• 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
Funny. This is like taking an old toy away from a child. They don't even know they want it until you take it away from them. They could have tons of better toys and they will still want that toy just because it is being taken away. It has nothing to do with the toy, just as this has nothing to do with light bulbs. It is purely about having the power to own it. And that is why this whole thing comes across as so immature. You would think people would learn to stop playing silly power games like these when they grow up into adults.
 
The new standards do not require switching to CFLs. There are incandescent light bulbs now that meet the new standards and they can be purchased at Home Depot for $3 for a two bulb package.

Seriously? Then what exactly is the point of this argument, anyway?

Manual typewriters museums, and even electric one are now being refurbished and being sold in small stores for $200 or more. Yes, not a lot but I don't like incorrect absolutes.

I was referring to newly-manufactured typewriters; you are referring to refurbished ones. Besides, I guarantee you that if you were to poll the American public to see whether they primarily type on computers or typewriters, I can guarantee you that at best, typewriters would wind up as a tiny percentage of the whole.
 
No. You do not have a right to pollute when there are alternatives. Cars aren't an alternative to bikes nor were they meant to replace them. That's like saying candles are alternatives to sunlight or lifesavers are alternatives to boats.

You comparisons are incorrect. Candles are not alternatives to the sunlight. Candles would be an alternative to the lightbulb. And, a row boat or a canoe would be a better comparison to a boat.

I see that you want to rationalize your polluting. Tsk! Tsk! There are many benefits to banning automobiles. Pollution would be dramatically minimized, but you don't want dramatic results. Energy usage would be dramatically be cut, but you don't want dramatic results. Instead, you want to pick on the lowly lightbulb which is a comparison of a gnat's a$$ [lightbulb] compared to an elephant. [automobiles] You really are not serious about the environment.
 
Yes. It's the false belief that people and markets will make the healthier economic decision in order to preserve their existence. This belief exists even though humanity has proven in over 6,000 years of existence that we're mostly incapable of doing what's best for ourselves. See: History.

Ah, the argument that the masses are stupid and we, the elite, know better. That's pathetic.
 
Hey, I dunno, but maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of our government dealing with this problem, perhaps we need ta figure out what the problem is?

Methinks the government spends way too much. That aside, tha real problem is that we aren't living within our means. Hey, maybe if we didn't waste food and electricity and money, perhaps we wouldn't be in such trouble? Don't get me wrong dudes: I'm all for alternative energy but don't have a bloated and weak government ban harmless items. I kinda wonder if these peeps who want harmless lightbulbs unbanned want certain drugs unbanned. That'd be sorta hypocritical?
 
Now, I know people are ignorant of slippery slopes, but we gotta cut the BS.

Once lightbulbs are banned, where we gonna stop?
 
I have a bicycle and use it, everyone should to support our troops! The new efficiency standards were not based on my beliefs they were based on the assessment by experts that energy inefficiency is harmful to health, the environment, and the economy.

Even in colonial America they had regulations to require people to **** 4o yards from the fort. Did that impinge on the settler's "freedom" to **** in the fort if they so chose?

You forgot to tell us about your car usage. I bet you spend most days in that car wasting energy and causing pollution which you and others have said that you have no right to do. Stop it!
 
No, they won't. Some people can't even tell you what is the difference between a 60W and 100W bulb. You expect me to believe that they're going to choose the more efficient bulb? If I remove the wrong answers from a multiple choice problem then everyone will get it right.

Once again, the masses are stupid argument and I know better than the masses. Wow! Breathtaking.
 
Hey, I dunno, but maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of our government dealing with this problem, perhaps we need ta figure out what the problem is?

Methinks the government spends way too much. That aside, tha real problem is that we aren't living within our means. Hey, maybe if we didn't waste food and electricity and money, perhaps we wouldn't be in such trouble? Don't get me wrong dudes: I'm all for alternative energy but don't have a bloated and weak government ban harmless items. I kinda wonder if these peeps who want harmless lightbulbs unbanned want certain drugs unbanned. That'd be sorta hypocritical?

Interesting. But actually we are cutting spending by changing light bulbs.

If every US household replaced just one regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb, Americans would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year. That translates to lower energy costs since less fuel is consumed to produce that energy.

Now, I know people are ignorant of slippery slopes, but we gotta cut the BS.

Once lightbulbs are banned, where we gonna stop?

Once asbestos is banned, where are we going to stop?

Most people are smart enough to recognize that slippery slopes are logical fallacies.
 
Once again, the masses are stupid argument and I know better than the masses. Wow! Breathtaking.

The masses are stupid and I do know better than the masses.

We would live in a democracy, not a Constitutional Republic, if the masses could be trusted to make wise decisions for themselves and this country.
 
Manual typewriters museums, and even electric one are now being refurbished and being sold in small stores for $200 or more. Yes, not a lot but I don't like incorrect absolutes.

I don't recall a law that said manual typewriters were banned. In fact, according to the argument here, the electric one should have been banned. After all, we have no right to waste energy.
 
I don't recall a law that said manual typewriters were banned. In fact, according to the argument here, the electric one should have been banned. After all, we have no right to waste energy.

I think a better analogy is to asbestos since typewriters don't pose any environmental hazards or public costs.
 
Okay show me what you think the argument is.............

The argument is to pretend to minimize pollution and reduce "wasted" energy by using tyrannical laws to dictate to the stupid masses that the elite know-it-alls know better than most while not banning things that really use the bulk of energy and pollute the most.
 
The argument is to pretend to minimize pollution and reduce "wasted" energy by using tyrannical laws to dictate to the stupid masses that the elite know-it-alls know better than most while not banning things that really use the bulk of energy and pollute the most.

Okay IOW you are just flinging poo and seeing what sticks.
 
Interesting. But actually we are cutting spending by changing light bulbs.

If every US household replaced just one regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb, Americans would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year. That translates to lower energy costs since less fuel is consumed to produce that energy.

Let tha market take care of it, man. Don't have the government force people. You wouldn't want tha government telling you what you can or can't buy, right? Sway the people with facts and data; force'll only piss people off and make normal people distrust the government.

People waste a LOT. Banning something isn't gonna make people more frugal or change everyone's behavior. How much food do ya waste? You leave electronics running? You may be frugal, but many others aren't.



Once asbestos is banned, where are we going to stop?

Most people are smart enough to recognize that slippery slopes are logical fallacies.

Some slippery slopes are correct and true. Dude, history contains a lot of em'.
 
Last edited:
The argument is to pretend to minimize pollution and reduce "wasted" energy by using tyrannical laws to dictate to the stupid masses that the elite know-it-alls know better than most while not banning things that really use the bulk of energy and pollute the most.

So...this is less about light bulbs and more about your own personal issues with authority?
 
Funny. This is like taking an old toy away from a child. They don't even know they want it until you take it away from them. They could have tons of better toys and they will still want that toy just because it is being taken away. It has nothing to do with the toy, just as this has nothing to do with light bulbs. It is purely about having the power to own it. And that is why this whole thing comes across as so immature. You would think people would learn to stop playing silly power games like these when they grow up into adults.

Ah, yet another argument that the masses are stupid and the know-it-all tyrants are correct.
 
I think a better analogy is to asbestos since typewriters don't pose any environmental hazards or public costs.

Excuse me, I take it you have not followed this discussion. The argument here is that the lightbulb causes environmental hazards because it uses energy. The same is true of the electric typewriter.
 
Some slippery slopes are correct and true. Dude, history contains a lot of em'.

True. But slippery slopes go both ways. We could find that banning incandescent light bulbs was such a good idea that we then try find other obsolete technology to ban and benefit our society immensely. You can't argue that all slippery slopes lead to bad consequences, and given that you aren't presenting any evidence to demonstrate how this will lead to negative consequences, it is just as likely that it could lead to positive consequences.
 
Dude, that's really ironic.



It's alright to think you're intelligent, but you making that statement wasn't wise.


Why are you trying to attribute something to me I did not say?
 
The masses are stupid and I do know better than the masses.

We would live in a democracy, not a Constitutional Republic, if the masses could be trusted to make wise decisions for themselves and this country.

Well, there you have it folks. Everyone is stupid; except, of course, the elites.

FREEDOM!!!
 
It's alright to think you're intelligent, but you making that statement wasn't wise.

Oh, given that the average member of the masses can't tell you who the first president of the United States was, I feel pretty confident with my position.

What you seem to forget is that the founding fathers made the exact same argument. But I guess that just made them a bunch of elitists.
 


Well, there you have it folks. Everyone is stupid; except, of course, the elites.

FREEDOM!!!

Tell it to the founding fathers. Our Constitution was written by elitists to keep the stupid masses in check.

Funny how being anti intellectual somehow equates to freedom.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom