Gravitymaster 0 #201 August 24, 2012 Bullshit. If we go by yours and SD claims, we should get rid of speed limits too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #202 August 24, 2012 Quotesame old crap you guys - it's not being a 'busybody' if it's on your personal agenda. It's not being a busybody if you use government to force others to do things your way. Rehwa- you've tried this a couple times this week. It's akin to the notion that you can't criticize another cultures. 'Cultures cannot be bad, they're just different and we have to respect this' Bullshit. We can use facts and make actual determinations. Cultures that oppress their women suck. Cultures that behead or stone people for saying heretical statements suck. The GOP does has a whack job problem affecting their policy direction. And incandescent light bulbs cost America too much. (I hope in 10 years well priced LED bulbs will eliminate us even thinking about this nonsense) The costs of the drug war are largely in the enforcement and the crimes caused by drug prices that are artificially high. Remove those and you can afford to take care of the addicted and the marginal increase you might see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #203 August 24, 2012 Quote If light bulbs don't give you a decent example, go pick any one of thousands of others out there. Clearly you think that telling citizens what kind of bulb to buy isn't close to being nosy about what you have and own. That's fine - there's plenty of others out there. You've got to agree that there is some role for government in regulating product availability. You simply must!For instance, most people do not have a problem with the government banning the sale of nuclear weapons, or anthrax spores, or nerve agent. The use of all of these things would harm not only the user, but others in society. Some people think that the widespread use of incandescent bulbs harms others in society by requiring more powerplants, more pollution, etc. You may draw the line at a differnt point, but I think you agree that one of the core roles of government is preventing the actions of one citizen from harming another citizen. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #204 August 24, 2012 QuoteBullshit. If we go by yours and SD claims, we should get rid of speed limits too. I conclude you have no meaningful rebuttal at this time. Think it over the weekend and see if you can do better. How the hell can you call yourself a Republican yet insist that you know how I should live my life? Speed limits are easy - traffic safety is maximized by orderly, consistent flow of cars. Speed limits - effectively speed targets, accomplish this. You choosing to shoot up crack has no direct bearing on my well being, and pretty marginal second order effects. But your choosing to drive past a school at 60 or on the freeway at 100 in rush hour certainly compromises the safety of others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #205 August 24, 2012 Yet, again, you're completely dismissing ANY experience upon the absence of an NA attendance. Utter rubbish. There are plenty of resources besides THAT particular one. Are you so intensely attached to it because you felt the power? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #206 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteBullshit. If we go by yours and SD claims, we should get rid of speed limits too. I conclude you have no meaningful rebuttal at this time. Think it over the weekend and see if you can do better. How the hell can you call yourself a Republican yet insist that you know how I should live my life? Speed limits are easy - traffic safety is maximized by orderly, consistent flow of cars. Speed limits - effectively speed targets, accomplish this. You choosing to shoot up crack has no direct bearing on my well being, and pretty marginal second order effects. But your choosing to drive past a school at 60 or on the freeway at 100 in rush hour certainly compromises the safety of others. First of all I have never smoked crack or "shot it up". Had you any knowledge of what you are tallying about, you would know that. Secondly, I consider that a personal attack. My example of speed limits was only to point out that certain laws are necessary to allow people to live together in a society. An idea that is lost on some. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #207 August 24, 2012 Quote Quote If light bulbs don't give you a decent example, go pick any one of thousands of others out there. Clearly you think that telling citizens what kind of bulb to buy isn't close to being nosy about what you have and own. That's fine - there's plenty of others out there. You've got to agree that there is some role for government in regulating product availability. You simply must!For instance, most people do not have a problem with the government banning the sale of nuclear weapons, or anthrax spores, or nerve agent. The use of all of these things would harm not only the user, but others in society. Some people think that the widespread use of incandescent bulbs harms others in society by requiring more powerplants, more pollution, etc. You may draw the line at a differnt point, but I think you agree that one of the core roles of government is preventing the actions of one citizen from harming another citizen. this is a good response - thanks and I do believe that both parties draw their line too far on one side - not just one party. I throw out something really inconsequential (light bulbs) which is a great example of being way on the wrong side of the line, and the usual suspects jump on it just because it demonstrates both parties are too intrusive and they can only handle it if the examples are R-biased. I can find something just as pissy on the R side and dollars bet they'd cluck and nod and agree that those damn R's are evil and D's are the only good and decent solution to everything. It's nuts. But even this e-mail will likely result in someone responding with pointless vulgarisms since I dare to note the point in government is intrusion and that we've crossed the 'reasonable' line long ago and far away. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #208 August 24, 2012 Quote First of all I have never smoked crack or "shot it up". Had you any knowledge of what you are tallying about, you would know that. Secondly, I consider that a personal attack. Your misreading clear hypotheticals is your own problem. Best bring that up at the next meeting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #209 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuote First of all I have never smoked crack or "shot it up". Had you any knowledge of what you are tallying about, you would know that. Secondly, I consider that a personal attack. Your misreading clear hypotheticals is your own problem. Best bring that up at the next meeting. Right, this personal attack is clearer. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #210 August 24, 2012 QuoteSo will going to NA explain to me how fucking idiotic they were to put that damn crack pipe in the mouth? Legalities have zero to do with intelligence. OOPS! You slipped a cog with that one. Substance Use Disorder/Addiction/Alcoholism is an equal opportunity disease. Some very smart, successful people become dependent and/or addicted. There is a little known but lucrative branch of drug counseling for medical professionals i.e., doctors and RN's.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #211 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou repeatedly assert that we won't know anything about crack addiction unless we attend an NA meeting. I completely disagree. I never said that. I simply suggested it to those who think they know how devastating the effects are. But if you think you know about skydiving but have never stepped on a DZ, then more power to you. But, excuse me if I question your experience. This is just a horrible line of reasoning and argumentation, however. What you are implying is that anybody who does have such experiences (specifically just going to NA meetings) is also then going to have the same perspective on the legality of drugs that you have. It is simply not so. I have been to NA meetings. Other people here have other experiences with drugs, including crack. It does not mean we all agree, I certainly do not. Do you really think the war on drugs is working?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #212 August 24, 2012 QuoteSo you are prepared to use society as a guinea pig to satisfy your ideology? Didn't we learn enough from China when opium was legal? Do you think China outlawed it just because they wanted to be mean? http://www.historywiz.com/downfall.htm yes, given that we have tried YOUR apparent ideology and it is not working. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #213 August 24, 2012 Quote>That is a really crappy analogy. Of course. It's comparing old light bulbs to older light bulbs; they have nothing to do with each other, Wrong, I contend your analogy wasn't really about light bulbs. Even as a light bulb analogy, is sucks because carbon arc lamps fell out of favor due to the merits of their competitors. Incandescent lamps are being regulated away, when they still have significant advantages. Very crappy analogy. It seems you have a compulsion to use analogies, use them when they are not needed to understand an issue, and they are not even analogous.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #214 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo you are prepared to use society as a guinea pig to satisfy your ideology? Didn't we learn enough from China when opium was legal? Do you think China outlawed it just because they wanted to be mean? http://www.historywiz.com/downfall.htm yes, given that we have tried YOUR apparent ideology and it is not working. Whatever, it's still the lesser of 2 evils. What would be ideal is if people would quit tokin on the crack pipe altogether and work towards being a productive member of society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #215 August 24, 2012 Quote Incandescent lamps are being regulated away, when they still have significant advantages. Very crappy analogy. List the advantages.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #216 August 24, 2012 They don't contain mercury. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #217 August 24, 2012 QuoteThey don't contain mercury. But the coal burned to power them does - and it gets emitted into the atmosphere. They contain tungsten, too, another heavy metal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #218 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteThey don't contain mercury. But the coal burned to power them does - and it gets emitted into the atmosphere. They contain tungsten, too, another heavy metal. What do you think most people would do if they dropped a bulb containing mercury and it broke? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #219 August 24, 2012 >Even as a light bulb analogy, is sucks because carbon arc lamps fell out of favor due >to the merits of their competitors. That was the majority of the reason. The other was due to government regulations, mainly fire codes that limited the use of carbon arcs in some cities due to the high risk of fire. But the primary reason is that incandescent lights just got better than carbon arc lights for most applications. >Incandescent lamps are being regulated away, when they still have significant >advantages. While incandescents are not being "banned" by the federal government, they are indeed seeing more requirements placed on them. The biggest one is the 2007 energy law that required higher efficiency from ALL light bulbs, not just incandescents. These, by the way, are standards that incandescents can meet; they are just a bit harder to make. Every law is a tradeoff, and the tradeoff there was between public health and cheap light bulbs. You can quantify the tons of thorium, mercury, lead and arsenic that have been removed from the US's water and air due to higher efficiency standards, and that leads directly to a healthier populace overall. When Remhwa goes to buy an incandescent bulb in 2022, I strongly suspect he will still be able to find his bulb. It may be a bit dusty, though; technology evolves, and by that time LED bulbs will likely be both cheaper and more efficient than that incandescent. (And BTW I am against the banning of incandescent light bulbs; there's no good reason to do that. I do think there are good reasons to require efficient bulbs whatever technology they use.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #220 August 24, 2012 QuoteWhatever, it's still the lesser of 2 evils. What would be ideal is if people would quit tokin on the crack pipe altogether and work towards being a productive member of society. arguably it's not, especially if you are the addict and in jail.... Yes ideal would be eternal bliss and happiness, but it ain't. So back to reality. people do drugs and abuse themselves. People smoke but the health insurance dollars I pay help pay for their treatment too. Some people drive poorly, some people do stupid things and drown, some people get abortions, some people want to shoot guns, The world did not end due to heroin or opium or crack or pot. more people die in Florida every day from PRESCRIPTION drugs than die from illegal drugs. the system is not working - stop 'running the system' and see what happens - it cannot possibly be any worse, and it certainly will NOT affect your life any more. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20093158-10391704.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #221 August 24, 2012 Throwing someone into jail, that has drugs available, while they have an addiction to some of those drugs makes sense to you how?????? You ever been to jail? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #222 August 24, 2012 QuoteIf you are denying that crack cocaine is the most addicting substance ever wrought on humanity, then I would have serious concerns about your perspective on other issues as well. Crack cocaine is not significantly more addictive than powder cocaine. Nicotine and heroin are both more addictive.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #223 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuote Incandescent lamps are being regulated away, when they still have significant advantages. Very crappy analogy. List the advantages. Indeed. The anger over the legislative and softer mandates to dump incandescent for CFLs or LEDs seem to fall into 3 categories: 1) false truths a) They cost more. Their longer life and lower power draw far exceeds the upfront cost. b) They have dangerous mercury. The CFLs have a tiny amount - the concern over this has been a bit overblown. It is one reason to look forward to LEDs, but Kallend pointed out the mercury that comes from coal burning. 2) don't like the alternatives. Cheap CFLs do suck. There are others. And they don't always fit existing fixtures. There are some real complaints here, though again it sounds like excuses in many circumstances. Personally I don't favor complete elimination of incandescents. 3) wah - they're making me do shit! This is laziness. It's silly to use 100watts of power to do what 26 can (and even less with LEDs). In warmer climates, you then burn even more power on air conditioning for all the heat generated by that excess 70+ watts. Power generation is a growing problem for us - it tends to require coal or natural gas to add capacity. We don't want to use more oil here, and our hydro generation capability will likely decline due to the environmental consequences of daming all the rivers. When you look at wasteful use of power in the US - lighting is #1. Next are these stupid electronic devices that can draw 1-20 watts even when powered off. The latter is a perfect arena for regulatory change. It's not really necessary for a charge to draw that sort of power when nothing is attached. We made very good success with appliances already in the past...these are the next set of fruit on the tree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #224 August 24, 2012 >What do you think most people would do if they dropped a bulb containing mercury >and it broke? Sweep it up and throw it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #225 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuote Incandescent lamps are being regulated away, when they still have significant advantages. Very crappy analogy. List the advantages. I can think of only two advantages of incandescent bulbs, compared to LEDs: Incandescent bulbs produce broad spectrum light, which is advantageous in some environments, especially outdoors. Performance of incandescent bulbs does not degrade noticeably due to heat. For most applications, these advantages are not worth the extra cost of operation.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
