HA! If anyone’s ass has been kicked, it certainly has not been his. He’s handled himself quite well. Given the amount of time you waste on these boards—and I don’t just mean your own—you might have realized by now that there is going to be little to movement in threads like this. Especially when one side, which is not Chen’s, is arguing from emotion, constantly employing fallacies (with ad hominem and fallacy of association at the top of the list), and won’t grant that most basic of simple facts for fear that their ideology might be threatened.
Sure, BTW you can find anything that the nativists groups are doing to pressure politicians now regarding the climate stability part of the equation that guys like Lester Brown insist is needed now?
Otherwise it is clear that in the end you are granting that the environmentalist angle from those groups was as fake as a 3 dollar bill.
And you now accept the basic logic of why immigration numbers are a key factor in US population growth. Or as Magellan01 points out, you can’t grant the most basic points because they threaten your ideology.
As has been shown, immigration is less of an issue for environmentalists, so they are neutral on that, as mentioned before population is not ignored from the equation by Brown, but the focus is fighting poverty and control of the whole population.
What it is clear still, your fake environmentalist organizations still show that they are just pretending to care about the environment, you have failed still to produce any examples of the needed pressure that is needed now to make a change on carbon emissions. And what I have seen that the most likely reason is because the leaders and the ones funding them also are AGW deniers.
And they really do not care about future immigration, as they don’t do anything about the stabilization of the climate.
The premise of the thread is that (American) environmentalists are “cowards on immigration,” and it was a preposterous proposition to begin with, and now, on the twelfth page, neither you nor Chen is a keystroke nearer to making it anything else. All you both have done is expose your pet crackpot utterly-irrelevant-to-environmentalism racial agendas. I call that an ass-kicking.
The question was if it made sense for environmentalists to remain neutral on immigration, and it was the sensible and logical thing to do.
Your “logic” in reality avoids this middle position. Indeed, it just deny it.
It is not effective as in reality you have not established what exactly and how you want to deal with, when references where wrought by you that referred to the past immigrants and their descendants, the clear implication was to find a way to deal with them also, and it made the numbers seen more dramatic, as even you noticed early that would not fly over here, so enter the point that we are only dealing with future immigrants but this means that immigration is even **less **important to environmentalists when looking at the whole deal. That is, if we take care of the issue, for as it is clear, you are also denying that the work the groups you are so fond of do not do anything about the most important part of the equation and will make the situation worse in the future.
Incidentally you are now fighting against Lester Brown and the sites he recommended, are you still glad you pointed at him?
