Rick Reuben wrote:

jlamour wrote: Ultimately, without property rights and if the environmentalists had their way, you'd be digging at the soil with your bare hands trying to plant your crops.

The environmentalists would deny us our shovels, hoes and trowels?? Do you think environmentalists intend to return the world to the Stone Age?

jlamour wrote: Now come up with a rebuttal that actually refutes my argument and doesn't just call it stupid, genius.

Sorry, but 'your argument is stupid' is still the first rebuttal that comes to mind.

Question #1. Absolutely. Like PETA, environmentalists are not out to save the planet, but to make it impossible for humans to live. I'm saying this is the ultimate end of what their ideas entail.

# 2. Their intentions are far worse.

To expound on the last sentence of the answer to #1, an idea, whether rational or irrational, set in motion will ultimately be played out for or against the benefit of humanity.

Simply calling an argument stupid is not a rebuttal.

Thanks, o_d_m. I'll check it out. I'll read anything put in front of me.

Though I disagree with nearly everything you have said, I gotta say that PETA, though they have good intentions, are an absolutely terrible organization.

I guess its true when they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

They don't pass any laws that I know of, they just make it damn hard to go get some chicken at KFC without getting a bucket of paint or something thrown on me.

Rick Reuben wrote:

jlamour wrote: Like PETA, environmentalists are not out to save the planet, but to make it impossible for humans to live.

Show me one law proposed by PETA that will make it 'impossible for humans to live'.

Wait, so your saying that an oil company not being able to drill on a certain portion of land is actually a bigger threat to my life than an oil spill caused by said oil company's usage of their personal property? Man, thanks for clearing that up for me. I totally had my head on backwards on just who was actually looking out for me on that one.

o_d_m wrote:They don't pass any laws that I know of, they just make it damn hard to go get some chicken at KFC without getting a bucket of paint or something thrown on me.

I have a hard enough time just getting someone to take my order for said chicken/sides. Let alone having to deal with paint throwers. Wait, maybe KFC is in on it with the people who are trying to make it so it's impossible for me to live.

numberthirty wrote:

o_d_m wrote:They don't pass any laws that I know of, they just make it damn hard to go get some chicken at KFC without getting a bucket of paint or something thrown on me.

I have a hard enough time just getting someone to take my order for said chicken/sides. Let alone having to deal with paint throwers. Wait, maybe KFC is in on it with the people who are trying to make it so it's impossible for me to live.

No way dude. Hormone pumped, unnaturally raised and abused chicken fried in oil and dipped in artificial mayonnaise...and the freedom to sell that food...is way more important to your life than air or water.

jlamour wrote:Question #1. Absolutely. Like PETA, environmentalists are not out to save the planet, but to make it impossible for humans to live....

add to the end "...wastefully, with excess consumption, and with little regard to sustainability" and you statement might have some validity. This is a good thing.

Do you honestly think the growing population and standard of living throughout the world can continue on its current path without consequences? Why do you, as so many others, react so defensively to the suggestion that we, as a culture and society, overconsume and do so in a totally unsustainable manner? Is it laziness? Fear of losing a lifestyle you perceive as having maximum convenience? A childish and primitive human need to squander and horde?

Your perception that environmental responsibility and technological sustainability will make it impossible to live is patent foolishness. It precisely these goals that strive to ensure human survival.

jlamour wrote:Simply calling an argument stupid is not a rebuttal.

You know what, dude? I haven't seen you make a single argument yet. I've seen you throw around inflammatory statements, like

jlamour wrote:Like PETA, environmentalists are not out to save the planet, but to make it impossible for humans to live.

...but you don't present any evidence to back them up. I don't agree with Rick Reuben much these days, ever since he claimed clocker bob was a "character" only to pick a new username and act the exact same abusive way toward everyone, but i'm completely with him when he asks you to give an example of how PETA proposes to make it "impossible for humans to live."

You say "refute my arguments instead of just calling me stupid," but you haven't made a single argument in this entire thread.

I'm amused at your lack of response to my pointing out that you presented an example of language manipulated to control thought as evidence of how language doesn't influence thought. That one is still rich with the funny.

Doesn't PETA constantly pressure congress to ban all animal testing? In this instance, I'm concerned with medical testing in regards to making human life possible. PETA's facade of their intentions may appear good but beyond that their intentions are to destroy humanity, same with environmentalists.

I have a pet that I love and property that I own and I treat both with love (one more than the other) ONLY because they add value and happiness to my life.

As I said before, I'm not for flagrant pollution. Only a psychotic would want this.

I do prefer the sight of a skyscraper to the sight of a mountain. I understand what goes into creating both and seeing a skyscraper gives me much more inspiration.

I still don't understand this accusation of trolling. As I understand it, this is someone who is simply picking fights. Blanchett's bizarre, filthy actions just stuck out as an outcome of the environmentalist ideas and I wanted to try to demonstrate why she's behaving so strangely. Ideas set into action will be played out.

I've presented my ideas cleanly and without name calling with the exception of the genius comment which was meant to be humorous considering the context. It's been fun. jlamour out.

DrAwkward wrote:

jlamour wrote:Simply calling an argument stupid is not a rebuttal.

You know what, dude? I haven't seen you make a single argument yet. I've seen you throw around inflammatory statements, like

jlamour wrote:Like PETA, environmentalists are not out to save the planet, but to make it impossible for humans to live.

...but you don't present any evidence to back them up. I don't agree with Rick Reuben much these days, ever since he claimed clocker bob was a "character" only to pick a new username and act the exact same abusive way toward everyone, but i'm completely with him when he asks you to give an example of how PETA proposes to make it "impossible for humans to live."

You say "refute my arguments instead of just calling me stupid," but you haven't made a single argument in this entire thread.

I'm amused at your lack of response to my pointing out that you presented an example of language manipulated to control thought as evidence of how language doesn't influence thought. That one is still rich with the funny.

{Edited out the emotional comment}

I've absolutely and very clearly done everything you've requested above. And don't bother asking me to point out exactly where I did this. I refuse to hold your hand. Maybe I was too clear. Sorry, the PETA example came after this posting.

Sorry. I'm done with this topic. I'm going to "cut and run". Just kidding, I've really got better things to do. C YA.