Frequently Asked Questions
How does playing the vocabulary game at FreeRice help me?
Learning new vocabulary has tremendous benefits. It can help you:
- Formulate your ideas better
- Write better papers, emails and business letters
- Speak more precisely and persuasively
- Comprehend more of what you read
- Read faster because you comprehend better
- Get better grades in high school, college and graduate school
- Score higher on tests like the SAT, GRE, LSAT and GMAT
- Perform better at job interviews and conferences
- Sell yourself, your services, and your products better
- Be more effective and successful at your job
After you have done FreeRice for a couple of days, you may notice an odd phenomenon. Words that you have never consciously used before will begin to pop into your head while you are speaking or writing. You will feel yourself using and knowing more words.
Who pays for the donated rice?
The rice is paid for by the advertisers whose names you see on the bottom of your vocabulary screen. This is regular advertising for these companies, but it is also something more. Through their advertising at FreeRice, these companies support both learning (free vocabulary for everyone) and reducing hunger (free rice for the hungry). We commend these companies for their participation at FreeRice.
If FreeRice has the rice to give, why not give it all away right now?
FreeRice is not sitting on a pile of rice―you are earning it 20 grains at a time. Here is how it works. When you play the game, advertisements appear on the bottom of your screen. The money generated by these advertisements is then used to buy the rice. So by playing, you generate the money that pays for the rice donated to hungry people.
Does FreeRice make any money from this?
No, it does not. FreeRice runs the site at no profit.
Couldn’t I just write a computer program to play all day and give a lot of rice that way?
There are two problems with this. First, it overloads our servers so that real people can’t play and learn vocabulary. Second, without real people playing and buying products, it is no longer cost-effective for companies to advertise. Without advertising, we cannot give any rice at all.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Between 1970 and 2000, gains were made in feeding the world. Beginning 2000-2001, things began to slide. In 2008, we are in crisis. 1.5 billion people live on 2000 calories a day or less, which equals one meal per day. 1 billion live on 1000 or less calories a day. These people won't survive. They can't purchase enough food to live. Most don't die of starvation; but their weakened bodies are susceptible to other diseases. Mexico and Egypt are examples of countries that have recently experienced food riots.
Economist magazine states why the price of food has gone up:
1. China and India have improved conditions where their huge populations are buying and consuming more food at the expense of poor countries.
2. Biofuels, like corn, are worth more in the gas tank than on the commodity shelf.
3. Bad harvests throughout the world, partially caused by global warming.
4. Fear. There is more hoarding of food.
Ways to combat:
1. Humanitarian aid
2. Produce more food using better irrigation, organic fertilizers, etc. in Third World countries
3. Rationing
Average calories consumed in the United States in 1970 was 2,300. Today, 2,757.
:::::::::
Singer, Adjusting Utilitarian Ethics
Peter Albert David Singer (born July 6, 1946 in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) is an Australian philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian and atheistic perspective.
He has served, on two occasions, as chair of philosophy at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996, he ran unsuccessfully as a Green candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004, he was recognized as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies.
Outside academic circles, Singer is best known for his book Animal Liberation, widely regarded as the touchstone of the animal liberation movement. His views on questions in bioethics have also attracted attention and controversy, particularly in the United States, Canada and Germany.
Animal Liberation
- Main article: Animal Liberation (book)
Published in 1975, Animal Liberation[13] was a major formative influence on the animal liberation movement. Although Singer rejects rights as a moral ideal independent from his utilitarianism based on interests, he accepts rights as derived from utilitarian principles, particularly the principle of minimizing suffering.[14] Singer allows that animal rights are not exactly the same as human rights, writing in Animal Liberation that "there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have."[15] He began his book by defending against Mary Wollstonecraft's 18th-century critic Thomas Taylor, who argued that if Wollstonecraft's reasoning in defense of women's rights were correct, then "brutes" would have rights too. Taylor thought he had produced a reductio ad absurdum of Wollstonecraft's view; Singer regards it as a sound logical implication.
In Animal Liberation, Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their having wings or fur is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely retarded humans show equally diminished, if not lower, mental capacity, and intelligence therefore does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such retarded humans. Singer does not specifically contend that we ought not use animals for food insofar as they are raised and killed in a way that actively avoids the inflicting of pain, but as such farms are uncommon, he concludes that the most practical solution is to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet. Singer also condemns vivisection except where the benefit (in terms of improved medical treatment, etc.) outweighs the harm done to the animals used.[16]
[edit] Applied ethics
His most comprehensive work, Practical Ethics,[17] analyzes in detail why and how beings' interests should be weighed. His principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment. All have an interest in avoiding pain, for instance, but relatively few have an interest in cultivating their abilities. Not only does his principle justify different treatment for different interests, but it allows different treatment for the same interest when diminishing marginal utility is a factor, favoring, for instance, a starving person's interest in food over the same interest of someone who is only slightly hungry.
Among the more important human interests are those in avoiding pain, in developing one's abilities, in satisfying basic needs for food and shelter, in enjoying warm personal relationships, in being free to pursue one's projects without interference, "and many others". The fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for "suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness". He holds that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties. He favors a 'journey' model of life, which measures the wrongness of taking a life by the degree to which doing so frustrates a life journey's goals. The journey model is tolerant of some frustrated desire and explains why persons who have embarked on their journeys are not replaceable. Only a personal interest in continuing to live brings the journey model into play. This model also explains the priority that Singer attaches to interests over trivial desires and pleasures.
He requires the idea of an impartial standpoint from which to compare interests. He has wavered about whether the precise aim is the total amount of satisfied interests or the most satisfied interests among those beings who already exist prior to the decision one is making. The second edition of Practical Ethics disavows the first edition's suggestion that the total and prior-existence views should be combined. The second edition asserts that preference-satisfaction utilitarianism, incorporating the 'journey' model, applies without invoking the first edition's suggestion about the total view. But the details are fuzzy and Singer admits that he is "not entirely satisfied" with his treatment.[18]
Ethical conduct is justifiable by reasons that go beyond prudence to "something bigger than the individual," addressing a larger audience. Singer thinks this going-beyond identifies moral reasons as "somehow universal", specifically in the injunction to 'love thy neighbor as thyself', interpreted by him as demanding that one give the same weight to the interests of others as one gives to one's own interests. This universalizing step, which Singer traces from Kant to Hare,[19] is crucial and sets him apart from moral theorists from Hobbes to David Gauthier, who tie reasons to prudence. Universalization leads directly to utilitarianism, Singer argues, on the strength of the thought that one's own interests cannot count for more than the interests of others. Taking these into account, one must weigh them up and adopt the course of action that is most likely to maximize the interests of those affected; utilitarianism has been arrived at. Singer's universalizing step applies to interests without reference to who has them, whereas a Kantian's applies to the judgments of rational agents (in Kant's kingdom of ends, or Rawls's Original Position, etc.). Singer regards Kantian universalization as unjust to animals.[20] As for the Hobbesians, Singer attempts a response in the final chapter of Practical Ethics, arguing that self-interested reasons support adoption of the moral point of view, such as 'the paradox of hedonism', which counsels that happiness is best found by not looking for it, and the need most people feel to relate to something larger than their own concerns.
Practical Ethics includes a chapter arguing for radical redistribution of wealth to ameliorate absolute poverty (Chapter 8, "Rich and Poor"), and another making a case for resettlement of refugees on a large scale in industrialized countries (Chapter 9, "Insiders and Outsiders"). Although the natural, non-sentient environment has no intrinsic value for a utilitarian like Singer, environmental degradation is a profound threat to sentient life, and for this reason environmentalists are right to speak of wilderness as a `world heritage'.[21]
[edit] Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is grounded in a being's personhood; that is, in the sense of a being's rationality and self-consciousness. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.[22]
His argument against this is to say that, while a fetus is a member of the human species, it is not a person, which he defines as a self-conscious being that sees itself over time. He sees species membership as morally irrelevant, but personhood as relevant.[23]
Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.
Singer's book 'Rethinking Life and Death: The collapse of our Traditional Ethics' offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical dilemmas.
[edit] World poverty
In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality",[24] one of Singer's best-known philosophical essays, he argues that the injustice of some people living in abundance while others starve is morally indefensible. Singer proposes that anyone able to help the poor should donate part of their income to aid poverty relief and similar efforts. Singer reasons that, when one is already living comfortably, a further purchase to increase comfort will lack the same moral importance as saving another person's life. (One point of contention is at what point a person may be said to be 'living comfortably' and "Famine, Affluence And Morality" does not set out how to specify this.) Singer himself reports that he donates 25 percent of his salary to Oxfam and UNICEF.[25] In "Rich and Poor", the version of the aforementioned article that appears in the second edition of Practical Ethics,[26] his main argument is presented as follows: If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it; absolute poverty is bad; there is some poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance; therefore we ought to prevent some absolute poverty.
Singer says that the wealthy are obliged, or have a duty, to help develop a social safety net. Extended Utilitarian view includes the idea of a global ethic to help more than those around you.
If you can afford a pizza and a six-pack on a weekend, you are wealthy enough to help save lives. If you don't, it is a moral equivalent to murder.
Global Duty consists of the following:
1. We have the capacity of the rich to reduce suffering
2. When people die from lack of food... this is a bad thing.
3. If you can prevent something from occuring, like lack of food, without sacrificing something from other peoples' lives, you have a moral obligation to do something. (This point is most important and sounds a little bit like a Deontologist.)
4. It makes no difference where the people live who need to be helped- close or far away- there is no difference.
5. The traditional distinction between duty and charity is no longer valid.
Three ways to do something:
1. Promote human rights
2.
3.
(I missed it?????)
Under Rule Utilitarianism, assumptions dealing with human rights:
1. You have human rights, it doesn't matter where they came from
2. Human rights are both legal and moral by definition
3. Human rights are universal, wherever you go
4. Human rights are meant to evolve as the world changes
5. Human rights are necessary and fundamental when it comes to basic human needs
The idea of the last five points came to a universal expression when the International Criminal Court was established in 1948, which was especially helped by Eleanor Roosevelt.
Garrett Hardin
April 21, 1915 – September 14, 2003) was a leading and controversial ecologist from Dallas, Texas, who was most known for his 1968 paper, The Tragedy of the Commons. He is also known for Hardin's First Law of Ecology, which states "You cannot do only one thing", and used the ubiquitous phrase "Nice guys finish last" to sum up the "selfish gene" concept of life and evolution.[1]Lifeboat ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lifeboat ethics is a metaphor for resource distribution proposed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1974.[1]
Hardin's metaphor describes a lifeboat bearing 50 people, with room for ten more. The lifeboat is in an ocean surrounded by a hundred swimmers. The "ethics" of the situation stem from the dilemma of whether (and under what circumstances) swimmers should be taken aboard the lifeboat.
Hardin compares the lifeboat metaphor to the Spaceship Earth model of resource distribution, which he criticizes by pointing out that a spaceship would be directed by a single leader — a captain — which the Earth lacks. Hardin asserts that the spaceship model leads to the tragedy of the commons. In contrast, the lifeboat metaphor presents individual lifeboats as rich nations and the swimmers as poor nations.
Lifeboat ethics is closely related to environmental ethics, utilitarianism, and issues of resource depletion. Hardin uses lifeboat ethics to question policies such as foreign aid, immigration, and food banks.
Garrett Hardin's essay
At the beginning of his essay, Hardin draws attention to problems that cannot be solved by technical means (i.e., as distinct from those with solutions that require "a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality"). Hardin contends that this class of problems includes many of those raised by human population growth and the use of the Earth's natural resources.
To make the case for "no technical solutions", Hardin notes the limits placed on the availability of energy (and material resources) on Earth, and also the consequences of these limits for "quality of life". To maximize population, one needs to minimize resources spent on anything other than simple survival, and vice versa. Consequently, he concludes that there is no foreseeable technical solution to increasing both human populations and their standard of living on a finite planet.
From this point, Hardin switches to non-technical or resource management solutions to population and resource problems. As a means of illustrating these, he introduces a hypothetical example of a pasture shared by local herders. The herders are assumed to wish to maximize their yield, and so will increase their herd size whenever possible. The utility of each additional animal has both a positive and negative component:
- Positive: the herder receives all of the proceeds from each additional animal.
- Negative: the pasture is slightly degraded by each additional animal.
Crucially, the division of these costs and benefits is unequal: the individual herder gains all of the advantage, but the disadvantage is shared among all herders using the pasture. Consequently, for an individual herder weighing these, the rational course of action is to add an extra animal. And another, and another. However, since all herders reach the same rational conclusion, overgrazing and degradation of the pasture is its long-term fate. Nonetheless, the rational response for an individual remains the same at every stage, since the gain is always greater to each herder than the individual share of the distributed cost. The overgrazing cost here is an example of an externality.
Because this sequence of events follows predictably from the behaviour of the individuals concerned, Hardin describes it as a tragedy: "the remorseless working of things" (in the sense described by the philosopher Alfred Whitehead).
In the course of his essay, Hardin develops the theme, drawing in examples of latter day "commons", such as the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, National Parks, advertising, and even parking meters. The example of fish stocks had led some to call this the "tragedy of the fishers".[5] A major theme running throughout the essay is the growth of human populations, with the Earth's resources being a general commons (given that it concerns the addition of extra "animals", it is the closest to his original analogy).
The essay also addresses potential management solutions to commons problems including: privatization; polluter pays; regulation. Keeping with his original pasture analogy, Hardin categorises these as effectively the "enclosure" of commons, and notes a historical progression from the use of all resources as commons (unregulated access to all) to systems in which commons are "enclosed" and subject to differing methods of regulated use (access prohibited or controlled). Hardin argues against the reliance on conscience as a means of policing commons, suggesting that this favours selfish individuals over those with greater foresight.
In the context of avoiding over-exploitation of common resources, Hardin concludes by restating Hegel's maxim (which was actually written by Engels), "Freedom is the recognition of necessity." He suggests that "freedom", if interpreted narrowly as simply the freedom to do as one pleases, completes the tragedy of the commons. By recognising resources as commons in the first place, and by recognising that, as such, they require management, Hardin believes that "we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms."
Aside from its subject matter (resource use), the essay is notable (at least in modern scientific circles) for explicitly dealing with issues of morality, and doing so in one of the scientific community's premier journals, Science. Indeed, the subtitle for the essay is "The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality."
[edit] Meaning
The metaphor illustrates how free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately structurally dooms the resource through over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are distributed among all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than that which is exploiting it). This, in turn, causes demand for the resource to increase, which causes the problem to snowball to the point in which the resource is exhausted.
Like William Lloyd and Thomas Malthus before him, Hardin was primarily interested in population and especially the problem of human population growth. In his essay he also focused on the use of larger (though still limited) resources such as the atmosphere and oceans, as well as pointing out the "negative commons" of pollution (i.e., instead of dealing with the deliberate privatisation of a positive resource, a "negative commons" deals with the deliberate commonisation of a negative cost, pollution).
As a metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons should not be taken too literally. The phrase is shorthand for a structural relationship and the consequences of that relationship, not a precise description of it. The "tragedy" should not be seen as tragic in the conventional sense, nor must it be taken as condemnation of the processes that are ascribed to it. Similarly, Hardin's use of "commons" has frequently been misunderstood, leading Hardin to later remark that he should have titled his work "The Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons".[citation needed]
The Tragedy of the Commons has particular relevance in analyzing behaviour in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, game theory, politics, taxation, and sociology. Some also see it as an example of emergent behaviour, with the "tragedy" the outcome of individual interactions in a complex system.
[edit] Controversy
Even today Hardin's essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" is a source of controversy. Some of this stems from disagreement about whether individuals will always behave in the selfish fashion posited by Hardin (see discussion below).
More significantly, controversy has been fueled by the "application" of Hardin's ideas to real situations. In particular, some authorities have read Hardin's work as specifically advocating the privatisation of commonly owned resources. Consequently, resources that have traditionally been managed communally by local organisations have been enclosed or privatised. Ostensibly this serves to "protect" such resources, but it ignores the pre-existing management, often appropriating resources and alienating indigenous (and frequently poor) populations. In effect, private or state use repeatedly resulted in worse outcomes than compared to the previous commons management.[6] As Hardin's essay focuses on resources that are fundamentally unmanaged, rather than communally managed, this application of his ideas is misplaced. Ironically, given his original hypothetical example, this misunderstanding of Hardin's ideas is often applied to grazing lands.
More generally, Hardin made it very clear that usage of public property could be controlled in a number of different ways to stop or limit over-usage. As has been pointed out by Natalie Wanis, Hardin's advocacy of clearly defined property rights has frequently been misread as an argument for privatization, or private property, per se. The opposite situation to a tragedy of the commons is sometimes referred to as a tragedy of the anticommons: a situation where rational individuals (acting separately) collectively waste a given resource by under-utilizing it.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Hardin says "nice guys finish last". He answers Singer with five points that challenge Singer's pumped-up Utilitarianism:
1. It is not within the capacity for rich people to eliminate poverty; there is too much poverty (the lifeboat thing), after maximum capacity you sink everyone
2. It is simply how nature works. You look for the causes and many times we do it to ourselves. It is not simply evil.
3. Do you give up everything to come to the aid of something you cannot fix?
4. Helping begins at home. Distance does make a difference. You take care of those who are close to you.
5. There is a difference between duty and charity. If there wasn't, there would be no charity; lifeboat ethics.
Cows, Sheep, and Gophers (animal rights)
Minnesota Statute 343.21, Mistreatment of Animals
1. can range from Gross Misdemeanor to a Felony
2. Emmanuel Kant (Strict Deontonlogist)
We have no direct duty to animal rights. They are not self-conscious of themselves.
However, we should not be cruel to animals.
Singer "killing animals for food makes us think of them as objects that we can use for our own pleasure".
How can we encourage people to respect animals and continue to eat them for our own pleasure?
Mary Wollstonecraft (pronounced /ˈwʊlstənkrɑːft/; 27 April 1759 – 10 September 1797) was an eighteenth-century British writer, philosopher, and feminist. During her brief career, she wrote novels, treatises, a travel narrative, a history of the French Revolution, a conduct book, and a children's book. Wollstonecraft is best known for A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men, but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason.
Among the general public and specifically among feminists, Wollstonecraft's life has received much more attention than her writing because of her unconventional, and often tumultuous, personal relationships. After two ill-fated affairs, with Henry Fuseli and Gilbert Imlay, Wollstonecraft married the philosopher William Godwin, one of the forefathers of the anarchist movement; they had one daughter, Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein. Wollstonecraft died at the age of thirty-eight due to complications from childbirth, leaving behind several unfinished manuscripts.
After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, revealing her unorthodox lifestyle, which inadvertently destroyed her reputation for a century. However, with the emergence of the feminist movement at the turn of the twentieth century, Wollstonecraft's advocacy of women's equality and critiques of conventional femininity became increasingly important. Today Wollstonecraft is regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers, and feminists often cite both her life and work as important influences.
A great and far-reaching effect was produced in England at this time by the publication of such revolutionary works as Paine's "Rights of Man," and Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women;" and looking back now, after the lapse of a hundred years, we can see that a still wider extension of the theory of rights was thenceforth inevitable. In fact, such a claim was anticipated--if only in bitter jest--by a contemporary writer, who furnishes us with a notable instance of how the mockery of one generation may become the reality of the next. There was published anonymously in 1792 a little volume entitled "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes", (attributed to Thomas Taylor, the Platonist) a reduction ad absurdum of Mary Wollstonecraft's essay, written, as the author informs us, "to evince by demonstrative arguments the perfect equality of what is called the irrational species to the human." The further opinion is expressed that "after those wonderful productions of Mr. Paine and Mrs. Wollstonecraft, such a theory as the present seems to be necessary." It was necessary; and a very short term of years sufficed to bring it into effect; indeed, the theory had already been put forward by several English pioneers of nineteenth-century humanitarianism.
To Jeremy Bentham in particular, belongs the high honour of first asserting the rights of animals with authority and persistence. "The legislator," he wrote, "ought to interdict everything which may serve to lead to cruelty. The barbarous spectacles of gladiators no doubt contributed to give the Romans that ferocity which they displayed in their civil wars. A people accustomed to despise human life in their games could not be expected to respect it amid the fury of their passions. It is proper for the same reason to forbid every kind of cruelty towards animals, whether by way of amusement, or to gratify gluttony. Cock fights, bull-baiting, hunting hares and foxes, fishing, and other amusements of the same kind, necessarily suppose either the absence of reflection or a fund of inhumanity, since they produce the most acute sufferings to sensible beings, and the most painful and lingering death of which we can form any idea. Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes..."
Mary Ann Warren
Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the interests of animals, such as the interest in avoiding suffering, should be afforded the same consideration as the interests of human beings.[1] Although animal rights advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, they argue, broadly speaking, that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment, but should instead be regarded as legal persons and members of the moral community.[2][3]
The idea of awarding rights to animals has the support of legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School,[4][2] and animal law courses are now taught in 92 out of 180 law schools in the United States.[5] Steven Wise, also of Harvard Law School, argues that the first serious judicial challenges to what he calls the "legal thinghood" of animals may only be a few years away.[6]
Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only human beings have duties and that "[t]he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights."[7] An argument that often runs parallel to this is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources for human purposes, though there is an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily, a view known as the animal welfare position.[8]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Animal rights groups' five desires for changing how people see animals:
1. ????
2. No more corporate animal farms (mass raising of animals without space or light, etc)
3. Limit or remove the practice of testing on animals
4. No unnecessary killing of animals; no more hunting
5. No more circuses or zoos
No comments:
Post a Comment