For this eighth discussion we are going to do things a bit differently. Suppose that you live in an apartment building and your landlord has decided to implement a “no pets” rule. The rule of justice requires that all pets have to go–not just that little yap dog next door, but also Mrs. Brown’s cat, the hamster which belongs to the kids downstairs, and your own pet tarantula. That is, all these animals have to go unless you can argue that some of them are not “pets” for the propose of the landlord’s “no pets” rule. For your first response each of you must create a definition for pets by establishing the criteria an animal would have to meet to be included in the category “pets.” Consider your landlord’s “no pets” rule as the cultural context for your definition. For you second response you must choose to respond to an initial response of one of your classmates, and you should help your fellow classmate develop the proper criteria. You might comment on the effectiveness of your classmate’s response. You might suggest that you classmate add or subtract a criterion. However, in doing this, you must choose to respond to a classmate to whom no one has already responded. In other words, after you post your response to your classmate’s thread, there should be only two posted responses: the initial response and your response. For your, third response you should return to your initial posted response. Then based on the initial criteria you have already established, and based on the help from your fellow classmate, you should determine which of the following animals is definitely a pet that would have to be removed from the apartment. Based on your criteria, which animals could you exclude form the “no pets” rule”? How would you make your argument to your landlord? a German shepherd A small housecat a tiny, well-trained lapdog A gerbil in a cage a canary a tank of tropical fish a tarantula Each of your posted responses must be at least 150-250 words long.