Re: ¿Calculation to evaluate cruelty to animals? (was:Re: Ball, I'm curious about something)

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:13:58 +0000 (UTC), Lionel B <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:01:19 -0200, dh wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 13:10:52 -0800, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > <dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>People, could you please have the courtesy to take this discussion off 
>sci.math, alt.math, alt.math.recreational and alt.sci.math.probability 
>where it is ridiculously off-topic.
>
>Thanks,

    Mathematical equations apply to all things I'm aware of, including
animal related issues and especially issues pertaining to domestic
animals. One of your math guys--someone who is supposedly close
to getting a PhD!!!--can't understand why the animals should be
taken into consideration when evaluating whether or not it's cruel
for them to be raised for food. Certainly there is a mathematical way
of demonstrating to the guy that you can't realistically consider the
animals without considering the animals. I don't know how to do it,
and he can't figure it out for himself, and maybe none of you other
math  people can either, but there has got to be a way of doing it.
Maybe it's something as simple as pointing out that you can't
calculate what 2 + 3 equals, without factoring in the 3... He wouldn't
ask any of his instructors about it, but since I'm really curious what
normal math people would have to say instead of only getting what
a bunch of "animal rights" people have to say--people who appear
unable to **think things through**--I was hoping to get some useful 
input from people who might have it together a little better.

    Math is part of every aspect of our lives, including our influence
on animals both domestic and wild. Advocates of the gross
misnomer "animal rights" want to *eliminate!* domestic animals--not
provide them with decent lives--so their numeric goal is zero. In
contrast to that advocates of decent animal welfare want there to
be billions of animals experiencing lives of positive value because
humans raise them for food, as pets, etc... Math is a part of raising
animals in many ways, almost certainly including finding ways of
evaluating which practices provide lives of positive value for the
animals, and which provide lives of negative value. If you can't
do it you can't do it, and if you don't care you don't care, but it's
still math...or at least potential math...none the less.