• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China, Peru and Brazil mull Amazon railway

You've made your point already. Roads and railroads are not "progress," but wilderness is.

According to those who think wilderness, not civilization is "progress."

Do you fully grasp the implications of your stance against civilization, coupled with the belief that whoever opposes you is "a scourge to this planet?"

We do not need to destroy what little wilderness remains on this planet for civilization to continue to exist. I can be a fan of civilization and want to protect the Amazon at the same time.
 
Last edited:
The Chinese don't care about the environment. All they care about is strengthening their hold on Africa.

On the contrary this will cut down on the number of internal flights within Latin America, its not like the Amazon isnt big enough to cope.
 
This will be the rationale until the Amazon is no longer big enough to cope.

Do you really think something that, at worst will be about 20-50 meters wide will make that much of a difference? This isnt about digging up the amazon this is about exporting things through the Amazon,
 
Do you really think something that, at worst will be about 20-50 meters wide will make that much of a difference? This isnt about digging up the amazon this is about exporting things through the Amazon,

It won't end with roads and railroads; it never does. It always leads to the destruction of more wilderness.
 
Anytime you decide what "the left" thinks, you can rest assured you're full of ****.
:confused: :confused:

Clarification please: are you saying it's not possible to know what "the left" thinks, or are you saying it's not possible to know how they think, or perhaps your meaning is more along the lines of... that they think?

Obvious generalizations aside (it's easy to poke a hole somewhere in any generalization - even yours), two of the above are certainly knowable and would therefore render your assertion void.

One of them though, I grant might actually give it some validity - hence the request to clarify.
 
We do not need to destroy what little wilderness remains on this planet for civilization to continue to exist.
"What little wilderness remains on this planet?" You're kidding, right? Do you know how much of this planet is wilderness? Do you not realize the VAST MAJORITY of this planet is wilderness?

I can be a fan of civilization and want to protect the Amazon at the same time.

Actually, according to your logic, no you cannot. You have made it quite clear your radical opposition to civilization in favor of wilderness - summarily judging anyone who disagrees with you "a scourge to this planet," clearly expressing thereby your approbation for the eradication of such people - such people being in your mind "scourges."
 
"What little wilderness remains on this planet?" You're kidding, right? Do you know how much of this planet is wilderness? Do you not realize the VAST MAJORITY of this planet is wilderness?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The End of the Wild? | The Nature Conservancy




Actually, according to your logic, no you cannot.

Actually, according to my logic, yes I can. You have intentionally warped and unsurprisingly misunderstood my logic.
 
We here in the declining USA can't maintain our existing rail systems, never mind introducing needed high speed mag-lev trains. Amtrack off the tracks, regular derailment of oil tanker trains...

Meanwhile China has the means and tech and will to build high speed rail across South America through undeveloped land. They just need to sort out environmental concerns and fee schedules.
 
You have no idea what I have done or where I have been. People like you are a scourge to this planet.

Lol.. Thank you for making my point. Your priorities are with the planet, not people. That's the thing about radical environmentalists: their love for the planet is only surpassed by their hatred of mankind. The more you guys talk, the more people will figure that out.
 
You have no idea what you're talking about.

The End of the Wild? | The Nature Conservancy
Good grief. TNC's chief "scientist" claims there is NO wilderness remaining on the planet - which, were it not absurd on its face, is tantamount to utter fraud. But, apparently you believe him - which makes your argument for the Amazon being "wilderness" null and void - per your "source."

Wild.org at least attempts to mask their fraud by defining "wilderness" in terms of being legally protected lands - but both are equally disingenuous.

Actually, according to my logic, yes I can. You have intentionally warped and unsurprisingly misunderstood my logic.
I've warped nothing. I quoted you verbatim. It is apparently you who do not understand the logical ramifications of what you say you believe.

I 'get' wanting to develop responsibly, to 'protect' the environment as civilization progresses (as progress it must), but you cannot label that which represents the progress of civilization and those who support such progress as "scourges" and expect to be given any semblance of credibility that you are both for wilderness and civilization.
 
Good grief. TNC's chief "scientist" claims there is NO wilderness remaining on the planet - which, were it not absurd on its face, is tantamount to utter fraud. But, apparently you believe him - which makes your argument for the Amazon being "wilderness" null and void - per your "source."

Wild.org at least attempts to mask their fraud by defining "wilderness" in terms of being legally protected lands - but both are equally disingenuous.


I've warped nothing. I quoted you verbatim. It is apparently you who do not understand the logical ramifications of what you say you believe.

I 'get' wanting to develop responsibly, to 'protect' the environment as civilization progresses (as progress it must), but you cannot label that which represents the progress of civilization and those who support such progress as "scourges" and expect to be given any semblance of credibility that you are both for wilderness and civilization.

The area of the Amazon is almost as big as the continental United States. We aren't talking about bulldozing it, we are talking about running a rail line through it. But don't listen to me, I am the scourge of the planet lol
 
Good grief. TNC's chief "scientist" claims there is NO wilderness remaining on the planet - which, were it not absurd on its face, is tantamount to utter fraud. But, apparently you believe him - which makes your argument for the Amazon being "wilderness" null and void - per your "source."

The article demonstrates why what you said is absurd and completely wrong. I didn't say I agree that there is no wilderness left.



I 'get' wanting to develop responsibly, to 'protect' the environment as civilization progresses (as progress it must), but you cannot label that which represents the progress of civilization and those who support such progress as "scourges" and expect to be given any semblance of credibility that you are both for wilderness and civilization.

Calling people that don't care about the natural world a scourge to the planet does not equate to calling all of mankind a scourge. The scourge remark was in response to him calling the Amazon a worthless rainforest. Calling the Amazon worthless implies that tearing the entire thing down wouldn't matter. People with that mindset are absolutely a scourge to this planet. You incorrectly assumed that the scourge remark extended to all or most humans. Civilization and what is left of nature can coexist.
 
The area of the Amazon is almost as big as the continental United States. We aren't talking about bulldozing it, we are talking about running a rail line through it. But don't listen to me, I am the scourge of the planet lol

If we were talking about bulldozing it you still wouldn't care. That is what makes you a scourge.

worthless jungle
 
The article demonstrates why what you said is absurd and completely wrong. I didn't say I agree that there is no wilderness left.
No, A, it doesn't - which is why I cited that other source. All it does is expose how radical environmentalists are attempting to redefine terms in their favor - which is nothing more than propaganda - and transparent propaganda at that.

Calling people that don't care about the natural world a scourge to the planet does not equate to calling all of mankind a scourge. The scourge remark was in response to him calling the Amazon a useless rainforest. Calling the Amazon useless implies that tearing the entire thing down wouldn't matter. People with that mindset are absolutely a scourge to this planet. You incorrectly assumed that the scourge remark extended to all or most humans. Civilization and what is left of nature can coexist.
I never said you'd called mankind a scourge - I was quite clear in noting the "scourge" to whom you are referring is anyone who disagrees with you on this topic. You should pick your descriptors more carefully, employing less hyperbole at least for the word "scourge" has definite connotations, connotations which ramifications it is apparent you haven't thought through.

Fletch's statement certainly doesn't qualify calling him a "scourge" either. At best, I think you're being a little oversensitive to what was a little hyperbole of his own - made to make his point, a point which, btw, you haven't yet addressed.
 
No, A, it doesn't - which is why I cited that other source. All it does is expose how radical environmentalists are attempting to redefine terms in their favor - which is nothing more than propaganda - and transparent propaganda at that.

You said the vast majority of the world is still wilderness. Would you mind laying out why the article is propaganda and why what you said is true? Keep in mind that would require you to actually read the article.

I never said you'd called mankind a scourge - I was quite clear in noting the "scourge" to whom you are referring is anyone who disagrees with you on this topic. You should pick your descriptors more carefully, employing less hyperbole at least for the word "scourge" has definite connotations, connotations which ramifications it is apparent you haven't thought through.

Fletch's statement certainly doesn't qualify calling him a "scourge" either. At best, I think you're being a little oversensitive to what was a little hyperbole of his own - made to make his point, a point which, btw, you haven't yet addressed.

When it comes to the proposed railway I do not believe anybody that disagrees with me is a scourge to this planet. You're making incorrect assumptions about my opinions. I think anybody that thinks the Amazon is worthless is a scourge to the planet. That comment was for that quote specifically. If he didn't actually mean what he said then I would retract my statement.
 
The area of the Amazon is almost as big as the continental United States. We aren't talking about bulldozing it, we are talking about running a rail line through it.
Exactly.

But don't listen to me, I am the scourge of the planet lol
..but you're a decent scourge. :)
 
You said the vast majority of the world is still wilderness. Would you mind laying out why the article is propaganda and why what you said is true? Keep in mind that would require you to actually read the article.



When it comes to the proposed railway I do not believe anybody that disagrees with me is a scourge to this planet. You're making incorrect assumptions about my opinions. I think anybody that thinks the Amazon is worthless is a scourge to the planet. That comment was for that quote specifically. If he didn't actually mean what he said then I would retract my statement.
What is that jungles 'worth' to mankind? And is that worth not increased by making (at least part of it) useable land?
 
You said the vast majority of the world is still wilderness. Would you mind laying out why the article is propaganda and why what you said is true? Keep in mind that would require you to actually read the article.
Sheesh, I told you already. Did you read my post? When someone defines - repeat, "defines" wilderness in the terms they do, they intentionally and severely restrict their meaning of "wilderness" to ridiculous levels. The one site virtually asserting no wilderness exists anymore, having defined "wilderness" in terms of legislatively (or bureaucratically) restricted lands, lands under restriction to human development.

Looked at differently, by some accounts only 3% of the earth's surface is covered by urban areas. 43% of the earth's surface by humans and their agriculture combined. Those same sources say 95% of the earth's population inhabits but 10% of the earth's surface.

They go on to say that 90% of the earth is readily "accessible" to humans, leaving but 10% of the earth as "wilderness" - which is itself a redefinition of the word "wilderness" given the above.

When it comes to the proposed railway I do not believe anybody that disagrees with me is a scourge to this planet. You're making incorrect assumptions about my opinions. I think anybody that thinks the Amazon is worthless is a scourge to the planet. That comment was for that quote specifically. If he didn't actually mean what he said then I would retract my statement.
And that comment is all I was referring to.
 
I find it frankly amazing how it is always the left that stands in the way of progress - ostensibly "concerned" about this or that, excuses really for stopping progress wherever it threatens.

And yet, the left loves to call itself "progressive."

I find that ironically curious.


The post created an unseen generalized ideologic bogey man "left" that derailed the thread for about a dozen posts, so kindly think about that going forward.

The railway is another mega infrastructure project of the Communist Party Boyz in Beijing who are trying to pave over South America and Africa in the way they have paved over the eastern half of the PRChina to include destroying China's lands, waters, air. I'm in the PRChina now and we get water every other day only because there isn't enough of it any more and going forward years there will be even less. Many PRChinese will need to be relocated out of the PRChina to other areas of the world, so think about that going forward too.

The usual pattern with the Boyz in Beijing foreign infrastructure projects is that Beijing seals the deal then the Russians join up, as is happening with the $40 billion bumbling canal project in Nicaragua where the Russians will also get to build a military base which will have missiles, if that might start to sound familiar to some......
 
I haven't heard any animals complain. Have you?

It begins with a 2 way conversation.
I have. I was just speaking to a number, well a wide variety of species today. And they ain’t happy.
 
An environmentalist friend said the Beastmaster told him a bunch of squirrels yesterday agreed they were going to crack and break some Chinese nuts. :catapult:
 
How is my argument a strawman?

The goal of "the left" is certainly not "mankind has no more relevance or environmental impact than Bigfoot."
 
Back
Top Bottom