Okay IOW you are just flinging poo and seeing what sticks.
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.
So...this is less about light bulbs and more about your own personal issues with authority?
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.
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.
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.
Ah, the argument that the masses are stupid and we, the elite, 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.
Interesting how you made a debate about a light bulb into a debate about populism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My point is, if it is, people will choose it.
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.
:roll:
1807, the prohibition of the importation of slaves.
It became illegal to buy a slave from outside the country.
But the people were "stupid", back then, uneducated and ignorant..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.
ROFLMAO!!! So you believe that slaves were nothing more than a commodity like a lightbulb. Interesting.
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.
Pretty much. You don't know much about history, do ya?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?