If one thinks porn & climate change aren't problems, I can't take them seriously

[Peo]

I get bored of porn. I can't watch a video more then 5 min before i get bored. 

[carterfelder]

I'll never understand why anyone seriously concerned about climate change doesn't eat vegan.

"Switching from a typical diet including animal products to a fully plant-based one would reduce an individual's greenhouse gas emissions from food consumption by approximately 75%. In other words, consuming animal products accounts for about 75% of the climate impact from a standard diet, compared to just 25% for an equivalent plant-only diet." - Grok

[oldhandle]

16 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

I'll never understand why anyone seriously concerned about climate change doesn't eat vegan.

"Switching from a typical diet including animal products to a fully plant-based one would reduce an individual's greenhouse gas emissions from food consumption by approximately 75%. In other words, consuming animal products accounts for about 75% of the climate impact from a standard diet, compared to just 25% for an equivalent plant-only diet." - Grok

Probably because there are a lot more reasons for climate change than factory farming and even if one were to go vegan, everyone else in that vegan's life responsible for the maintaining of that person's lifestyle is likely not vegan, like the person who manufactured their clothes, car, their banker, everyone else in that person's life.

[carterfelder]

Grok:

The argument suggests that going vegan has limited impact on climate change because (1) factory farming is just one of many contributors to climate change, and (2) the broader lifestyle of a vegan, including the non-vegan actions of others (e.g., those who manufacture their clothes, cars, or provide services), still contributes to emissions. Let’s break this down logically.

Factory Farming as One of Many Contributors: It’s true that climate change is driven by multiple factors, including energy production, transportation, industry, and agriculture. Data indicates that global agriculture, including animal farming, accounts for roughly 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions, with livestock being a significant portion of that (FAO, 2013). While this is substantial, it’s not the sole driver—energy and transportation sectors contribute larger shares (e.g., energy ~40%, transport ~15%). However, this doesn’t negate the impact of individual dietary choices. A vegan diet can reduce an individual’s food-related emissions by about 75% compared to a standard diet with animal products (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). This reduction is significant within the scope of personal consumption, even if it’s a fraction of total global emissions. Dismissing veganism because it doesn’t address all sectors overlooks the cumulative effect of individual actions.

Non-Vegan Actions of Others in a Vegan’s Lifestyle: The claim that a vegan’s lifestyle indirectly supports non-vegan systems (e.g., clothes, cars, banking) has some merit but is flawed in its conclusion. All individuals, vegan or not, operate within a broader economic system where others’ actions (e.g., manufacturing, services) contribute to emissions. However, this doesn’t negate the direct impact of personal choices. For example, a vegan’s choice to avoid animal products reduces demand for high-emission livestock farming, which has a measurable effect. The fact that their banker or car manufacturer isn’t vegan doesn’t directly undermine this reduction—it’s an indirect critique that applies to any individual’s environmental efforts, not just vegans. By this logic, no personal action (e.g., reducing car use, recycling) would matter because others in the system aren’t fully aligned, which is an overgeneralization that dismisses incremental progress.

Logical Flaw in the Argument: The argument commits a form of the “perfect solution fallacy,” implying that because going vegan doesn’t solve all climate change issues or align every aspect of one’s lifestyle, it’s ineffective. No single action addresses all causes of climate change, but collective individual actions (like dietary shifts) can drive systemic change by reducing demand for high-emission products. Additionally, the argument ignores that vegans can (and often do) make other sustainable choices, like buying eco-friendly clothes or using public transport, further reducing their footprint.

Conclusion: While factory farming isn’t the only driver of climate change, it’s a significant one, and adopting a vegan diet can substantially lower an individual’s food-related emissions (by ~75%). The fact that others in a vegan’s life may not be vegan doesn’t negate this impact—it’s a separate issue about systemic change. Individual actions matter, especially when scaled, and dismissing them because they don’t address every aspect of climate change is logically flawed.

[oldhandle]

Am I talking to Elon Musk's Grok, bruh wtf this is a forum

[carterfelder]

"Musk tho."

[oldhandle]

Uh, yeah? What if everyone on this forum engaged only in responses through an AI chatbot thats fucking weird dude

[carterfelder]

Who wouldn't? It's better than sharing an article from a media outlet that doesn't care about objective reality. Grok makes a wide search through the Internet. A single person writing an article doesn't do that, unless they're using AI, or have a lot of time on their hands.

You're avoiding the vegan elephant in the room and criticizing my wonderful and helpful use of AI to contribute objective facts to this forum.

[BlueOak]

On 08/09/2025 at 8:13 PM, oldhandle said:

I guess I agree with most of what you wrote but no idea how porn encourages birth rate.

To be crass then and not hint at it:

Sex on people's minds leads to more kids. 

With all the stipulations of my original post.

[Peo]

13 hours ago, carterfelder said:

I'll never understand why anyone seriously concerned about climate change doesn't eat vegan.

We humans are still animals, we hunt to survive. Don't forget that we are still no different then from a lion that hunts down herbivores such as zebras, wildebeests, buffalo, and various types of antelopes. Sure we have agriculture, but meat will never be the same as plant food. 

[oldhandle]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

To be crass then and not hint at it:

Sex on people's minds leads to more kids. 

With all the stipulations of my original post.

I think porn addicts are far more likely to stay inside and just watch porn than to go do the work to attract a real woman and reproduce.

[gettoefl]

Bad for me or bad for you? Neither caused me to take a sick day yet. Is that bad?

[Sucuk Ekmek]

 I have bigger problems in my life. I think people should stick to their own problems instead of these artificial ones.

[LordFall]

Why do you think porn is bad for a person on an individual level? Blanket statements make one an unserious intellectual. 

[BlueOak]

10 hours ago, oldhandle said:

I think porn addicts are far more likely to stay inside and just watch porn than to go do the work to attract a real woman and reproduce.

Addicts yes. That's exactly what I said in the original post, that and more, as it saps drive to find a woman, or succeed in life to get one, and can develop into anti social habits and skewed views of the opposing gender, among other problems.

Light porn use is not addiction, much like a beer doesn't create an alcoholic. 

[BlessedLion]

On 9/7/2025 at 6:29 PM, oldhandle said:

As I already said I'm not going to debate, but, no, human trafficking and porn itself are extreme problems. The usage of porn itself is extremely bad.

I’ve seen and talked to multiple men who had divorces, ruined their lives etc bc of porn. It’s a serious issue 

[something_else]

I find it bizarre that porn is top of your list for threats to humanity. Like you consider it on the same threat level as climate change which could potentially cause the extinction of humanity? Not to be rude, but that’s kind of crazy.

The people who use porn as a substitute for real human connection have an unhealthy relationship with it. If you are otherwise well rounded and jerk off to porn a few times a week it’s not going to suddenly ruin your life

[oldhandle]

2 hours ago, something_else said:

I find it bizarre that porn is top of your list for threats to humanity. Like you consider it on the same threat level as climate change which could potentially cause the extinction of humanity? Not to be rude, but that’s kind of crazy.

The people who use porn as a substitute for real human connection have an unhealthy relationship with it. If you are otherwise well rounded and jerk off to porn a few times a week it’s not going to suddenly ruin your life

Where did I say they're on exactly equal level?

[oldhandle]

3 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

I’ve seen and talked to multiple men who had divorces, ruined their lives etc bc of porn. It’s a serious issue 

Your link doesn't work in your profile btw

[something_else]

11 hours ago, oldhandle said:

Where did I say they're on exactly equal level?

It’s implied by the fact that you have picked out these two single issues as the easiest ways to determine if someone is worth taking seriously.

Climate change makes sense, but porn is such an odd hill to die on