• 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

Mithrae said:
Try reading the second sentence before crying :lol: Hard work, I know.
Click to expand...

The second sentence doesn't help you any. I never made that claim either. You just lead with your most absurd misrepresentation which saved me from having to care about the rest of your statement.
 
jmotivator said:
The second sentence doesn't help you any. I never made that claim either. You just lead with your most absurd misrepresentation which saved me from having to care about the rest of your statement.
Click to expand...

You claimed that national parks explicitly do not protect the environment against human incursion. They obviously do. Your new 'argument' is merely that they don't protect against every single iota of human presence.

You understand both that this is shifting your goalposts, and that you've now created a private definition of environmentalism which is precisely the opposite of what motivates it - the enjoyment of nature.

So rather than come to terms with these facts, you've thrown a little temper tantrum over my pointing out the obvious - that national parks do protect the environment against human incursion.
 
Mithrae said:
You claimed that national parks explicitly do not protect the environment against human incursion.
Click to expand...

Again, absolutely false. I never said any such thing. You simply seem unable to function mentally without building straw men.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, absolutely false. I never said any such thing. You simply seem unable to function mentally without building straw men.
Click to expand...

At least by denying the obvious you're staying in character :lol:

jmotivator said:
Mithrae said:
Natural world heritage sites and national parks explicitly and obviously "advocate for the environment against human incursion," which is exactly how you described this imagined scourge of environmentalism.
Click to expand...

No, they explicitely DON'T.
Click to expand...

You're right about one thing though - this is pointless. As long as you're happy to keep redefining words to suit your whimsy, we're not going anywhere. Find a reputable encyclopaedia which supports your claim that environmentalism is misanthropic, or requires an exclusive interest in other species' benefit, or unlike national parks demands absolutely zero human presence in natural areas. Otherwise we can just dismiss your raving without further thought.
 
Sometimes I can't help but wonder if the planet might not be better off without humanity. Perhaps global warming is the planet working to hasten it. Smart planet, perhaps.
 
Mithrae said:
At least by denying the obvious you're staying in character.
Click to expand...

By pointing out your misrepresentations I am staying in character. By continually attempting to put words in my mouth you also remain in character.
 
jmotivator said:
Wow, you read that wrong. I'll respond once you can comprehend the statement.
Click to expand...

You said anyone above such a number is an enemy of humanity, but in the context of population control you don't actually pass that number so who is the enemy of humanity?
 
Mithrae said:
Nor is the idea that the theory of evolution viciously attacks the glory of we, the pinnacle of God's creation :roll: Idiot propaganda repeated long enough becomes more idiotic with time, not less.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not "idiot propaganda" if it's sourced to the words of environmentalists themselves. And the creationist straw man is beneath you.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's certainly not "idiot propaganda" if it's sourced to the words of environmentalists themselves. And the creationist straw man is beneath you.
Click to expand...

It is, because you are taking these snippets from random people and declaring they represent all environmentalists.

So I'm going to keep on doing the same to you. You're a religious zealot because you people elected a man who thought god would stop global warming. You might protest. You didn't vote for the guy, you don't even live in his district. Well, I've never heard of that 80 year old author from Finland, let alone read anything by him or let him lead me in squat.

All AGW "skeptics" are religious zealots, because Deuce says a "skeptic" leader is a religious zealot.

That's how this goes. That's the procedure you people established in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
It's certainly not "idiot propaganda" if it's sourced to the words of environmentalists themselves. And the creationist straw man is beneath you.
Click to expand...

The comparison is very apt, since they are equally absurd mischaracterizations of others' views by individuals imagining, exaggerating, insulting and slandering perceived threats to their extreme anthropocentric ideologies.

"Humans are one species among millions produced by billions of years of biological evolution" is an extremely threatening and negative statement to anyone who believes that we are made in the image of God and given lordship over his creation. Hence evolution was (and still is by some) caricatured and attacked as being an anti-human philosophy intended to denigrate the pinnacle of God's creation.

"Humans are one species among millions whose beauty and diversity is worth cherishing" is again obviously very threatening to anyone who believes that everything on the planet is merely a resource to be used and managed by humans (and merely an economic resource, in some ideologies). Jmotivator's tortured attempts to redefine words to suit that paradigm is an obvious case in point.



Edit:
Even worse, as Deuce has noted, there's the 'argument' which you are clinging to, that out of context statements dubiously attributed to half a dozen obscure individuals must be representative of millions of other people worldwide. This fallacy of association is utterly dishonest and intellectual bankrupt.

At least the reactionary hatred of philosophies (or scientific theories) which even slightly decentralize humanity is understandable, and possibly an honest fear, even if it's not rational.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
It is, because you are taking these snippets from random people and declaring they represent all environmentalists.

So I'm going to keep on doing the same to you. You're a religious zealot because you people elected a man who thought god would stop global warming. You might protest. You didn't vote for the guy, you don't even live in his district. Well, I've never heard of that 80 year old author from Finland, let alone read anything by him or let him lead me in squat.

All AGW "skeptics" are religious zealots, because Deuce says a "skeptic" leader is a religious zealot.

That's how this goes. That's the procedure you people established in this thread.
Click to expand...

Mithrae said:
The comparison is very apt, since they are equally absurd mischaracterizations of others' views by individuals imagining, exaggerating, insulting and slandering perceived threats to their extreme anthropocentric ideologies.

"Humans are one species among millions produced by billions of years of biological evolution" is an extremely threatening and negative statement to anyone who believes that we are made in the image of God and given lordship over his creation. Hence evolution was (and still is by some) caricatured and attacked as being an anti-human philosophy intended to denigrate the pinnacle of God's creation.

"Humans are one species among millions whose beauty and diversity is worth cherishing" is again obviously very threatening to anyone who believes that everything on the planet is merely a resource to be used and managed by humans (and merely an economic resource, in some ideologies). Jmotivator's tortured attempts to redefine words to suit that paradigm is an obvious case in point.



Edit:
Even worse, as Deuce has noted, there's the 'argument' which you are clinging to, that out of context statements dubiously attributed to half a dozen obscure individuals must be representative of millions of other people worldwide. This fallacy of association is utterly dishonest and intellectual bankrupt.

At least the reactionary hatred of philosophies (or scientific theories) which even slightly decentralize humanity is understandable, and possibly an honest fear, even if it's not rational.
Click to expand...

It is amusing that you run from those who are recognized by many as environmentalist leaders.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is amusing that you run from those who are recognized by many as environmentalist leaders.
Click to expand...

Once again for the hard-of-thinking, we're not talking about an organisation or political party. There's no hierarchy or creedal confession to be an environmentalist. You seem happy to talk about "skeptic leaders," which suggests you have trouble thinking for yourself and don't understand what scepticism is, but that doesn't mean that the same is true of any other philosphy or movement.

Even if you asked five people to name 'prominent environmentalists,' there's probably only one or two names who'd be common to all lists: Even that term is much less impressive compared to say prominent religious figures or prominent businessfolk. This "environmentalist leader" nonsense simply betrays the ignorance of small minds.

And even then, after what seems like a couple of weeks you and the OP still haven't managed to provide context and credible sources to back up your allegations about these few individuals :roll:
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Once again for the hard-of-thinking, we're not talking about an organisation or political party. There's no hierarchy or creedal confession to be an environmentalist. You seem happy to talk about "skeptic leaders," which suggests you have trouble thinking for yourself and don't understand what scepticism is, but that doesn't mean that the same is true of any other philosphy or movement.

Even if you asked five people to name 'prominent environmentalists,' there's probably only one or two names who'd be common to all lists: Even that term is much less impressive compared to say prominent religious figures or prominent businessfolk. This "environmentalist leader" nonsense simply betrays the ignorance of small minds.

And even then, after what seems like a couple of weeks you and the OP still haven't managed to provide context and credible sources to back up your allegations about these few individuals :roll:
Click to expand...

I named people I thought of as skeptic leaders in response to a request to name some. Big deal. I'll offer this concession: I'm willing to rest on the demonstrated existence of an anti-human orientation among some environmentalists.
 
Jack Hays said:
I named people I thought of as skeptic leaders in response to a request to name some. Big deal. I'll offer this concession: I'm willing to rest on the demonstrated existence of an anti-human orientation among some environmentalists.
Click to expand...

...which so far has not been demonstrated from either credible sources or even quotes in context :roll:

As a matter of simple numbers - there's millions, probably billions of people on this planet who agree with the principles of environmentalism - it's a certainty that some also happen to be misanthropes. Shocking headling news there!
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
...which so far has not been demonstrated from either credible sources or even quotes in context :roll:

As a matter of simple numbers - there's millions, probably billions of people on this planet who agree with the principles of environmentalism - it's a certainty that some also happen to be misanthropes. Shocking headling news there!
Click to expand...

The quotes are both credible and in context.
 
Climate News
A Review of ’25 Myths that are Destroying the Environment’


The new book, 25 Myths that are Destroying the Environment, by Daniel B. Botkin, is a bit light on science and a breezy read. But, it makes some good points. All of us are for clean air and water, but as Peter Schwartz once wrote, the modern environmental movement is “anti-science, anti-technology, and anti-human.” The radical environmentalists of today latch onto mythical assertions that have no basis in fact; but support the idea that man is bad, man is “destroying” the planet and the natural “balance” of nature. Dr. Botkin, an ecologist and biologist of some note, addresses these assertions. He has held positions at Yale, the University of California at Santa Barbara, George Mason University and Woods Hole Marine Biology Laboratory. He is a prolific and well cited writer, this is his 16th book on ecology, the environment and science.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom