Before, a cite was posted that showed how groups that claimed that they would do something about the environment by dealing with immigration actually are only helping elect climate change deniers.
It is actually very likely that if nothing is done against what the main issue, global warming gases, that then immigration will actually get worse in the future.
So, after once again he JAQs off again, I just finish with “Meh :p”
Then the Chen returns all butthurt:
Of course the mods had already warned him that that accusation was attacking the poster, and it was still a lie as I had pointed at reasons already mentioned by environmentalists. So he just loves to pile up infractions.
I don’t worry at all that he is following fools, but it needs to be pointed out that others are using the organizations that he follows to help climate change deniers get elected. So, sorry Chump Chen if you think that you are scaring anyone, you can not hold a candle to the ones that are playing you like a fiddle, they do not give a damn about your fake environmentalism.
IIRC, Chen019 is known for his racist and anti-immigrant positions around here. He’s not the fool being manipulated —he’s the fool trying to manipulate. Anyway, the thread in question is nothing but dishonest from the start. I’ve never noticed him being big on the environment before, he hasn’t addressed the arguments being made, and he’s pushing a big victimhood theory the whole time. The original question of “Are environmentalists cowards on immigration?” can be answered in one sentence: “No, they just realize that the people pushing anti-immigration positions have racist ulterior motives.”
I already know where he is coming from, but in this case the issue is bigger than the organizations that he is trying to peddle. The actions of the politicians elected with the help of the nativist organizations that he follows, demonstrate that he is considered a chum by smarter but devious extremists. Saddest thing to know is that there is research already published that points at immigration getting worse in a future where nothing is done about carbon emissions.
The full answer in this case is: “No, they just realize that the people pushing anti-immigration positions have racist ulterior motives.” And they are seen as useful idiots by climate deniers.
You can just ask him, but in the end it’s quite irrelevant. Everyone picks their own moniker and can write whatever the hell they want. (I’ll let you know something, I’m not really an orc…)
In the end all you know about him is that he’s a racist, preaching prick who endlessly repeats himself and weaves racialism into diverse topics like world politics or environmentalism.
I agree that environmental concerns need to be addressed globally. We agree on that. What I cannot understand is why you think it makes sense, from an environmental perspective, for the US to maintain it’s level of population growth.
US Population stablization is an important goal (Clinton Sustainability Report, also in terms of waters supplies in the Southwest).
US population growth is largely driven by current immigration levels.
Therefore to achieve population stabilization one policy option is to reduce immigration levels.
That makes sense from an environmental perspective. You offered non-environmental reasons why you disagree and that’s fine.
Yeah I argued with him about his racism. He seemed to think Asian people are super smart and Africans are dumb. I think it was about two posts worth of effort for me.
For fuck’s sake, shut up you vile, disingenuous, wilfully obtuse, racist little parroting mental midget. You wouldn’t know a coherent argument if it walked up to you and socked you in the face. You wouldn’t know an analysis of facts if it fucked your mother. Nobody on this message board would piss on you if they’d drunk 5 Big Gulps, you were on fire and walking purposefully towards the library of Alexandria.
Hold on, you were the one who had to completely misrepresent the position of Magellan01 & myself. Surely if you are going to debate a position you need to understand what the other side are saying.
Sorry, I meant to include the rest of your extensive quote. The thing I don’t understand about your position Kobal2, is that you go on to argue that the population aspect of the human impact equation should be ignored.
That really makes no sense, as it is something that can be addressed via immigration policy.
I recognize this is not GD, but I have to report that his post seemed to lay out a cogent argument, and yours does nothing to refute it. Undoubtedly it’s been refuted elsewhere, but could I ask for the executive summary version?
Point being that what Chen019 tries to avoid, is that the nativist cites he is using, are attempting to make immigration a priority for environmentalists. The ones that make the numbers add also the descendants of the immigrants to make the connection, unfortunately that would include people like you and your sons and daughters, grandsons, etc.
Nothing wrong with adding those numbers to projections like that if we understand the solutions to help the environment will be applied to all. The problem is that Chen and others try their damnedest to willfully ignore that by dealing with population the environmentalists are also dealing with the subset population of immigrants, one would think that the out of scope subject for the main issue should be the recent immigrants, but clearly, and specially the “not really from Yale” cite he used, are not referring to that, they include also the descendants of the immigrants going back to after the revolutionary war.
Anyhow, so we should ignore that focus that misleads people and concentrate on one of the most important part needed to get a sustainable world: controlling the carbon footprint, and to do that, we need to have policies set to get the ball rolling.
Unfortunately, as it was demonstrated, guys like Chen just chicken out (showing who are the real cowards) and he even refuses to acknowledge that what the nativists actually do is to support candidates that deny that the big problem is there in the first place.
As the cites in the other thread showed, the carbon footprint has been one of the most cynical reasons that nativist organizations are using to get populist rage going, and in the end, they do so to avoid dealing the main issue that is the carbon footprint. Demonstrating how myopic their position is.
It is easier to find scapegoats rather that to deal with the main issue, what it is disturbing is the inclusion also of the immigrant descendants in the discussion, the background of the nativist sources shows that the 14th amendment is also a target, so the intention is to get populist rage going in an attempting to blame immigrants as the cause of the problems and then the reason behind the policies that will come (a carbon tax? Blame the immigrants!).
Once that demagogic connection is done, then the goal of targeting the 14th amendment will be easier thanks to the populist rage and then the future population will get rid of even the descendants of the immigrants.
Of course, I hope you see how unlikely is that. But the nativists do not care about how they get to that goal. And neither the ones that ultimately are controlling the issue, climate change deniers (That only care that immigrants consume their products) are clearly using this wedge issue to get support for their real agenda, and that is to prevent any carbon emission controls that should be imposed.
Here is one FACT that has not been debunbked: all things remaining equal, the more people that live in an area the more stress they place on that environment.
And as far as what you think has been debunked in that other thread, you do not debunk the issue of a population’s impact on the environment of a specific country (like the U.S.) by simply chanting about the issue of global warming. You might as well argue the Beatles being a great band by extolling the beauty of jazz. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, one can be concerned about both local environmental issues and global warming. And just because the latter (which we can look at via carbon footprints) may be the most important issue to you, or the planet, that does not mean that it is invalid or an exercise in folly to look at other environmental issues. Just look at the hundreds of local Save The ______ efforts around the country.
Short version: it starts on false premises; excludes enough middles that Amnesty International is about to send him a strongly worded letter; and ignores every single fact, argument or opinion that doesn’t fit within his established narrative or points away from his preconceived notion that immigration’s gotta stop now, or else!!!
Basically it’s only cogent in the same alternate reality where Glenn Beck’s arguments are well thought-out.
As for my actual point-by-point rebuttal, see original thread. I already repeated myself enough times for puddingbrains here, I’m thoroughly tired of the subject. And I don’t even give a hoot about the environment to begin with :smack:.
