Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Bri]

You actually think you know more about someone than they do about their own perceptions (leaving aside scientific research in this area and practical, real world considerations)...

Wow.....

His comments are right in line with scientific research.

Most people who think that certain types of bulbs give them headaches or that they can see strobing really can't tell the difference in double-blind tests and are no more likely to get headaches or dizziness with one type of bulb than another.

The color and brightness of a bulb have a lot more effect regardless of the type of bulb.

If you have "scientific research in this area" that supports your claim, please present it.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

And legislation could also make it so only one type of light bulb could ever comply, but the legislation in question doesn't do that.

Not the current one. But in your hypothetical, lobbying could bring it to that point.

 

[Belz...]

Yep, you can see from this thread the attitude of those who would force you to use some type of bulb or another.

I thought it was pretty clear from this thread that this isn't what's happening. So why are you continuing to beat this dead strawman clown ?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wow, you use the word "ban" and "banning" a lot!

This a thread discussing the claim that the U.S. is going to ban incandescent light bulbs. Look at the thread title. No surprise I've used the word a lot. It's difficult to discuss a claim without using the word.

Most people would read that kind of thing and come away thinking, "Yeah, that Joe, he's the one for banning all those light bulbs"...

And they would be flat out wrong if that's the idea they got. [ETA: And frankly, you're flat out wrong. People would not get that idea if they actually read my posts.]

[ETA: And by the way, I've said it before and I'll say it again: when you have to invent quotes and attribute the words to others--even fictional people, it's a pretty good sign you're still arguing against a straw man position. Although by this point, you're just really grasping at straws.]

Then you could argue against that and use the word "ban" another dozen times.

Seriously, you think the number of times one uses a certain word is a better indicator of their position than their stated position?

By your really demented reasoning, the Klanwatch is composed of a bunch of racist Klansmen. After all, they use the words "Klan" and "Ku Klux Klan" over and over again.

 

[Bri]

Wow, you use the word "ban" and "banning" a lot!

Most people would read that kind of thing and come away thinking, "Yeah, that Joe, he's the one for banning all those light bulbs"...

Not unless most people go through Joe's posts, pick out random words that he's quoted from other people's posts, remove the quotes, and make it look like Joe actually said them himself.

But that would be dishonest and misleading.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Not the current one. But in your hypothetical, lobbying could bring it to that point.

Highly unlikely, of course.

But sure, in a "hypothetical" the lightning bug breeders lobby could also bring it to the point that only lighting bugs conform. So I guess you're right -- in a hypothetical just about anything could happen...hypothetically.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not the current one. But in your hypothetical, lobbying could bring it to that point.

I know. And that's exactly why I specified that in the hypothetical. (Deja vu.) I was trying to lay out all the specifics necessary to make the analogy applicable.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I thought it was pretty clear from this thread that this isn't what's happening. So why are you continuing to beat this dead strawman clown ?

That's haze's m.o.

I think haze really was ignorant of the specifics of the EISA, and he really thought it was going to be a ban on all incandescents. He claimed early on that his stockpiling bulbs was evidence that it was a ban. When challenged on the point that he was even stockpiling bulbs that were excluded from the new energy efficiency guidelines, he changed his rationale to claiming that he was stockpiling bulbs *only* because they weren't on the shelves in his local Home Depot and not because he thought they were going to be banned.

The logical problem with this bogus rationale for stockpiling flood lights is obvious. If he had really believed they were still going to be available for purchase, but only on-line, then how was he stockpiling them? (From Home Depot, where they were no longer on the shelves? Or by on-line purchase?)

There's also the fact that the bogus rationale contradicts his stated earlier rationale--and the very reason he mentioned his stockpiling them!

So now that he knows he was simply wrong or misinformed, he's digging in and attempting to argue against gross mischaracterizations of what I and others have been saying and making one faulty analogy after another.

 

[Belz...]

I know. And that's exactly why I specified that in the hypothetical. (Deja vu.) I was trying to lay out all the specifics necessary to make the analogy applicable.

Sorry, then. I must've been sleeping.

 

[Belz...]

Although by this point, you're just really grasping at straws.

How else is he going to make those strawmen ?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How else is he going to make those strawmen ?

Make them or fight them? It's fair to say he's got those straw men by the short. . . straws.

 

[mhaze]

His comments are right in line with scientific research.

Most people who think that certain types of bulbs give them headaches or that they can see strobing really can't tell the difference in double-blind tests and are no more likely to get headaches or dizziness with one type of bulb than another.....

-Bri

Evidence for claims please.

You've got an individual's report as to their effect on him, now you and Joe are actually claiming he's deluded....

Not unless most people go through Joe's posts, pick out random words that he's quoted from other people's posts, remove the quotes, and make it look like Joe actually said them himself.

But that would be dishonest and misleading.

-Bri

LOL.....I picked those out from just a ONE PARAGRAPH POST of Joes, which just preceeded mine.

That's haze's m.o.

I think haze really was ignorant of the specifics of the EISA......

Now that's the reason that it had to be little old me to point out to YOU the actual legislation's goals, the 2020 goals. You had been misrepresenting the entire EISA map as just being those ittty bitty inconsequential 2012 and 2014 targets.

Gee....you just could not make this stuff up....

 

[Belz...]

I thought it was pretty clear from this thread that this isn't what's happening. So why are you continuing to beat this dead strawman clown ?

Haze ?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Evidence for claims please.

You're the one inventing fake quotes and claiming that people would hold that position based on reading this thread.

You've got an individual's report as to their effect on him, now you and Joe are actually claiming he's deluded....

No. We have a quote you fabricated. No one actually thought I was in favor of banning incandescents. That's your delusion.

LOL.....I picked those out from just a ONE PARAGRAPH POST of Joes, which just preceeded mine.

So what? You removed the verbiage in between occurrences of the word "ban" and "banning" and claimed that someone reading this might think I'm in favor of banning incandescent bulbs.

ETA: And let the record show that you can't seem to count paragraphs. (There were 6 paragraphs in that post.) Either that, or you are also ignorant of the meaning of the word "paragraph". You definitely took those occurrences of "ban" and so on from subsequent paragraphs in an attempt to produce a misleading quote of my words.

I've already pointed out the egregious flaws in your reasoning.

Gee....you just could not make this stuff up....

Actually you could. . . and you did. That's just one of the flaws in your reasoning. You use made up "evidence".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now that's the reason that it had to be little old me to point out to YOU the actual legislation's goals, the 2020 goals.

Riiiiight! That's why you were stockpiling reflector bulbs and attempting to use your own behavior as evidence that the law is a ban of incandescent bulbs.



And that's why you explicitly denied that halogen bulbs are incandescent bulbs, that they have filaments and that they're dimmable.

The fact is, you were tremendously ill-informed on the topic of this thread.

 

[Bri]

Evidence for claims please.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flickering-fallacy-cfl-bulb-headaches

This is one example. A quick Google search turns up several articles citing various research. Now where is your evidence that this research is incorrect?

You've got an individual's report as to their effect on him, now you and Joe are actually claiming he's deluded....

Nobody said he was deluded. I said that most people who claim to get headaches of dizziness actually can't attribute those symptoms to any particular type of light bulb in double-blind tests.

LOL.....I picked those out from just a ONE PARAGRAPH POST of Joes, which just preceeded mine.

But of course they were all quoting you and others who were claiming that the standards are a ban. And you know it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Now ... little old me ... had been misrepresenting ... and ... make this stuff up....

Someone could read your post and think that you misrepresented yourself and made it all up!

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But of course they were all quoting you and others who were claiming that the standards are a ban. And you know it.

Not necessarily. The topic is the claim that the EISA comprises a ban on incandescents. It's impossible to discuss this claim without using the various forms of "ban".

Again, I point to Klanwatch's use of the words "Klan" and "Ku Klux Klan". It doesn't matter how many times they use those words, there isn't some magic number where they suddenly turn into Klansmen! There's simply no reason to think that frequency of use of certain words is more indicative of one's position than the sense of complete sentences.

I can't believe this silliness of haze's has even gotten this much discussion. It certainly doesn't merit it.

 

[mhaze]

Y....So what? You removed the verbiage in between occurrences of the word "ban" and "banning" and claimed that someone reading this might think I'm in favor of banning incandescent bulbs. .....

Hey, lighten up. I know it's a hard job, saving the world one light bulb at a time. But remember....one characteristic of a Bulb Truther is the total seriousness and importance of every last bulb saved or created.

You are the one saying the "b" word over and over and over. I don't know if you had a point, but I do know you sure like that there "b" word.



Also, I can't help but just laugh at you and Bri arguing against the personal experience of the prior poster that said CFL gave him headaches, then refusing to present scientific evidence for this position.

So do you actually not believe anyone who says something contrary to your true faith, acolyte?

 

[Bri]

I can't believe this silliness of haze's has even gotten this much discussion. It certainly doesn't merit it.

You're right about that!

My point was that each occurrence of the word in the post in question was within quotes, which were then removed by mhaze in order to make it seem as though you had used them in a different context.

Not that it matters whether they were in quotes or not. As you pointed out, it would be very difficult to have a discussion without using some form of the word (with or without quotes) regardless of which side of the argument you took.

-Bri