Which of the positions described above best represents your own and why? what constitutes freedom for non-human animals, specifically? be detailed about the rights and considerations you believe animals deserve. specifically, do zoos and circuses hold the same moral weight? are they unnecessary forms of entertainment? are hunting and meat-eating morally equivalent? is it true, as is highlighted in certain pop culture references ( see the module notes), that we only love cute animals and eat ugly ones? to what extent is the reference to our hypocrisy accurate or not?

I believe that all animals should be free, so my position is in alignment with the ecological feminist. My view is derived by the idea that we all share a life, no matter in which form we are. Animals do feel, like us. They have their own identity and they can experience pain, thus the idea that we are all equal and all of us should have the same right to live.

---

Freedom for non-human animals consists in the freedom of existing. Not having to be hunted or killed for human purpose, not having to exist just for our entertainment. Liberty of living in their environment, which should be protected as well, not having to experience pain because of humans.

Zoos and circus do not hold the same moral weight, as their function is slighty different. Zoos could also exist in some forms as reserve for animals that were abused or treated bad, while circus often mistreat animals for entertainment purposes, so circus with animals defintiely should not exist in a ecological feminist view.

---

Yes, because animals do not exist for our entertainment. We should not train them to do tricks that are not in their nature just because they are cute and funny, moreover if we use pain and brutal methods to achieve these results. Simply putting, if someone trained us to do trick for other creatures, will we be happy about it?

---

it depends. Hunting for entertainment reasons and not for necessity is not a sport in my opinion. Meat-eating in the western culture is not necessary and it is often do not for nutritional purpose but just for taste and habits. Hunting and meat eating is justifiable only if it is done out of survival, but this is not the case in our culture right now.

---

I think that the division is more under what we called "affection animals" and "livestock animals" more than cute or ugly. In this sense, yes, there is a division perpetuated by the media that affect all of us on some level, because we are trained basically to see some animals as company and other as food - causing what some researchers call cognitive dissonance.

There is a hypocrisy at the basis of this behaviour, even if it would be more correct to call this behaviour cognitive dissonance. Hoever it is called, the reference is accurate enough to make some people feel bad about it, like when people that eat meat do not want to see how animals are killed. At a conscious level people know that animals are killed, but they don't want to hear about it.

question 1: the kuwaiti government announced us$1.5 million in aid for rohingya refugees.they pointed out that it was imperative to take immediate and concrete steps to ramp up pressure on myanmar to put an end to the violence.and said   that they r just shameful

question 2: the rohingyas were not aloud to be seen as people in myanmar.in the last few years, before the latest crisis, thousands of rohingya were making perilous journeys out of myanmar to escape communal violence or alleged abuses by the security forces.the latest exodus began on 25 august 2017 after rohingya arsa militants launched deadly attacks on more than 30 police posts.rohingyas arriving in an area known as cox's bazaar - a district in bangladesh - say they fled after troops, backed by local buddhist mobs, responded by burning their villages and attacking and killing civilians.