**Marco Aurelio Denegri**

Ignorancia de quién o quiénes?

Obviously you can combine those, you can't have them without each other, you need rights for the social change (altho I think it would happen without too, but slower) and then If everyones save to express their thoghts talk to woman and explain what why IS probably wrong and listen to them in turn. It's not, you can't take somones shakels away? So it's not really sensible

I'm a vegan, although I don't actually think there's anything wrong with the act of killing itself. I don't see death as a bad thing, but the suffering that comes with it is the problem. Ultimately there is no possible way of a meat industry without causing suffering, so don't think I'm at all advocating for a "humane meat industry", but really the only possible issue with death is the potential happiness that is being removed, so, if you're opposed to that, I'd suggest you should also be against abortion (if you're going to be consistent).

@@johnwilkins11 A baby begins to be conscious after the first breath is done. If abortion is done early, there is not much there, so I can not judge this in general. An animal is already an concious being which is experiencing life. And then you rub them this by killing it against its will. In society we never see killing as okay, when it is not for our benefit. Nobody says things like she got a dog from the shelter, got sick of him and shot him while he slept. That is fine because the dog did not suffer. Everybody would consider this as a cruel act. We are very inconsistent in our relationship to animals. And there is no scientific reason for this, nor do we need to kill anymore to survive. I do not see any reason to say it is okay to kill animals just because my taste is to me more important than a life. Because like you say, it rubs them of all the years and experiences they could have have.

@@InTuneFaceYoga as I've said, I'm a vegan, so I do realise how hippocritical our society is in terms of dogs vs pigs (or any other farm animals), but I don't think it really would be wrong to kill the dog while it slept. Obviously I would never do it, as there's no reason to, but I don't think it's morally wrong. As for the abortion thing, I don't see how them currently being conscious makes a difference when, either way, you're taking away future life from them (which surely is the issue).

@@johnwilkins11 Yes it is great that you are vegan. In my opinion killing is wrong in general. I do not have the right to take a life just for my own pleasure. I wouldn't be like to killed, no matter how "humane" this would be. And I don't really see the difference to an animal which would allow this. When it comes to abortion I think this is more of a question of at what time life begins. In the beginning of pregnancy there is just this little bunch of unconscious cells. I just don't think that this is the same as killing a 6 months old pig. But I totally respect if people have other opinions on abortion. If it comes to missed life experiences you could take this really far. Saying things like anti baby pills are wrong as every egg a woman produces is a chance for a life and so on. I think it is great that you are vegan, my whole family too and definitely everbody can have really different opinions on abortion and there are so many other issues out there. Being vegan is a good thing to do and I try to do as many other good things as I can. At the moment it doesn't matter so much what I think about abortion. I definitely wouldn't judge someone who did it and if done in the beginning of pregnancy from a biological standpoint I don't think I have an issue with that.

How about killing a 'defective' (ie disabled) infant? Peter Singer believes parents have a right to kill 'defective' infant human beings.

We can compare chimps with humans as we have the same ancester and they eat meat as well.

Do you have any source for your claim? I'd be interested. In any case, you have to differentiate strictly between a diagnosis of 'clinical death' and 'brain death'. These two do get mixed up all the time in popular media and even by rookie doctors. Clinical death is pretty acurate, but definitely not 100%. This is the type of death declaration which people can survive if the clinician was mistaken in his diagnosis. As a sidenote, this type of diagnosis is not used for purpose of organ transplant. Brain death on the other hand is probably the most accurate diagnosis you can ever hope to gain. There is no reported case up to date which was actually diagnosed brain dead and did not die without improvement. There are studies with up to 2000 participants declared brain dead, from which not one recovered in any way.

Argumenta tu comentario, ¿porque piensas de esa forma?

Se quedo callado XD

Es uno de los mejores filósofos de España. ¿Por qué pendeja?

Los que viven por y para la iglesia piensa que toda ciencia es una "pendejada"

Tell that to ancient hunter-gatherers who, in order o survive as a tribe, had to kill babies all the time. Peter singer is a very good philosopher who has a pretty consistent moral system, which most people lack.

How on earth have you arrived at this conclusion?

Quizás sea porque Seneca prefirió suicidarse antes que ser ejecutado y pq Sócrates prefirió aceptar la muerte antes que dimitir, fugar o exciliarse.

CLARO Q COMO NO ERA UN CUALESQUIERA DISIMULADAMENTE LE DIJERON Q YA NO LO NECESITABAN Y TOMO DICHA DECISION PARA MI ACERTADA.

@@demseypinedoruiz18 si lo mencona, minuto 13 al final y 14 al inicio

Prescripció

Que fuerte y difícil es la vida...

Fue mi maestro de filosofía.

@@josegutemberperezrios9912 que afortunado eres !

'Destroying such lives is an ethical negative' This reasoning prohibits killing animals for food, a practice you're in favour of?

You don`t get what I`m saying: To allow animals to be killed for food is to call for animals to be killed (duh) Not to allow animals to be killed by humans IS NOT an abolition of violent/premature animal death, because now there is no incentive to feed them and keep said animals alive. Because farmers would kill them to preserve their crops, and how predators would eat them. I am saying that outlawing the killing and eating of animals under all circumstances is not necessarily, logically in accordance with the greatest number of animals getting to live a life that is worth living.

Niko Ništa You've discounted farm animal sanctuaries?

Keeping animals alive costs money. Money the public can`t be expected to pay for no reason, especially when it is also expected to denounce a big chunk of its diet to boot. Those farm animal sanctuaries could never feasibly hope to keep alive the number of animals well regulated and relatively humane farms could.

@@nebojsag.5871 What if we abolished the breeding of animals for food now, so no new lives will be added just to be killed. This way we could have a future in which we could use our recources more efficiently. We could feed more people if we were´t feeding so many animals. It would be better for the environment and it would reduce suffering.

eric cm I think he's concerned About the suffering it causes, however, there isn't really any way round this without destroying the ecosystem

Predators need to kill to survive and don’t have moral agency. Most people don’t need to kill or enslave animals for survival.

@@jordanv3323 very well said 👍

No pero editaremos una publicación en español con las conferencias de todos los participantes de la jornada.