• 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
Catawba said:
Same with the new light bulb efficiency standards. That was his point.
Click to expand...

I understand that you love tyranny and want to defend it. Authoritarians like to do that.
 
1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a safe bet that CFLs are a scapegoat for lost jobs. Were it not for the economic setup that has been causing job losses for years before CFLs were even invented, I don't think that that would ever be a problem. Furthermore, what percentage of job losses can be attributed to CFLs anyway?

1Perry said:
This is actually a good point. New technology is causing book sales to fall all without the government interfering.
Click to expand...

Basically.

Ockham said:
Which also in my view is not necessarily a good thing. I don't demean the technology, it's just that an iPad or Nook is cold, has not paper pulp and ink smell, and has the tactile similarities of a toaster. I like reading, experiencing, touching and reading all at the same time, sometimes with one hand and being able to lend that book out if I want to. Can't really do that with a e-book reader.
Click to expand...

You can still buy paper books. :)
 
Phys251 said:
You can still buy paper books. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's a little sad that they will sometime in the near future, no longer be made, or simply made as a novelty.
 
Ockham said:
Yeah, but it's a little sad that they will sometime in the near future, no longer be made, or simply made as a novelty.
Click to expand...

Honestly? I don't think they're going to be phased out entirely. I think the market will pick up, yes, but I think that demand will still exist for paper books. But there is a real chance that you are right. Look what happened to typewriters: Manual typewriters are only found in museums now, and even electronic ones have almost entirely been phased out. Might the laptop be next?
 
Catawba said:
Same with the new light bulb efficiency standards. That was his point.
Click to expand...

The point is not analogous. There are three issues with the attempt at making an analogy that prevent it from being an analogy. Can you and your authoritarian buddies enumerate what those three issues are?
 
Henrin said:
So now you admit I was right the entire time only to make another stance on a false claim. Answer me this, who is holding up those power plants you hate so much? I will give you hint, it starts with a G. Ask yourself this, why does the government bitch that the power companies won't invent new technologies but at the same time pay to make the business model profitable? To even claim for a minute the government has a reason to speak here is nonsense.
Click to expand...

You have been right about nothing relevant to the topic. The light bulb standards are a way to reduce wasteful consumption and save money. Unless you are pro-wasteful consumption and unnecessary spending, this is a good thing.
 
Catawba said:
You have been right about nothing relevant to the topic. The light bulb standards are a way to reduce wasteful consumption and save money. Unless you are pro-wasteful consumption and unnecessary spending, this is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Actually, it should be none of your business if a person wants to do something that you believe is wasteful and costs money. Another person may not agree with you. You are far too much of a know-it-all and that is why you have tyrannical leanings. Now, go sell your car, purchase a bicycle, and come back when you are not quite so hypocritical.
 
Catawba said:
You have been right about nothing relevant to the topic. The light bulb standards are a way to reduce wasteful consumption and save money. Unless you are pro-wasteful consumption and unnecessary spending, this is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Actually I have been right about everything so far.

Facts so far
1) It is a ban since it takes a product off the market
2) The problem is the support of the power plants, not the light bulbs.

If you wish to talk about harm put the focus where it belongs. If take off the support of the power plants you will get you alternative energy wishes.
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
Actually, it should be none of your business if a person wants to do something that you believe is wasteful and costs money. Another person may not agree with you. You are far too much of a know-it-all and that is why you have tyrannical leanings. Now, go sell your car, purchase a bicycle, and come back when you are not quite so hypocritical.
Click to expand...

There's a fundamental flaw in this reasoning: If one person's mistakes affected absolutely nobody, that would be one thing. But we do not live in a vacuum. And when those mistakes involve the environment, then certainly mistakes affect others.

That's why there are pockets of resistance to Big Oil and Big Coal's aggressive expansion, even in VERY conservative pockets of America.
 
LesGovt said:
Actually, it should be none of your business if a person wants to do something that you believe is wasteful and costs money. Another person may not agree with you. You are far too much of a know-it-all and that is why you have tyrannical leanings. Now, go sell your car, purchase a bicycle, and come back when you are not quite so hypocritical.
Click to expand...

You're wrong when you say it is nobody else's business but yours if you are being wasteful, particularly when the wasted element is not solely your possession. The outlaw of littering has similar reasoning, i.e., the trash is discarded in a location that doesn't belong to the offender. There are even instances where the wasting of one's money should not be private, especially when they are receiving financial support based on tax dollars. If my tax dollars are funding the lunch money for another family's children then that family should not (at least morally speaking) be wasting money by purchasing items which are not of reasonable necessity.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
There's a fundamental flaw in this reasoning: If one person's mistakes affected absolutely nobody, that would be one thing. But we do not live in a vacuum. And when those mistakes involve the environment, then certainly mistakes affect others.

That's why there are pockets of resistance to Big Oil and Big Coal's aggressive expansion, even in VERY conservative pockets of America.
Click to expand...

Then quit being a hypocrite and sell your car and ride a bicycle. Also, rather than coercing the public to purchase lightbulbs that are more "efficient," why don't you look at the real drivers of the use of energy and shut them down now. How about air conditioning in the home? Does it use as much energy as the lightbulbs in the home? Again, how about the auto? Make there pollution standards by 0 and make them use 0 energy. That would end that waste and would save a ton of money. How about all the equipment in manufacturing plants? They must use a ton of energy.

But no, you just nickel and dime us around the edges so you can pound your chest and say that I am better than you. In the meantime, you drive your pollution producing, energy guzzling, ineffective costly cars and point fingers at us because we want to spend a couple hundred dollars a year on something we want versus something the know-it-alls say we can't have, but continue to drive those cars.

Phony-baloney-plastic-banana!
 
extrastrictman said:
You're wrong when you say it is nobody else's business but yours if you are being wasteful, particularly when the wasted element is not solely your possession. The outlaw of littering has similar reasoning, i.e., the trash is discarded in a location that doesn't belong to the offender. There are even instances where the wasting of one's money should not be private, especially when they are receiving financial support based on tax dollars. If my tax dollars are funding the lunch money for another family's children then that family should not (at least morally speaking) be wasting money by purchasing items which are not of reasonable necessity.
Click to expand...

This is a repeat answer as it is just as fitting here as the last one.

Then quit being a hypocrite and sell your car and ride a bicycle. Also, rather than coercing the public to purchase lightbulbs that are more "efficient," why don't you look at the real drivers of the use of energy and shut them down now. How about air conditioning in the home? Does it use as much energy as the lightbulbs in the home? Again, how about the auto? Make there pollution standards by 0 and make them use 0 energy. That would end that waste and would save a ton of money. How about all the equipment in manufacturing plants? They must use a ton of energy.

But no, you just nickel and dime us around the edges so you can pound your chest and say that I am better than you. In the meantime, you drive your pollution producing, energy guzzling, ineffective costly cars and point fingers at us because we want to spend a couple hundred dollars a year on something we want versus something the know-it-alls say we can't have, but continue to drive those cars.

Phony-baloney-plastic-banana!
 
LesGovt said:
Then quit being a hypocrite and sell your car and ride a bicycle. Also, rather than coercing the public to purchase lightbulbs that are more "efficient," why don't you look at the real drivers of the use of energy and shut them down now. How about air conditioning in the home? Does it use as much energy as the lightbulbs in the home? Again, how about the auto? Make there pollution standards by 0 and make them use 0 energy. That would end that waste and would save a ton of money. How about all the equipment in manufacturing plants? They must use a ton of energy.

But no, you just nickel and dime us around the edges so you can pound your chest and say that I am better than you. In the meantime, you drive your pollution producing, energy guzzling, ineffective costly cars and point fingers at us because we want to spend a couple hundred dollars a year on something we want versus something the know-it-alls say we can't have, but continue to drive those cars.

Phony-baloney-plastic-banana!
Click to expand...

Massive, massive strawman in your arguments there. Can you please engage in a civilized debate instead of trolling like this?
 
Henrin said:
Actually I have been right about everything so far.

Facts so far
1) It is a ban since it takes a product off the market
2) The problem is the support of the power plants, not the light bulbs.

If you wish to talk about harm put the focus where it belongs. If take off the support of the power plants you will get you alternative energy wishes.
Click to expand...

Interesting counterposition, but let me play devil's advocate with it: What is so bad about requiring multiple sources of light to have roughly similar efficiencies?
 
Phys251 said:
Massive, massive strawman in your arguments there. Can you please engage in a civilized debate instead of trolling like this?
Click to expand...

BS to you!! You argue that spending a dime is wasting money and energy, but there are far more items that cost tens of thousands times as much money and energy. That is the truth and you tyrants need to look in the mirror and take measure of yourself and your ideology. You are all just petty tyrants who think you know better than the rest of us.

The vote in the House to repeal this sewage was not enough to pass, but it was a majority and a fairly sizable one. Hopefully, the GOP will gain the needed votes to carry the day the next time the vote comes up and hopefully, it will not be too late. The tyrants have probably already done the damage and it probably cannot be saved. That's a shame.

Now, stop being a hypocrite and sell your car and buy that bicycle. Show us that you really mean what you say. I doubt that you really mean it. You just say it to make yourselves feel important and better than the rest of us. You fail at both.
 
Phys251 said:
There's a fundamental flaw in this reasoning: If one person's mistakes affected absolutely nobody, that would be one thing. But we do not live in a vacuum. And when those mistakes involve the environment, then certainly mistakes affect others.
Click to expand...

This reasoning is open ended and without limit. Its pretty much a useless argument. Attacking the instruments aren't going to solve the problem, attack the support. All you are doing is attacking everyday people that involved in power like you and me and forget to mention that doing anything like using your computer uses far more power than a light. Maybe you should ban computers? Or you could just take away the support...
 
LesGovt said:
BS to you!! You argue that spending a dime is wasting money and energy, but there are far more items that cost tens of thousands times as much money and energy. That is the truth and you tyrants need to look in the mirror and take measure of yourself and your ideology. You are all just petty tyrants who think you know better than the rest of us.

The vote in the House to repeal this sewage was not enough to pass, but it was a majority and a fairly sizable one. Hopefully, the GOP will gain the needed votes to carry the day the next time the vote comes up and hopefully, it will not be too late. The tyrants have probably already done the damage and it probably cannot be saved. That's a shame.

Now, stop being a hypocrite and sell your car and buy that bicycle. Show us that you really mean what you say. I doubt that you really mean it. You just say it to make yourselves feel important and better than the rest of us. You fail at both.
Click to expand...

Strike two, son. Keep on trolling like this and you will be the second person I've put on my ignore list in the last 24 hours.

Furthermore, your utter refusal to address the more civilized points in this thread indicates that you have little, if anything, to counter them.
 
Phys251 said:
It's a safe bet that CFLs are a scapegoat for lost jobs. Were it not for the economic setup that has been causing job losses for years before CFLs were even invented, I don't think that that would ever be a problem. Furthermore, what percentage of job losses can be attributed to CFLs anyway?
Click to expand...

Does it really matter? Can we really afford to lose even one more to China? Look, I can understand someone defending more efficient bulbs. I think they are great, I just think that people will go to them on their own much like every new improvement. But to go to the lengths of defending the manufacturing going overseas? Sorry, that's nothing more than partisan B.S.

Basically.
Click to expand...

But people are unable to make the same decisions concerning light bulbs?

You can still buy paper books. :)
Click to expand...

As you should.
 
Phys251 said:
Interesting counterposition, but let me play devil's advocate with it: What is so bad about requiring multiple sources of light to have roughly similar efficiencies?
Click to expand...

What is bad is forcing people into purchasing decisions that they don't want just because you think you know better than the people. I know freedom is difficult concept, but it is an important one.
 
Phys251 said:
Strike two, son. Keep on trolling like this and you will be the second person I've put on my ignore list in the last 24 hours.

Furthermore, your utter refusal to address the more civilized points in this thread indicates that you have little, if anything, to counter them.
Click to expand...

Daddy, you may put me on ignore if you wish. That doesn't bother me. You'll still be a hyprocrite even if you cannot see me say it. Bye! Bye!
 
Henrin said:
This reasoning is open ended and without limit. Its pretty much a useless argument. Attacking the instruments aren't going to solve the problem, attack the support. All you are doing is attacking everyday people that involved in power like you and me and forget to mention that doing anything like using your computer uses far more power than a light. Maybe you should ban computers? Or you could just take away the support...
Click to expand...

I'm not following you here. If I choose to dump a thousand pounds of mercury in a nearby river, that is going to affect a LOT of other people, not to mention the environment as a whole. Such a crime should be punished because of that effect, not in spite of it.

Making energy more efficient, cleaner, and more cost-effective needs to be done at all levels of the chain. We need more efficient harvesting of resources, more efficient power stations that convert those resources into electricity, a smarter grid that sends that electrical energy to our homes/offices/factories, and more efficient appliances to use that energy. More efficient light bulbs addresses that last point.

It's interesting to note, BTW, that Americans have little problem with more efficient bulbs. Hell, some CFLs have a cool enough color temperature that you can hardly distinguish them from incandescent light.
 
LesGovt said:
Daddy, you may put me on ignore if you wish. That doesn't bother me. You'll still be a hyprocrite even if you cannot see me say it. Bye! Bye!
Click to expand...

You know what? No, I'm not going to just yet. I want to first see if you are actually able to hold a civilized debate. I want to know: Do you think we should preserve incandescent bulbs or switch over to CFLs?
 
There are those elitists, though, who think that we, the people, are too dumb to know what's best for us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom