very sarcastic on Sundays. I just can't help myself.
 
It's not about the light bulbs... it's about choice.

Let me guess ... you're one of those guys who thinks stealing is O.K. because "it's about choice". Your argument sounds like you are saying "Yeah, I support freedom of choice; I support one's choice to take the life of another .. as long as freedom is preserved, do whatever you want" ... this is really quite infantile .. I don't think you understand the principle of the matter. Your "it's about choice" argument, only considers the person making the "choice" and not those that it can harm .. by definition, such an argument is selfish.
 
It is obvious to me that the left uses extreme arguments to support their tyranny.
Some cannot see the value of choice. Their indoctrination is completed throughout their lives and know no better. Do not hate the person, hate the ignorance.
 
I would only be limited to the capacity of my facility to intake energy.

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.

My limits are my business and my choice. No one elses.


No, your limits are not just your business. You seem to realize that limits are set for the "greater good" but essentially say "I don't care if they're for the greater good." That shows how much you care about others, doesn't it? Even if your usage of energy isn't going to deplete the energy on this planet by next week, conservation by using a new type of light bulb should not cause agony for a single human being. Hence, the positives clearly outweigh the negatives and there is no reason to whine about a loss of "freedom".
 
Last edited:
So Kellogg has such a right to manufacture such a product, yes or no?

More silliness. The other silly person did not say anything about the manufacturer. He wanted to know if he had the freedom to eat the cereal. He does! Would you like to join him in eating his cereal with the razor blades in it?
 
Let me guess ... you're one of those guys who thinks stealing is O.K. because "it's about choice".
No.

Your argument sounds like you are saying "Yeah, I support freedom of choice; I support one's choice to take the life of another .. as long as freedom is preserved, do whatever you want" ... this is really quite infantile
Perhaps you hear it that way. All I'm saying is, let me choose my own light bulb. Who's life it that taking? :lamo

.. I don't think you understand the principle of the matter. Your "it's about choice" argument, only considers the person making the "choice" and not those that it can harm .. by definition, such an argument is selfish.
Who's choice am I harming by using incandescent light bulbs? You pick the light bulb you want to use, and I'll do the same.

Real harmful.
 
Let me guess ... you're one of those guys who thinks stealing is O.K. because "it's about choice". Your argument sounds like you are saying "Yeah, I support freedom of choice; I support one's choice to take the life of another .. as long as freedom is preserved, do whatever you want" ... this is really quite infantile .. I don't think you understand the principle of the matter. Your "it's about choice" argument, only considers the person making the "choice" and not those that it can harm .. by definition, such an argument is selfish.

It just keeps getting sillier and sillier.
 
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.

Very good. And I thought most conservatives didn't get absurdity and irony.

But, to get serious about the issue. There is NOT a ban on incandescent light bulbs. There is merely a minimum standard of efficiency that all light bulbs must meet. Energy efficiency standards have been put in place by both Republican and Democratic administrations since the energy crisis of the 1970s.

I just find it appallingly silly that people are getting all apoplectic over it now, but didn't say a thing about it when Bush signed the bill.
 
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.

And win we shall! We're gonna march to that park next weekend and hold a pro-freedom rally while playing "Burn, Baby, Burn" at top volume! Because WE represent the oppressed and silent majority who wants to be able to burn our trash in the park!

On a more serious note, are you really suggesting that such an act would be perfectly OK if a city council approved it?
 
Actually, I believe he has the freedom to eat cereal with razor blades in it and I encourage him to pursue his freedom.

If he is not hurting anyone else by doing so or if the overall well-being of both himself and others equal less harm all the way around, then yes, he should be free to eat razor blades. However, the morality of self mutilation and suicide is a topic for another poll. The principal I think he was trying to get at was the ethical position that the freedom involved in doing something such as murdering someone else is not worth the the consequences it causes others .. i.e the overall good is not served. Using self mutilation and or suicide was definitely a risky analogy as most people do not completely agree on how "bad" suicide is under certain circumstances.
 
And win we shall! We're gonna march to that park next weekend and hold a pro-freedom rally while playing "Burn, Baby, Burn" at top volume! Because WE represent the oppressed and silent majority who wants to be able to burn our trash in the park!

On a more serious note, are you really suggesting that such an act would be perfectly OK if a city council approved it?

I don't know about a city park, but in many places one can burn trash on their own land.
 
It's not about the light bulbs... it's about choice.

I bet you jump for joy or throw a party when your mother let's you choose between Fruity Pebbles and Cheerios.
 
It just keeps getting sillier and sillier.

I wonder if people actually see the simple statement of "It just keeps getting sillier and sillier" as an actual argument. I fear more and more that our world is destined to play out a similar scenario as that portrayed in the movie "Idiocracy" (if you haven't seen it I highly recommend it).
 
Very good. And I thought most conservatives didn't get absurdity and irony.
That's just what you were taught.

But, to get serious about the issue. There is NOT a ban on incandescent light bulbs. There is merely a minimum standard of efficiency that all light bulbs must meet. Energy efficiency standards have been put in place by both Republican and Democratic administrations since the energy crisis of the 1970s.
That's fine. I think however there is a ban in California - so I'm glad I don't live in that State.

I just find it appallingly silly that people are getting all apoplectic over it now, but didn't say a thing about it when Bush signed the bill.
I don't care if Jesus himself signed the bill. If I want to spend $5 a bulb for incandescent I should be allowed to. If others want the new CFL's or LED, I say go for it. My whole point here is "banning" anything for the common good is just as absurd as your example, from my point of view.
 
If he is not hurting anyone else by doing so or if the overall well-being of both himself and others equal less harm all the way around, then yes, he should be free to eat razor blades. However, the morality of self mutilation and suicide is a topic for another poll. The principal I think he was trying to get at was the ethical position that the freedom involved in doing something such as murdering someone else is not worth the the consequences it causes others .. i.e the overall good is not served. Using self mutilation and or suicide was definitely a risky analogy as most people do not completely agree on how "bad" suicide is under certain circumstances.

If liberals want to use self-mutilation or commit suicide, I have no problem with it and, in fact, I encourage it.
 
Some cannot see the value of choice. Their indoctrination is completed throughout their lives and know no better. Do not hate the person, hate the ignorance.

So you support gay marriage? Abortion rights? Legalization of marijuana?

If you support these rights of choice - then you might consider light bulb efficiency standards to be an evil restriction of your freedom.
 
I don't know about a city park, but in many places one can burn trash on their own land.

I don't mean on their own property, out in the middle of nowhere. I'm talking about building a refuse fire right there on public lands.
 
I wonder if people actually see the simple statement of "It just keeps getting sillier and sillier" as an actual argument. I fear more and more that our world is destined to play out a similar scenario as that portrayed in the movie "Idiocracy" (if you haven't seen it I highly recommend it).

I think the phrase sums up where this discussion has ended. With that, have a great day, but I have had enough silliness for one day. :) See you down the road.
 
So you support gay marriage?
I support gay unions which carry the same rights and privileges as marriage. Just don't call it marriage.

Abortion rights?
Only under very strict circumstances.

Legalization of marijuana?
Yes - all drugs in fact, with one stipulation. That public tax money not be used for any purchase of the drugs themselves or rehabilitation of users.


If you support these rights of choice - then you might consider light bulb efficiency standards to be an evil restriction of your freedom.
I did before and I do still.
 
I support gay unions which carry the same rights and privileges as marriage. Just don't call it marriage.

Only under very strict circumstances.

Yes - all drugs in fact, with one stipulation. That public tax money not be used for any purchase of the drugs themselves or rehabilitation of users.


I did before and I do still.

Then you can rightly bitch about light bulbs.

I just don't want someone who thinks it's their right to tell others what to do with their personal life to bitch about a light bulb - because marriage and medical decisions are much higher on my list than light bulb efficiency.
 
Apparently, nearly 60% of the posters here are against this so-called ban.
This bodes ill for Mr Obama....our nation is not ready for progression..
For the masses...they may not even notice...and for the libs...I see another 20 years of misery...as we fall even further back, even becoming a third world nation.
All this over a light bulb....

Just want to point out that this bill was signed by Bush in 2007.

And, as another poster pointed out, the light bulb companies that make incandescent bulbs are for the current policy. They consider it an incentive for them to innovate their light bulbs to be more efficient without it truly affecting their bottom line. (It sounds like one of those things where no one company wants to be the one to "take one for the team" by being the first to spend the money and affect their profits by coming up with a more energy efficient incandescent bulb.) Which means that if a repeal of this ban doesn't happen soon, which it doesn't look like one will, it won't matter if it happens at all, because once the companies have the technology down to make the more efficient light bulbs, it is unlikely that they will go back to making the less energy efficient light bulbs. And this means that the public won't be able to buy the old type of bulb anyway because they won't be being made.
 
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.
LOL. The things I would tell you if only you would listen. Wear your chains lightly.
 
Just want to point out that this bill was signed by Bush in 2007.

And, as another poster pointed out, the light bulb companies that make incandescent bulbs are for the current policy. They consider it an incentive for them to innovate their light bulbs to be more efficient without it truly affecting their bottom line. (It sounds like one of those things where no one company wants to be the one to "take one for the team" by being the first to spend the money and affect their profits by coming up with a more energy efficient incandescent bulb.) Which means that if a repeal of this ban doesn't happen soon, which it doesn't look like one will, it won't matter if it happens at all, because once the companies have the technology down to make the more efficient light bulbs, it is unlikely that they will go back to making the less energy efficient light bulbs. And this means that the public won't be able to buy the old type of bulb anyway because they won't be being made.

Here is how they are meeting those goals.

Production of Light Bulbs in US Dwindles As Factories Close

The 2007 legislation which bans incandescent light bulbs by 2014 is manifesting disagreeable consequences in manufacturing. Most major lighting manufacturers have spent the last few years refocusing their operations toward a more energy efficient end. Unfortunately for factory workers in the US, energy efficient light bulbs construction is much more manual-labor intensive. The increase in cost causes manufacturers to look for cheaper ways to do business, and one of the first things to be done is usually moving manual labor jobs to China.

Outsourcing light bulbs jobs to China is ironic considering the promises made by our government that the move to energy efficient lighting would create more manufacturing jobs.

Production of Light Bulbs in US Dwindles As Factories Close

So you can feel good about buying a light bulb for $7.50 while your neighbor loses his job.
 
Back
Top Bottom