• 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!

Resolved: Environmentalists Hate Humans

Amazing how Jack, with minimal help from MV, can drag even this low quality thread - a premise of ad hominem and insult at least veiled, however thinly, behind 'concern' and shoddy 'evidence' - even further down into tit for tat mudslinging.
 
Mithrae said:
Amazing how Jack and MV can drag even this low quality thread - a premise of ad hominem and insult at least veiled, however thinly, behind 'concern' and shoddy 'evidence' - even further down into tit for tat mudslinging.
Click to expand...

A continuation of the problem noted in my #16: substitution of insult for argument. As for MV and me, I'm just trying to get him to address substance. You should try it.
 
Deuce said:
I'm not the one who brought up leadership positions, so your beef isn't with me
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. Leaders were cited. You did not cite a leader; you cited a politician with a conveniently exploitable quote. Bad faith argumentation.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but no. Leaders were cited. You did not cite a leader; you cited a politician with a conveniently exploitable quote. Bad faith argumentation.
Click to expand...

Elected representatives aren't leaders?
 
Jack Hays said:
A continuation of the problem noted in my #16: substitution of insult for argument. As for MV and me, I'm just trying to get him to address substance. You should try it.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should address others' points before pretending to be the moderator of the thread :lol:

As I originially pointed out (and you failed to address), saying that capitalists hate animals would be rather silly; saying that environmentalists hate their own species, slightly moreso. Indeed, only the most extreme ideological dogmatism could possibly pretend that there is no tension between the interests of business and human consumption, and the interests of many if not most other species: To pretend that any emphasis of one must entail hatred of the other is black and white absurdism at its worst.

As I then subsequently pointed out (and you have again failed to address), the very premise of the thread is simply ad hominem and insult behind a flimsy veil of faux concern and shoddy 'evidence.' Those are two quite distinct things by the way, but both rather disappointing on a debate forum: It is utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of environmental concerns what motivates some of its proponents; that's an ad hominem. And obviously in brazenly attacking the character of environmentalists, it's simply insulting.

If you've got an intelligent response to these observations, by all means feel free to share. But so far all you've managed to do is drag an already low quality thread even further into the mud.
 
Mithrae said:
This thread is slightly more silly than saying that capitalists hate animals.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There are various subgroups of environmentalists. Like any other major group, it is stupid to apply the workings of one subgroup to all.
 
Mithrae said:
Maybe you should address others' points before pretending to be the moderator of the thread :lol:

As I originially pointed out (and you failed to address), saying that capitalists hate animals would be rather silly; saying that environmentalists hate their own species, slightly moreso. Indeed, only the most extreme ideological dogmatism could possibly pretend that there is no tension between the interests of business and human consumption, and the interests of many if not most other species: To pretend that any emphasis of one must entail hatred of the other is black and white absurdism at its worst.

As I then subsequently pointed out (and you have again failed to address), the very premise of the thread is simply ad hominem and insult behind a flimsy veil of faux concern and shoddy 'evidence.' Those are two quite distinct things by the way, but both rather disappointing on a debate forum: It is utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of environmental concerns what motivates some of its proponents; that's an ad hominem. And obviously in brazenly attacking the character of environmentalists, it's simply insulting.

If you've got an intelligent response to these observations, by all means feel free to share. But so far all you've managed to do is drag an already low quality thread even further into the mud.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Life After People - Wikipedia[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People


Wikipedia


Life After People is a television series on which scientists, structural engineers, and other experts speculate about what might become of Earth should humanity instantly disappear. ... as a de facto pilot for the series that premiered April 21, 2009. The documentary and subsequent series were both narrated by James Lurie.

[h=3]Environmentalist says humans are plague on Earth - cfact[/h]https://www.cfact.org/2013/01/22/environmentalist-says-humans-are-plague-on-earth/



Jan 22, 2013 - David Attenborough, British broadcaster and environmentalist, is at it ... Might as well chime in here, on behalf of the "anti-human, right on, ...

[h=1]Anti-Nuclear Power Hysteria and its Significant Contribution to Global Warming[/h]Guest post by Michael Dickey (cross posted from his website matus1976.com) The decline of nuclear power has had a significant effect on global carbon emissions and subsequently any anthropogenic global warming effect. To see the extent of this influence, let us first take a look at total U.S. carbon emissions since 1900. According to the…


[h=1]Environmentalism as a religion[/h]Guest essay by Andy May The late Dr. Michael Crichton was wonderful writer. In 2003 he presented a wonderful essay in San Francisco equating environmentalism to religion. Nobel prize winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaver makes the same point in a presentation here. In religion man is meant to be saved from the consequences of his…





 
Mithrae said:
Maybe you should address others' points before pretending to be the moderator of the thread :lol:

As I originially pointed out (and you failed to address), saying that capitalists hate animals would be rather silly; saying that environmentalists hate their own species, slightly moreso. Indeed, only the most extreme ideological dogmatism could possibly pretend that there is no tension between the interests of business and human consumption, and the interests of many if not most other species: To pretend that any emphasis of one must entail hatred of the other is black and white absurdism at its worst.

As I then subsequently pointed out (and you have again failed to address), the very premise of the thread is simply ad hominem and insult behind a flimsy veil of faux concern and shoddy 'evidence.' Those are two quite distinct things by the way, but both rather disappointing on a debate forum: It is utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of environmental concerns what motivates some of its proponents; that's an ad hominem. And obviously in brazenly attacking the character of environmentalists, it's simply insulting.

If you've got an intelligent response to these observations, by all means feel free to share. But so far all you've managed to do is drag an already low quality thread even further into the mud.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Mankind is a plague on the Earth, says Attenborough | The Times[/h]www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article3664144.ece


The Times


Jan 22, 2013 - Mankind is a “plague on the Earth” and we face a stark choice between choosing to limit population growth or letting famine have the same ...
 
Mithrae said:
Maybe you should address others' points before pretending to be the moderator of the thread :lol:

As I originially pointed out (and you failed to address), saying that capitalists hate animals would be rather silly; saying that environmentalists hate their own species, slightly moreso. Indeed, only the most extreme ideological dogmatism could possibly pretend that there is no tension between the interests of business and human consumption, and the interests of many if not most other species: To pretend that any emphasis of one must entail hatred of the other is black and white absurdism at its worst.

As I then subsequently pointed out (and you have again failed to address), the very premise of the thread is simply ad hominem and insult behind a flimsy veil of faux concern and shoddy 'evidence.' Those are two quite distinct things by the way, but both rather disappointing on a debate forum: It is utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of environmental concerns what motivates some of its proponents; that's an ad hominem. And obviously in brazenly attacking the character of environmentalists, it's simply insulting.

If you've got an intelligent response to these observations, by all means feel free to share. But so far all you've managed to do is drag an already low quality thread even further into the mud.
Click to expand...

Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

MIT professor Penny Chisholm: “The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”

Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“

Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”

Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

Jacques Costeau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”

Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”
 
Mithrae said:
Maybe you should address others' points before pretending to be the moderator of the thread :lol:

As I originially pointed out (and you failed to address), saying that capitalists hate animals would be rather silly; saying that environmentalists hate their own species, slightly moreso. Indeed, only the most extreme ideological dogmatism could possibly pretend that there is no tension between the interests of business and human consumption, and the interests of many if not most other species: To pretend that any emphasis of one must entail hatred of the other is black and white absurdism at its worst.

As I then subsequently pointed out (and you have again failed to address), the very premise of the thread is simply ad hominem and insult behind a flimsy veil of faux concern and shoddy 'evidence.' Those are two quite distinct things by the way, but both rather disappointing on a debate forum: It is utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of environmental concerns what motivates some of its proponents; that's an ad hominem. And obviously in brazenly attacking the character of environmentalists, it's simply insulting.

If you've got an intelligent response to these observations, by all means feel free to share. But so far all you've managed to do is drag an already low quality thread even further into the mud.
Click to expand...

Anti-human rhetoric has been a staple of environmentalism for decades. "Sustainable" growth is code for less growth, and that translates to more poverty. What makes this rhetoric especially repugnant is that it is routinely offered by those in comfortable life situations who can be confident the consequences will have nothing to do with themselves.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't believe any of us has the right to declare any of us "over" population.
Click to expand...

you didn't answer the question. shouldn't we manage the population of the planet to which it can be sustained? this doesn't involve death death camps it involves planning.

\do you think unfettered endless population growth is sustainable?
 
Jack Hays said:
Anti-human rhetoric has been a staple of environmentalism for decades. "Sustainable" growth is code for less growth, and that translates to more poverty. What makes this rhetoric especially repugnant is that it is routinely offered by those in comfortable life situations who can be confident the consequences will have nothing to do with themselves.
Click to expand...

no. it involves more resources for fewer people. poverty is more people competing for fewer resources. basic stuff.
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
you didn't answer the question. shouldn't we manage the population of the planet to which it can be sustained? this doesn't involve death death camps it involves planning.

\do you think unfettered endless population growth is sustainable?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with voluntary population control, but if you'll review the quotes in #40 you can't escape the acceptance of coercion as a tool by many environmentalists.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have no problem with voluntary population control, but if you'll review the quotes in #40 you can't escape the acceptance of coercion as a tool by many environmentalists.
Click to expand...

You're just exaggerating it to smear the common sense aspect of environmentalism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom