• 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
Mathematician said:
If only you realized how ignorantly overgeneralized your argument is. "Oh the agony of having any restrictions on my choices. I should be free to buy crack and hand grenades."
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't you be able to buy crack and hand grenades again?
 
Henrin said:
Why shouldn't you be able to buy crack and hand grenades again?
Click to expand...

beer + guns = stupid idea < appalling idea = crack + grenades

If you do not believe this inequality holds, I'd be happy to let you test it yourself. We can declare an area for those who want no restrictions and observe whether things are working in harmony in 10 years. This is the physicist or statistician approach.
 
Henrin said:
So you are saying they didn't crash into you? Where is the crime then?

Tell me what you think the General Welfare clause means so I can correct you.
Click to expand...

To a constitutional conservative the first clause of Article I, section 8 is about the power of taxation and the phrases of "general welfare" and "common defense" are simply general terms about what expenditures are for and offer no specific authority to Congress. The specifics for expenditures follow the first clause.

To a constitutionally challenged liberal, the "general welfare" clause means whatever they want it to mean. That has been proven here over and over again. But that is a discussion for the portion of this site that covers the Constitution.
 
Henrin said:
Why shouldn't you be able to buy crack and hand grenades again?
Click to expand...
I agree that a man should allowed to be stupid.
But the same man should not allowed to be dangerous....to society...to himself, I do not care....reduce the surplus population.
So NO to the energy wasting bulbs, addictive drugs, and the weapons of ,IMO, mass destruction.
 
LesGovt said:
To a constitutional conservative the first clause of Article I, section 8 is about the power of taxation and the phrases of "general welfare" and "common defense" are simply general terms about what expenditures are for and offer no specific authority to Congress. The specifics for expenditures follow the first clause.

To a constitutionally challenged liberal, the "general welfare" clause means whatever they want it to mean. That has been proven here over and over again. But that is a discussion for the portion of this site that covers the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me when people consider the constitution some kind of holy document. Seriously people? Did some otherworldly creatures create this holy text? Where they not capable of greed? Where they fully capable of predicting the future and the needs therein? Oh yeah ... those guys were totally against slavery too right? Come on people. Try arguing from an ethical and economic standpoint for once ... instead of falling back on some dead guys who made a pretty good document for their time. Jeesh!
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It never ceases to amaze me when people consider the constitution some kind of holy document. Seriously people? Did some otherworldly creatures create this holy text? Where they not capable of greed? Where they fully capable of predicting the future and the needs therein? Oh yeah ... those guys were totally against slavery too right? Come on people. Try arguing from an ethical and economic standpoint for once ... instead of falling back on some dead guys who made a pretty good document for their time. Jeesh!
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It never ceases to amaze me when people consider the constitution some kind of holy document. Seriously people? Did some otherworldly creatures create this holy text? Where they not capable of greed? Where they fully capable of predicting the future and the needs therein? Oh yeah ... those guys were totally against slavery too right? Come on people. Try arguing from an ethical and economic standpoint for once ... instead of falling back on some dead guys who made a pretty good document for their time. Jeesh!
Click to expand...

I can only imagine what you would say if you were a liberal. :roll:
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It never ceases to amaze me when people consider the constitution some kind of holy document. Seriously people? Did some otherworldly creatures create this holy text? Where they not capable of greed? Where they fully capable of predicting the future and the needs therein? Oh yeah ... those guys were totally against slavery too right? Come on people. Try arguing from an ethical and economic standpoint for once ... instead of falling back on some dead guys who made a pretty good document for their time. Jeesh!
Click to expand...

Many will have a harder time accepting this than mathematicians did when Godel proved the Incompleteness Theorem. He showed that the axioms we build arithmetic from are insufficient for deducing every true statement about arithmetic. For years, mathematicians had believed Peano's axioms were a solid enough foundation to build from. This demonstrates how even if a majority accept something, we should accept if those wiser can find flaws and correct us.
 
Nice job again for Washington DC they traded a few cents saving in power costs for a life time of ground pollution. The chemicals in the new light bulbs is very toxic.

They also created a bunch of new jobs in China while killing jobs here.

This another case of showing stupidity in spades.
 
Councilman said:
Nice job again for Washington DC they traded a few cents saving in power costs for a life time of ground pollution. The chemicals in the new light bulbs is very toxic.

They also created a bunch of new jobs in China while killing jobs here.

This another case of showing stupidity in spades.
Click to expand...

OK I've heard this claim several times, and I would like to see some verifiable evidence that this 2007 energy bill, as passed by REPUBLICAN George W. Bush, indisputably creates a net deficit of jobs.
 
Mathematician said:
beer + guns = stupid idea < appalling idea = crack + grenades

If you do not believe this inequality holds, I'd be happy to let you test it yourself. We can declare an area for those who want no restrictions and observe whether things are working in harmony in 10 years. This is the physicist or statistician approach.
Click to expand...

What you even talking about? If you kill someone you held accountable. It doesn't even matter how you go about doing it. If you do it you are punished. You example doesn't even cover crack in general, nor does cover grenades. Its people being stupid and harmful which isn't something that has to happen in either case or having them combined. Give me a real reason why crack or Grenades need to be banned. Potential harm is not good enough.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
I agree that a man should allowed to be stupid.
But the same man should not allowed to be dangerous....to society...to himself, I do not care....reduce the surplus population.
So NO to the energy wasting bulbs, addictive drugs, and the weapons of ,IMO, mass destruction.
Click to expand...

Everything can be dangerous. Ban everything and sit in a box.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It never ceases to amaze me when people consider the constitution some kind of holy document. Seriously people? Did some otherworldly creatures create this holy text? Where they not capable of greed? Where they fully capable of predicting the future and the needs therein? Oh yeah ... those guys were totally against slavery too right? Come on people. Try arguing from an ethical and economic standpoint for once ... instead of falling back on some dead guys who made a pretty good document for their time. Jeesh!
Click to expand...

Where does it fail today? Because it doesn't offer you the avenues to abuse freedom? It doesn't allow you to create welfare state? Where exactly does it fail? You guys always go into this bull**** when your abuse is corrected but its not helpful to you.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Everything can be dangerous. Ban everything and sit in a box.
Click to expand...

As I've often stated, many are too naive to understand basic cost/benefit analysis. In this case, the need for something, the max potential harm and the likelihood of doing damage in the wrong hands are how we choose what to ban or restrict access to.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Where does it fail today? Because it doesn't offer you the avenues to abuse freedom? It doesn't allow you to create welfare state? Where exactly does it fail? You guys always go into this bull**** when your abuse is corrected but its not helpful to you.
Click to expand...

As a simple start, it's because it DOES allow people to abuse the meaning of freedom.
 
Mathematician said:
As I've often stated, many are too naive to understand basic cost/benefit analysis. In this case, the need for something, the max potential harm and the likelihood of doing damage in the wrong hands are how we choose what to ban or restrict access to.
Click to expand...

I'm not to naive to not understand it, I just don't think its relevant. If no harm was caused, no harm was caused. Therefore, no punishment is needed. If you wish to just strip freedom from people for potentials you might as well do what I just said about the box.
 
Mathematician said:
As a simple start, it's because it DOES allow people to abuse the meaning of freedom.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. You are sick individual is all. You just believe that government is best when people are controlled. To even claim for a minute as if you even care for term and its abuses is laughable. Its isn't a abuse of freedom if it doesn't stop others freedoms.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not to naive to not understand it, I just don't think its relevant. If no harm was caused, no harm was caused. Therefore, no punishment is needed. If you wish to just strip freedom from people for potentials you might as well do what I just said about the box.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'll understand after a young punk or gang member tosses a grenade at your doorstep...
 
Mathematician said:
Maybe you'll understand after a young punk or gang member tosses a grenade at your doorstep...
Click to expand...

So then they will cause property damage and need punishment. Sounds like you are playing into my hands.
 
Henrin said:
So then they will cause property damage and need punishment. Sounds like you are playing into my hands.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you don't mind your house blown up since you are supporting them. What do you see as the benefit of buying them?
 
Mathematician said:
I'm glad you don't mind your house blown up since you are supporting them. What do you see as the benefit of buying them?
Click to expand...

Why does something need a benefit to be able to be bought?
 
Henrin said:
Why does something need a benefit to be able to be bought?
Click to expand...

You know I was thinking we should ban rocks. I mean what is the benefit of rocks? People throw them at each other and pile them up. What is the benefit of that? They should be banned. I'm not sure how exactly it would be enforced but the government can figure something out.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Is it because you find freedom tedious and liberty boring?
Click to expand...

Freedom from oppression, yes, but freedom from education? enLIGHTenment? Is that what you want?
As long as we allow people to choose ignorance, we will have a welfare class.

Taxpayers are supporting 2 of my siblings, have been for decades. I am grateful for that, otherwise I would have to support them...
 
UtahBill said:
Freedom from oppression, yes, but freedom from education? enLIGHTenment? Is that what you want?
As long as we allow people to choose ignorance, we will have a welfare class.

Taxpayers are supporting 2 of my siblings, have been for decades. I am grateful for that, otherwise I would have to support them...
Click to expand...

Who has supported freedom from education or enlightenment? Answer, no one. Please no red herrings.
 
UtahBill said:
Freedom from oppression, yes, but freedom from education? enLIGHTenment? Is that what you want?
As long as we allow people to choose ignorance, we will have a welfare class.

Taxpayers are supporting 2 of my siblings, have been for decades. I am grateful for that, otherwise I would have to support them...
Click to expand...

Hardly. There is no obligation to subsidize ignorance. If someone is ignorant they should pay for it. Why should I, why should you, why should anyone? Because its wrong they suffer? Why is it wrong they suffer from their ignorance? Its not, in fact its right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom