Gabriel Contreras Lievano

Monterrey, Mexico

Someone is shy

Gabriel hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

101068
Gabriel Contreras Lievano
Posted over 4 years ago
TED conversations needs visuals
Since the plataform is just starting, im not surprised is somewhat plain or basic for now, but im sure they will add alot of features when they are done with the most essential parts of this. I dont think it will take long, though.
101068
Gabriel Contreras Lievano
Posted over 4 years ago
In the debate about whether God exists or not, there is a third possibility: that "God" does exist, but only within our brains.
I dont agree with the next: "that the only truly supernatural force is us - our conscious minds? " I wouldnt say it is supernatural, and im not sure from whom its the next quote but I think it works pretty well: "Everything which can be done is natural" I agree with the idea that the spiritual notions and the idea of god comes from a construction from our mind, but also agree with Matthieu that this is just part of the same framework of "god doesn't exist" category.
101068
Gabriel Contreras Lievano
Posted over 4 years ago
Are we too quick to write God off of our lives?
Matthieu explained it very well, but still there is something i would ask you for the sake of clarity: What you mean by quick? When you say "We" you mean we as "individuals" or we as "society" (since there are some big atheistic communities around the globe at this point)? Also, some people in the scientific area just avoid to debate about it because they have done it several times and yet people just ignore their answers and keep saying the same thing over and over, you just need to look some debates to find out the why though (check some people like Ray comfort, William Craig, John Lennox vs Thunderf00t, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. and you will get it) Also, with the occam's razor in the mind, why would you add a creator in the theory of evolution if it doesnt need ones to work out? Also, btw, evolution has nothing to do with the creation or with the appaerance of life, it has to do with the diversity of life.
101068
Gabriel Contreras Lievano
Posted over 4 years ago
I agree with the conclusion @Budimir Zdravkovic If "A" recognizes the rights of "B" but does not share this preference (eg on gay marriage, where "A" recognized that they can marry even if "A" is not gay) I think the situation would not be a dilemma . The problem may arise when the preference implies to deny certain rights. For example if "A" does not recognize the rights of "B" because he thinks and believes it is wrong, but also that believe means that he should fight against the aplication of those rights. Now, the choice of "A" should be restricted by this? I think that preference, except if it violates the rights of another person, should not be restricted. Let's use another example: "A" believes that rape is normal and, in fact, people who are raped is because of the actions of the "victims" and, therefore, should not be considered crimes. In this case, the opinion of "A" could perhaps be tolerated to be debated and discussed in public spaces and to keep in his private life, but ultimately if he is carrying out this preference (raping someone) we would say that "A" had broken the right of "B" and, therefore, not because it is a preference of "A" it should be tolerated in the human rights framework and, I think, we do not regard this as a "restriction in human rights As I said a moment ago, in conclusion, I think that any preference which does not violate any right or harm another person can be accepted, and any notion that has the potential to restrict or violate has the right to be believed and discussed, but not practiced, though maybe I'm not considering all options here. But, therefore, some restrictions are necessary for the effective application of the most vital human rights
101068
Gabriel Contreras Lievano
Posted over 4 years ago
Should anyone be able to upload their TEDTalk to TED.com?
NO: In this age, we have so much information around us, and non-curated/controled places are a mess to find out good sources. TED, at least, its clean and you can find very good sources about almost all topics without breaking your head in the process of searching. Also, not all ideas are "worth spreading" i guess. IE: Political/religious agenda, racism, etc. So TED should have a quality control (as it does now)
101068
Gabriel Contreras Lievano
Posted over 4 years ago
Do TEDx events need more monitoring ?! Why or Why not ?
In short I think: Yes But now i will justify my opinion: The problem, I believe, that exists is that although many people do events with good will and the purpose to produce some good for the society, TED is becoming (if not already) a platform of great importance and, In some cases, it will attract people who try to use it for personal gain, which could constitute a breach of the terms (ex: the non-profit clause) So I think, if possibly, we should try to get better control over TEDx (albeit through the embassies) and that could help to avoid staining the platform with "bad apples "