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)