• 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
Okay IOW you are just flinging poo and seeing what sticks.

Nope. Just arguing against the know-it-all elites who know better than the masses, but really don't want to take meaningful measures to reduce pollution and minimize energy usage.
 
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.

True. However, the electric type writer actually allows for a savings in energy by increasing efficiency significantly beyond that of the manual typewriter, so that the energy costs are actually lower.
 
So...this is less about light bulbs and more about your own personal issues with authority?

This argument is definitely between those who are for freedom and those who are know-it-all elites who want to use tyranny to get their way.
 
Nope. Just arguing against the know-it-all elites who know better than the masses, but really don't want to take meaningful measures to reduce pollution and minimize energy usage.

Interesting how you made a debate about a light bulb into a debate about populism.
 
This argument is definitely between those who are for freedom and those who are know-it-all elites who want to use tyranny to get their way.

Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Why that is so hard for you populists to understand, I do not know.
 
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.

I don't think the Founding Fathers banned the purchase of any item. Also, I don't believe the Founding Fathers thought the people were stupid.
 
Ah, the argument that the masses are stupid and we, the elite, know better. That's pathetic.

Ah, the argument that the intelligent are stupid, and those who have demonstrated very little knowledge on the subject actually know better. That's pathetic.
 
True. However, the electric type writer actually allows for a savings in energy by increasing efficiency significantly beyond that of the manual typewriter, so that the energy costs are actually lower.

Sorry, but the argument here is not about efficiency or cost savings from efficiency. The argument here is that we do not have a right to waste energy. The electric typewriter uses energy and that causes pollution. The manual typewriter does not. According to the elites here, the electric typewriter should be banned and so should computers, printers, etc.
 
Interesting how you made a debate about a light bulb into a debate about populism.

I find it more interesting how the elites can turn a lightbulb into oppressive, authortarian tyranny.
 
Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Why that is so hard for you populists to understand, I do not know.

ROFL!! I understand that elitists believe they know better than the masses who are stupid. I believe you have stated that agree with that. I don't think the masses are stupid. I believe that if given choices in lightbulbs, the masses will choose the one that best fits their needs.
 
Ah, the argument that the intelligent are stupid, and those who have demonstrated very little knowledge on the subject actually know better. That's pathetic.

ROFL!!! I have never said that the elite or the intelligent are stupid. People from your side of the argument have literally said that the masses, which include intelligent people, are stupid. Nice try to flip the argument, but you have erred.
 
Sorry, but the argument here is not about efficiency or cost savings from efficiency. The argument here is that we do not have a right to waste energy. The electric typewriter uses energy and that causes pollution. The manual typewriter does not. According to the elites here, the electric typewriter should be banned and so should computers, printers, etc.

How much energy? And what is the unit we are going to go with? Even if it's kilowatt-hours, kWh per what? Per hour of use? Per page? Per thousand keystrokes? Per typewriter? One cannot start to analyze the energy efficiency of anything until one gets an appropriate unit of measure.

Regarding this lightbulb mess, why is it that conservatives aren't pushing for researching ever increased efficiencies (in terms of lumens per watt) that would would render this entire debate moot? Why can't they push for something that would make our descendants laugh at the fact that we had to settle for incandescent light bulbs and then CFLs? Why do they mire us down in these stupid and false debates instead of pushing for something that's going to lift us all right out of them? THAT's the American Spirit, Les. THAT's what it means to be a patriot: Anything the world does, America can do better. At least, that's what it used to mean. Now, I wonder.
 
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.

This is what happens when 'slippery slope' is taken as some kind of a legit form of argument... good slippery slopes... hey, why discriminate? Because it is meant as a negative; it's stupid in the first place; it can be done about anything; stop it. Slippery slope should be a logical fallacy, if it is not already.

To recap:

Kids, don't employ slippery slope arguments. They're stupid and could be made about absolutely anything. Countering a slippery slope argument with positive slippery slopyness is not permitted. OK, that's all for now.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the Founding Fathers banned the purchase of any item. Also, I don't believe the Founding Fathers thought the people were stupid.

Actually, they very much did think people were stupid and unable to govern themselves. Hence why there is so much removal between the people and the government. Originally senators were not elected by popular vote, the electoral college prevents a direct popular vote from determining the president, we do not elect supreme court justices, and don't forget that only the elite of the population were originally permitted to vote at all. Only rich landowners could vote in 1787.

As for the banning of certain items... Of course there were laws banning various things. Every country has some. If you look at what laws existed in that year, you'll find some. And you'll certainly find others enacted quite quickly afterwords.



As for the lightbulb thing... Sure, let's update our standards to use better technology. Whining about the freedom to use a worse product is just stupid. Get with the modern world, people.
 
Let's start banning older cars. Narf.
 
How much energy? And what is the unit we are going to go with? Even if it's kilowatt-hours, kWh per what? Per hour of use? Per page? Per thousand keystrokes? Per typewriter? One cannot start to analyze the energy efficiency of anything until one gets an appropriate unit of measure.

Thank you for making my argument that we should ban air conditioners and autos rather than lightbulbs. Lightbulbs use very little energy. The manual typewriter uses no electricity. The electric one does. Using the manual saves 100% of the energy used by the electric. If it doesn't save enough, it doesn't matter because real energy savings could be achieved, but your side does not advocate saving energy from the sources that use the most energy.

Regarding this lightbulb mess, why is it that conservatives aren't pushing for researching ever increased efficiencies (in terms of lumens per watt) that would would render this entire debate moot? Why can't they push for something that would make our descendants laugh at the fact that we had to settle for incandescent light bulbs and then CFLs? Why do they mire us down in these stupid and false debates instead of pushing for something that's going to lift us all right out of them? THAT's the American Spirit, Les. THAT's what it means to be a patriot: Anything the world does, America can do better. At least, that's what it used to mean. Now, I wonder.

I don't believe you understand the conservative argument. We favor research and development of all types of energy including wind, solar, battery, fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro. If someone could make a car that gets 1,000 mpg gallon, please make it. Some people will buy it. If someone could make a lightbulb that could last 40 years, please make it. If someone could make a truck that can carry 50,000 lbs and get 100 mpg, please make it. Conservatives would be delighted if each of these were achieved.

Where we differ is that we do not believe that tyranny is the American Spirit. We do not believe that tyranny is patriotic. I agree that America can do anything better and I don't wonder about that at all. I have faith in the "stupid" masses as well as the elites, at least, those who do not believe in tyranny.
 
I don't think the Founding Fathers banned the purchase of any item. Also, I don't believe the Founding Fathers thought the people were stupid.

:roll:

1807, the prohibition of the importation of slaves.

It became illegal to buy a slave from outside the country.
 
My point is, if it is, people will choose it.

The trouble of course, is that these better bulbs are so expensive...
So, naturally the people will buy the cheapest, as we have for the past 6,000 years.
I do not think that they are convinced that the LED is more economical in the long run. Of this, I am not convinced of either...
Our government tells us that the old bulbs waste too much energy...but far too many do not trust "our government".
Why ?
Advertising... the biggest lie in America...who will believe anything that they say ?
So we badly need reform here...truth in advertising...real reform...
 
Actually, they very much did think people were stupid and unable to govern themselves.

Can you produce quotes where the Founding Fathers said that "the people" were stupid?

Hence why there is so much removal between the people and the government. Originally senators were not elected by popular vote, the electoral college prevents a direct popular vote from determining the president, we do not elect supreme court justices, and don't forget that only the elite of the population were originally permitted to vote at all. Only rich landowners could vote in 1787.

I don't take issue with most of this.

As for the banning of certain items... Of course there were laws banning various things. Every country has some. If you look at what laws existed in that year, you'll find some. And you'll certainly find others enacted quite quickly afterwords.

Can you show us a commodity where the Founding Fathers set minimal standards on before it could be purchased by the public and could not be sold anywhere in the United States?

[/quote]As for the lightbulb thing... Sure, let's update our standards to use better technology. Whining about the freedom to use a worse product is just stupid. Get with the modern world, people.[/QUOTE]

Update our standards? Fine, but do so in a non-tyrannical way. Let the people choose which product they want.
 
:roll:

1807, the prohibition of the importation of slaves.

It became illegal to buy a slave from outside the country.

ROFLMAO!!! So you believe that slaves were nothing more than a commodity like a lightbulb. Interesting.
 
I don't think the Founding Fathers banned the purchase of any item. Also, I don't believe the Founding Fathers thought the people were stupid.
But the people were "stupid", back then, uneducated and ignorant..
The only book for most was the Bible, there was little or no education.
So what CriticalThought said was correct...to an extent.
 
But the people were "stupid", back then, uneducated and ignorant..
The only book for most was the Bible, there was little or no education.
So what CriticalThought said was correct...to an extent.

I disagree. People were not stupid. People today are not stupid. Only the elite know-it-alls believe that. They may have been uneducated or ignorant, but both terms are different from stupid. If the masses today are uneducated or ignorant about the newer bulbs, it should be the job of the manufacturers to educate the masses so they are no longer ignorant [if indeed they are] and they can then purchase whatever lightbulb they wish because they would be well-informed. But, that is not what the tyrants desire. They want oppressive authoritarian laws to force their beliefs on others.
 
Pretty much. You don't know much about history, do ya?

Wow! You just admitted that you believe that selling human beings is the same as selling a commodity. Unreal!

Actually, I would bet that I know a quite a bit about the history of the U.S. from approximately 1770 to 1810 as well as the Constitution. Studying that history has been my passion for the past twenty years or so.
 
The argument by the proponents of lightbulb bannings has not been to minimize the impact of pollution or reduce wasted energy. If either of those would have been the argument, they would seek a ban on air conditioning units and automobiles. Picking on lightbulbs is not even a serious effort.
Less, where have you been? The government has banned low mileage automobile fleets and low efficiency air conditioners. And, what is happening now is low efficiency trucks are being banned. And many of the manufactures of these things support the so called banes because their products will cost a little more and save a lot.
 
Back
Top Bottom