He is not doing that. However, he is accusing you as making the same error of judgment as slaveowners defending their right to own slaves.

Incandescent bulbs are a huge drain on our electricity. Banning them will save on energy, and incidentally make our electrical infrastructure work better. Legislating the correct kind of lightbulb is much like legislating telecommunications protocols, health codes, and sanitation.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

He did exactly that. My point was that there are reasonable arguments against legislating a ban on incandescent lights. He attempted to paint those arguments as being equally reasonable as pro-rape or slavery.

Pure hyperbole.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

He did exactly that.

You mean he tried to paint people who are skeptical of incandescent bulb bans as also being pro-slavery or pro-rape? Because that's what you wrote.

He attempted to paint those arguments as being equally reasonable as pro-rape or slavery.

Well, looking back at the comment we're talking about, it appears to be a bunch of riffs on the phrase If people choose to be green, that's great, but many believe the government goes too far with the restrictions. Some of them involve slavery, like If you choose to free your slaves, that's great, but many believe the government goes too far with restrictions.

I think these particular two arguments are logically equivalent. That seems to be the position the original comment is advocating, by way of satire.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

He attempted to draw a parallel between those who are skeptical of incandescent bans and those who were opposing bans on rape and slavery, in an attempt to undermine the validity former opinion. This is pretty far out of line.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Why is it out of line? Because you don't like being compared with them? Because you think those arguments are too unpleasant to bring up?

Perhaps it's not as bad to favor inefficient lightbulbs as it is to favor the use of humans as property. Sure, I'll grant that.

Now, bart_calendar was applying the reductio ad absurdum to your argument. If the fact that "many believe the government goes too far with restrictions" is a good reason not to ban incandescents, it's a good reason not to ban slavery.

Do you have a counterargument?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It's out of line because it's drawing an unfair and unwarranted comparison to undermine an opinion. The argument that "many believe the government goes too far with restrictions" does not imply that all restrictions are inherently bad.

As has been pointed out in detail elsewhere in this post, there are many good reasons for opposing a ban on incandescent bulbs.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Thank you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)