Who did I up-vote?

*

Do you extend that notion to animal egg implantation?

Prostitution is a natural trait that is evolutionarily advantageous to our, and our closest relatives such as chimps, species. You cannot eradicate it as it is a means of survival for a lot of women. So to keep it illegal would be doing an injustice to nature. Prostitution is just as natural as homosexuality. It may at first seem like taboo, but when you learn the history of it, you then realize it is a natural trait with great benefit.

Right, but we are only talking about enough concern to not directly pump chemicals into the environment that might cause it to die eventually(like drugs).

Not exactly. But, let's say this was entirely true, you are directly contributing to the phenomena of pumping chemicals into the environment by donating to meat factories to keep their institutions running.

Nobody has no concern, that's the point.

Is this the negated version of everyone has a concern?

Except, I haven't done the actual destroying of the environment. Needed or not.

You contribute immensely to the destruction of the environment.

Finding shelter is a necessity. Eating is a necessity. It isn't a strawman.

The comparison implicated a StrawMan.

Oh, so now the level of concern goes from putting drugs into your body to making sure the drugs are never shipped out of Columbia. See why we needed to discuss the level of concern now?

The factories emitting hazardous fumes into the air will lead to destruction of your environment, and consequently you. You donate to the factories, therefore rendering your donation self-destructive.

Converting everyone to vegetarians is absurd.

Any respectable scientist would disagree. Furthermore, what is absurd about veganism? It is the most healthiest diet...

Oh, so now environmentalism is just knowing that the stuff you do affects the environment?

No

How can you possibly claim that you do absolutely no damage to the environment?

I don't do intentional harm to the environment.

You don't have to be on your computer. Your computer requires electricity. Generating electricity damages the environment. Welcome to the club.

My electricity is being generated via solar enrgy (which is eco-friendly)... Nice try though.

They sure will but the effect will be too microscopic (in the molecular sense) for you to see.

Which is why I included families. And this wouldn't apply to you if you could care less about certain kids, yourself or family members.

As long as you take care of the environment enough for you to survive?

And your family. If actions contribute to environmental destruction then you are consequently destroying your families lives also. Remember: the environment is necessary for survival.

I fail to see how determining what an environmentalist is is going off topic.

You started to delve into details about levels of concern, and the point I am illustrating is how having no concern about the environment is consequently having no concern of yourself and/or your families well-being.

There are no non environmentalist because just not completely destroying the environment counts as concern.

Actually it doesn't, you destroy the environment when needed and up to your possibilities. There is no need for you to evilly laugh and cut down trees and pour oil into the river, but if there was a need to, it would be done.

Or breathing. Breathing releases CO2 causing a greenhouse effect. The idea that living in a house or eating food makes you harming the environment is ridiculous.

This is a ridiculous straw man: you compare an act of necessity (breathing) to an act of non-necessity (tearing down life sources (aka trees) and contributing to companies that pollute the air and water).

Meat factories are the #1 cause of air pollution and the #2 cause of water pollution. In order for these factories to persist and grow, they need companies like McDonalds, Food Lion, Chick-fil-a, etc., to purchase large quantities of meat from them. And said companies need large purchase orders in order to fill the demand that you, as well as most people, cause.

You don't need to eat meat so your absurdity about 'eating food harms the environment' is unintelligible and idiotic at best.

Yes, I eat meat and am not homeless.

Your family will be in the future, but given your line of reasoning, there will be no future.

What are you talking about with "you people"? You are one of us with your extremely broad definition.

The second part of this sentence doesn't make any sense, perhaps it is because you've misunderstood my point: You people seem to not be able to see the effects that you all are causing.

Irrational suits you perfectly. You think concern about the environment means not doing any harm at all to the environment in any way.

I've explicitly stated countless times "intentional" harm. You do not need to purchase meat, you do so anyway, purchasing meat contributes to the destruction of your environment, thus you are intentionally destroying the environment. Clear and simple.

As long as you care about the environment to prolong your life that makes you an environmentalist?

If you mean 'care' in the sense of 'taking care of' then yes.

Says the person who brought up drugs.

I used an instance to illustrate point, the instance just so happened to contain drugs. But the instance is not going off-topic, it was used so we can in fact stay on topic.

I am trying to establish what we are talking about when we say non environmentalists.

Just negate the definition:

Environmentalist- a person concerned with issues that affect the environment, such as pollution .

Negated: a person not concerned with issues that affect the environment, such as pollution .

So, now doing any damage whatsoever is consider a full lack of concern. What kind of harm that most people do are you even talking about?

Yes, if said damage was intentional. Most people harm the environment, for example, by purchasing meat products, buying houses made out of wood, things of that sort.

The fact that you have lumped most people into the group of people that are harming the environment to an extent that they are hypocrites is overboard.

Maybe your biased contention is derived from the fact that you are one of these people, but this is not overboard, it's purely factual. You people may not see the connection since it is not macroscopically obvious, but nonetheless the evidence is clear. Perhaps you don't fall in the context of hypocrisy, maybe irrational better suits you.

I used an instance to illustrate the 'level of concern' which you apparently didn't get.

Nevertheless, you seem to be going a bit off-topic. The point is that anyone who directly harms the environment (which is most people) is consequently harming themselves and others that they consider loved-ones (such as family members).

The problem with this is that most people claim that they care for their loved-ones and would never (intentionally) harm them. But by harming the environment they are indeed harming [themselves and loved-ones]- as you can see this is hypocritical and irrational (and psychotic if they actually mean it).

Concerned in the sense of interest and importance. For instance, you may be concerned with yourself enough to not do drugs so you can lower your risks of dying.