Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Bri]

Whether or not there are alternatives, and whether or not the alternatives are as good does not matter as far as it being a ban.

Please show where anyone in this thread has indicated otherwise. Or is it nitpicking to point out your straw men?

It's not a ban for many other reasons already covered in the thread.

-Bri

 

[This is The End]

Please show where anyone in this thread has indicated otherwise.

It's a ban, unless you nitpick, that is clearly obvious.


Go back to any year from 1900 to 1990. Remove every light bulb from every fixture in every house in the USA and put them into a pile. 99% of total number of bulbs in that pile will be illegal to import or manufacture in a few years.

I know Bri already acknowledges this, I'm just not sure that Joe does.

 

[This is The End]

The double-blind test that Joe proposed had nothing to do with the bulbs Phelix has now.

So we just assume that Phelix meant all energy-efficients that exist, and not the energy-efficients that he has used?

 

[Bri]

You have been asked repeatedly by me to provide evidence for this claim. Please do so or admit that you don't have any.

Looking back at the articles I had on the topic (including the one I linked to previously), they point out that there is no evidence that CFL's cause headaches. I had thought that some of the articles indicated that there were studies that positively showed the opposite, but I was mistaken.

Can you present evidence that CFL's cause headaches?

-Bri

 

[This is The End]

Actually two people answered this. Including Joe. You're not very good at this.

You're wrong. I responded to that same claim much earlier in this thread and again just recently.

Could you both just say whether or not you agree with this statement. It is a very clearly worded statement. It is either true or it isn't.

Go back to any year from 1900 to 1990. Remove every light bulb from every fixture in every house in the USA and put them into a pile. 99% of the total number of bulbs in that pile will be illegal to import or manufacture in a few years.

 

[Bri]

It's a ban, unless you nitpick, that is clearly obvious.

No nitpicking required. It's not a ban on the "old-style" inefficient incandescent bulbs you're referring to for any number of reasons, including -- but not limited to -- the following:

• ANY technology of bulb that doesn't meet the efficiency requirements are prohibited by the standards, not just incandescents.
  
• There are "old-style" inefficient incandescent bulbs that are not prohibited.
  
• You can use any "old-style" inefficient incandescent bulbs that you already own.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

So we just assume that Phelix meant all energy-efficients that exist, and not the energy-efficients that he has used?

Phelix will have to clarify, but I believe he was asking whether there would be bulbs allowed by the standards that don't give him headaches. He initially indicated that all high efficiency bulbs gave him headaches, but later said that his phrasing was based on a misunderstanding of the technologies available, and that it's possible that the only ones that gave him headaches were older CFL's.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Could you both just say whether or not you agree with this statement. It is a very clearly worded statement. It is either true or it isn't.

Who cares about bulbs that NO LONGER EXIST ?

It's a ban, unless you nitpick, that is clearly obvious.

It's clearly not, since all incandescents are not made illegal with this. I think what you meant was "it's a ban on the bulbs I have in my home right now."

 

[This is The End]

No nitpicking required. It's simply not a ban. It's not even a ban on the "old-style" inefficient incandescent bulbs you're referring to for any number of reasons, including -- but not limited to -- the following:

• ANY technology of bulb that doesn't meet the efficiency requirements are prohibited by the standards, not just incandescents.
  
• There are "old-style" inefficient incandescent bulbs that are not prohibited.
  
• You can use any "old-style" inefficient incandescent bulbs that you already own.

-Bri

Your first 2 bullets are easily answered:

Just because other things are banned as well, or that are not banned, does not make it not a ban.

3rd bullet: Just because you can use up all of the ones you have, does not make it not a ban on import and manufacture.

Again, the vast majority of all the bulbs used over the past 100 years will be illegal to import or manufacture in a few years. That is a ban.

 

[This is The End]

It's clearly not, since all incandescents are not made illegal with this.

That is obviously a nitpick.

I'll just assume that you agree with this statement, since your answer is a 'who cares' in all caps.

Go back to any year from 1900 to 1990. Remove every light bulb from every fixture in every house in the USA and put them into a pile. 99% of the total number of bulbs in that pile will be illegal to import or manufacture in a few years.

 

[Belz...]

That is obviously a nitpick.

The fact that the statement is FALSE is not a nitpick.

I'll just assume that you agree with this statement, since your answer is a 'who cares' in all caps.

Ah, yes, the formatting and emphasis of my post certainly is a reasonable criterion to determine what goes on in my head. Your question is irrelevant, therefore I have no answer.

 

[This is The End]

Me: It's a ban, unless you nitpick...

Belz: It's clearly not, since all incandescents are not made illegal with this.




Everyone can read your answer to me (you even added the quote so you can't claim that it wasn't a direct answer).

Plain as day.

 

[Belz...]

And here you are again, assuming that everybody who ISN'T posting agrees with you. How convenient. OnlyTellsTruths indeed.

Look, the original claim was "this is a ban on ALL incandescents". It isn't. It's a ban on SOME of them. That's the crux of the thread.

Plain as day.

 

[This is The End]

Your question is irrelevant, therefore I have no answer.

You say this is irrelevent:

Go back to any year from 1900 to 1990. Remove every light bulb from every fixture in every house in the USA and put them into a pile. 99% of the total number of bulbs in that pile will be illegal to import or manufacture in a few years.

I say it is the entire topic of conversation.

Whether or not there are alternatives, and whether or not the alternatives are as good, has nothing to do with whether or not a range of light bulbs used by the majority of people over 100 years has been banned.

Then again you also don't think "since all incandescents are not made illegal with this" is a nitpick.

 

[This is The End]

Look, the original claim was "this is a ban on ALL incandescents". It isn't. It's a ban on SOME of them. That's the crux of the thread.

The fact that it's a nitpick is the crux of this thread.

We were past the original claim on page 1. Everything else has been about whether or not that is just a nit-pick as far as I can tell.

In the clarification post (that you responded with the all caps) I wanted to be sure that you admit it is a ban on the majority of light bulbs everyone used to use.

 

[This is The End]

Let me try to make this as clear as possible:

If the ban was only on a small percentage of light bulbs that everyone used since the invention of the light bulb, then it would be nitpicking to call it a ban.

Yet, since the ban is on a very large percentage of the light bulbs that everyone used since the invention of the light bulb, it would be nitpicking to not call it a ban.

Those 2 sentences are the crux of this thread as far as I can tell.


Clearly shown in this direct exchange between me and Belz a few posts ago:

Me: It's a ban, unless you nitpick...

Belz: It's clearly not, since all incandescents are not made illegal with this.

What Belz implies by using the word all is all that matters as far as I see.

If the ban was only on a small percentage of light bulbs that everyone used since the invention of the light bulb, then it would be nitpicking to call it a ban.

Yet, since the ban is on a very large percentage of the light bulbs that everyone used since the invention of the light bulb, it would be nitpicking to not call it a ban.

 

[This is The End]

And here you are again, assuming that everybody who ISN'T posting agrees with you. How convenient. OnlyTellsTruths indeed.

I never, and would never make that claim. I'm not even sure how you conclude that unless you are responding to something besides the previous post:

Everyone can read your answer to me:

All I am saying is that everyone can read and judge your answer to me.

Me: It's a ban, unless you nitpick...

Belz: It's clearly not, since all incandescents are not made illegal with this.

 

[Bri]

Your first 2 bullets are easily answered:

Just because other things are banned as well, or that are not banned, does not make it not a ban.

That only applies to the first bullet. And to characterize a leash law as "a ban on unleashed schnauzers" would be inaccurate and misleading if the law applied equally to all dogs.

The second bullet is that there are old-style incandescent bulbs (the very ones you're talking about) that are not prohibited. Therefore, it's not a ban on old-style incandescent bulbs.

3rd bullet: Just because you can use up all of the ones you have, does not make it not a ban on import and manufacture.

It's not a ban on the import and manufacture of the old-style incandescent bulbs you're referring to because of the other reasons listed in this thread (including the first and second bullets above).

You do realize that you keep moving the goal posts on what you consider "nitpicking" right? You initially claimed that it was "nitpicking" to say that it's not a ban on incandescent bulbs. Then you said that it's "nitpicking" to say that it's not a ban on the manufacture and import of incandescent bulbs. Now you seem to just be trying to get us to admit that it's a ban on....something.

It seems like you're jumping through some hoops in order to try to characterize the standards as a "ban" on something. I'm not sure why you're so adamant to use the term "ban," but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe the standards ban something, but you're going to have to tell us what you think it's a ban of and stop saying that we're "nitpicking" every time we point out that you're wrong.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

I say it is the entire topic of conversation.

No. The topic of the conversation is NOT whether light bulbs that no longer exist are tareted by this law. That would be ridiculous. The fact that you even think it applies to this thread is suspect.

Whether or not there are alternatives, and whether or not the alternatives are as good, has nothing to do with whether or not a range of light bulbs used by the majority of people over 100 years has been banned.

Even if, somehow, this were both true and relevant, so what ? Incandescents light bulbs are not being banned. Only _some_ of them.

then again you also don't think "since all incandescents are not made illegal with this" is a nitpick.

Of course I don't. Take this:

- "All people are idiots".
- "No. Around 15-20% of them aren't."
- "That's a nitpick."
- "How is it a nitpick ? Your statement is WRONG!"
- "Well, you just wrote a word in all caps so you agree with me."
- "What ?"

 

[This is The End]

The second bullet is that there are old-style incandescent bulbs (the very ones you're talking about) that are not prohibited. Therefore, it's not a ban on old-style incandescent bulbs.

You must have missed the "and not banned" part:

Just because other things are banned as well, or that are not banned, does not make it not a ban.

You do realize that you keep moving the goal posts on what you consider "nitpicking" right? You initially claimed that it was "nitpicking" to say that it's not a ban on incandescent bulbs.

The moving of the goalposts that you claim I have done is merely me describing your nitpicking. I just covered all of that:

If the ban was only on a small percentage of light bulbs that everyone used since the invention of the light bulb, then it would be nitpicking to call it a ban.

Yet, since the ban is on a very large percentage of the light bulbs that everyone used since the invention of the light bulb, it would be nitpicking to not call it a ban.