Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guys, be careful. It's getting warmer...

THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED AS FLAMING

Even on the OT board Dakka rule #1 applies.

Certain previous posts have been edited for flaming. Those posts are now being reviewed to see if disciplinary proceedings including suspension or banning of account or called for.

I am re-opening the thread. If further personal attacks continue the thread will be closed and disciplinary procedures will occur.

Frazzled wrote:Even on the OT board Dakka rule #1 applies.

Certain previous posts have been edited for flaming. Those posts are now being reviewed to see if disciplinary proceedings including suspension or banning of account or called for.

I am re-opening the thread. If further personal attacks continue the thread will be closed and disciplinary procedures will occur.

You can punish me anytime fraz!

Apparently rule #2 is that you can say really ignorant things and not worry that someone will call you on it as it will just get modded.

The gist of what I get from Mad Doc is, in essence, that a black guy mugged him so now he hates all black people regardless of the fact that not all black people are the same in any way, shape or form. All he can see in all of them, despite radical diversity, is the one that he feels mugged him. That just makes good sense and comes from a place of intelligence and reasoning. Why anyone would think otherwise I just don't understand.

EDIT: by Anung's specific request, I am re-opening one last time. It is the responsibility of all posters on Dakka to remain polite, even if they disagree strongly with other posters.

I didn't post earlier in this thread for a specific reason - my internet died. But now I'm here!

In response to the very first post:

Where would we be without suffering? If you look at it the way many more modern Christians do look at it, we don't take many of the Bible's teachings for 100%. For example, it's highly unlikely that God created the Universe in 7 days: that's an allegory. God looks over mankind, and even though we suffer, we could not have our own free will without terrible pain and suffering. What about experience? A loving God does not shield this from us.

Blahh. More later. When I actually read the thread.

sA

Okay, let's get this thread rolling again:
What about Islam? To me it seems, that in eastern europe and parts of asia, Religions seems to have a much bigger impact on everyday life then it has in the "western" countries. Or to be more precise, to most Moslems who live in Germany, it seems to be more important.
In my hometown, I see a lot of women of appearantly middle-eastern origin who wear..what's the word...scarfs over their heads. You know, not bandanas, but the word is the same in German: Kopftuch.
The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"
I heard stories about Immigrants from Turkey, who come to Germany, because they don't like the way their Religion has changed "back home".

Anung Un Rama wrote:Okay, let's get this thread rolling again:
What about Islam? To me it seems, that in eastern europe and parts of asia, Religions seems to have a much bigger impact on everyday life then it has in the "western" countries. Or to be more precise, to most Moslems who live in Germany, it seems to be more important.

Its also a good deal more mystical, at least in a general sense. There are parts of the Qu'ran which specifically state that speculation as to the nature of al'Lah is wasted effort because al'Lah cannot be known. So, while religion is more important to daily life, it is also far less specifically compulsive than something akin to North American fundamentalism.

Anung Un Rama wrote:
In my hometown, I see a lot of women of appearantly middle-eastern origin who wear..what's the word...scarfs over their heads. You know, not bandanas, but the word is the same in German: Kopftuch.
The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"

The head scarf (there is a specific word for this, I just don't know it) , and the burqa are an interpretation of the Qu'ranic call to modest dress (Hijab). Neither is mentioned specifically in the text. How any given Muslim interprets the Hijab is almost entirely cultural. For example, I know an Iranian girl who chooses to adhere to the faith by refusing to wear any shirt with a plunging neckline.

Anung Un Rama wrote:
I heard stories about Immigrants from Turkey, who come to Germany, because they don't like the way their Religion has changed "back home".

Yeah, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the enforced secularism that Turkey maintains. Its an interesting illustration of the way in which something that is considered confining to one person can be liberating to another.

Anung Un Rama wrote:A lot of Religions also did quite a good job in destroying art and knowledge or at least hiding it. The whole Galileo thing for example.

At times Catholic Church protected, encouraged and directly funded art and the sciences. At other times they strongly discouraged and even stopped research and science. Because the Catholic Church is a complicated human organisation, with many contradictory ideas that have changed over long periods of time. Which is what I’m trying to say here, that real life and history is complex, and sweeping statements tend to be very misleading.


Also, the Galileo thing didn’t go down exactly like the popular story tells it. He was never forbidden from writing on the subject, just told to include both sides of the story. When Pope Urban was elected, a friend of Galileo and one of his best supporters, he encouraged Galileo to include his own ideas in the book. Galileo complied, as introduced the character of Simplicio into the book, who parroted Pope Urban’s own views in the most ridiculous fashion and made him appear a fool. While the trial was for his heretical scientific arguments, the real problem was the combative way he went about making his claims and for ridiculing the Pope. There were contemporaries of Galileo that published without censure or controversy.

Not that people should be sent to jail for ridiculing anyone, especially not public figures, but the real story is a lot more complicated than the ‘Church imprisons dude for being right about science’.

ShumaGorath wrote:My qualm has always been the why. I believe that a omnipotent being could make 1+1 equal refrigerator if it saw fit. Being all powerful means no limitations, being confined to "logic" such as that is a limitation that isn't even totally concrete in the existence that we know, let alone something that could be created by an all powerful being.

It all depends on your definition of all powerful. Could God make 1+1 equal 3 and also equal 4 at the same time? Except other times when it only equals 9 and no other number? It’s perfectly reasonable to say that all powerful refers to the ability to change time and matter and all stuff, but still keeps to specific basic logical facts.

But I’ll say it again, it’s an argument that doesn’t need to be made. If you want to question the all powerful, all knowing, all loving thing, then you don’t need to talk about the evil men do because then you just wander into free will and determinism and all that junk and you never get out again. Just ask about the tsunami, which wasn’t the result of anything men did, and yet it caused so much suffering.

What I've always wondered is why. Why even bother creating a world where people can run their little robot lives to become good or bad people (despite having their lives pre determined by their creator). Why not just create good people? I mean in effect that is whats being done, if our actions are pre determined by the all mighty then the course of my life is going to end just as it was designed too. Why even create the concepts of good and evil at all? Why does a god need to be worshipped?

Again, there is a perfectly sound argument that says free will is what makes us what we are. Without the ability to decide our own actions, we are not complete beings.

If he just created people to be automatically good, then we're little more than automatons?

Anung Un Rama wrote:The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"

There’s the head scarf worn with ordinary clothing, called the Hijab. It’s common in more moderate Muslim communities. Then there’s the Niqab, which covers the whole body but leaves the eyes, and the Burqa, which covers the eyes as well (a mesh is all they’ve got to look through).

It’s a cultural thing, as Dogma says the Koran only calls for modest dress.

Again, there is a perfectly sound argument that says free will is what makes us what we are. Without the ability to decide our own actions, we are not complete beings.

If he just created people to be automatically good, then we're little more than automatons?

I'm arguing that free will can't exist coinciding with an all powerful all knowing being. That when your creator knows every action you will ever take and indeed created you as you are with that knowledge then free will is little more than an illusion created by our limited perception. I'm also not arguing the all loving angle, thats more the realm of faith then logic since an all loving god would not create the world as it is.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm arguing that free will can't exist coinciding with an all powerful all knowing being. That when your creator knows every action you will ever take and indeed created you as you are with that knowledge then free will is little more than an illusion created by our limited perception. I'm also not arguing the all loving angle, thats more the realm of faith then logic since an all loving god would not create the world as it is.

And why can't an all-powerful God step aside and watch the individual make his own choices? Wouldn't 'all powerful' include the power to not control an individual?

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm arguing that free will can't exist coinciding with an all powerful all knowing being. That when your creator knows every action you will ever take and indeed created you as you are with that knowledge then free will is little more than an illusion created by our limited perception. I'm also not arguing the all loving angle, thats more the realm of faith then logic since an all loving god would not create the world as it is.

And why can't an all-powerful God step aside and watch the individual make his own choices? Wouldn't 'all powerful' include the power to not control an individual?

No. God made man. God is omniscient. Therefore god had to know exactly what he was creating and all repercussions of that. Thus he created all of human history and action intentionally. Now if gods omnipotence means that he is capable of existing outside of logic and the foundations of existence then sure, since it's by his design that I believe that his existence is at its base logically impossible. In that situation then its entirely possible that he could both create and direct all of everything in existence and yet remain uninvolved with it. However if that's true then god could make 1+1=400 and the entire concept of good and evil and all negative things becomes a false construction created for a purpose that seems contradictory to the concept that god had to create a human existence with strife to give it meaning.

Its a catch 22.

If god is absolutely omnipotent then free will is possible but why did he create evil? He's truly omnipotent so he had other ways of reaching the same goal that didn't involve such obvious confliction. However if god is only "partially" omnipotent and conforms to the logic of existence then free will can't exist since he can not exist outside of the framework of understanding. And in that understanding an all knowing creator can not create free will since he is crafting life from its beginning to its end and all things in between. Leaving no choice or autonomy.

sebster:

You might be thinking of the Greek satirist Aristophanes, who made democracy a part of
his satire. A quick search turns up the titles Knights and Lysistrata, neither of which
I have read. I remember that his stuff was pretty bawdy, though.

ShumaGorath wrote:
No. God made man. God is omniscient. Therefore god had to know exactly what he was creating and all repercussions of that. Thus he created all of human history and action intentionally. Now if gods omnipotence means that he is capable of existing outside of logic and the foundations of existence then sure, since it's by his design that I believe that his existence is at its base logically impossible. In that situation then its entirely possible that he could both create and direct all of everything in existence and yet remain uninvolved with it. However if that's true then god could make 1+1=400 and the entire concept of good and evil and all negative things becomes a false construction created for a purpose that seems contradictory to the concept that god had to create a human existence with strife to give it meaning.

Its a catch 22.

Yes it is. That's also largely the point. If God exists outside of logic, then using logic to describe 'him' is entirely pointless.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If god is absolutely omnipotent then free will is possible but why did he create evil? He's truly omnipotent so he had other ways of reaching the same goal that didn't involve such obvious confliction. However if god is only "partially" omnipotent and conforms to the logic of existence then free will can't exist since he can not exist outside of the framework of understanding. And in that understanding an all knowing creator can not create free will since he is crafting life from its beginning to its end and all things in between. Leaving no choice or autonomy.

Unless you don't conceive of God as being something which is entirely separate from the universe. Man has free will because he is an active part in God's continuing act of creation.

malfred wrote:sebster:

You might be thinking of the Greek satirist Aristophanes, who made democracy a part of
his satire. A quick search turns up the titles Knights and Lysistrata, neither of which
I have read. I remember that his stuff was pretty bawdy, though.

Given the extent of my scholarship on the subject, it’s more likely I was half remembering a comment from someone who’d read Aristophanes .

ShumaGorath wrote:No. God made man. God is omniscient. Therefore god had to know exactly what he was creating and all repercussions of that. Thus he created all of human history and action intentionally. Now if gods omnipotence means that he is capable of existing outside of logic and the foundations of existence then sure, since it's by his design that I believe that his existence is at its base logically impossible. In that situation then its entirely possible that he could both create and direct all of everything in existence and yet remain uninvolved with it. However if that's true then god could make 1+1=400 and the entire concept of good and evil and all negative things becomes a false construction created for a purpose that seems contradictory to the concept that god had to create a human existence with strife to give it meaning.

Its a catch 22.

Omnipotence doesn’t mean the ability to ignore basic constructs of logic. It’s something that’s taken up millions of hours of scholarly debate, which can maybe be summed up with ‘can God create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it?’ Point being even omnipotence has its limits. Or possibly it doesn’t, depending on who’s arguing. But if you accept that there are basic logical limits to God’s power, your argument falls flat because you take a basic statement like ‘one can only grow if he can decide for himself and see the results of his actions’ and realise God can’t simultaneously stop us from doing evil and allow us to develop fully.

And now I’m really wandering what the point of this is? You’ve said elsewhere that you’re just going to assume ‘God is all-loving’ is wrong. Which is a perfectly sensible personal point of view, but then why any of the above?

It’s an old debate that if God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving, then how is there suffering? Remove any of three and there is no problem, because the answer to suffering can either be that God can’t do anything about it (or not all of it), that he doesn’t know about it, or that he doesn’t care. Given you’ve already been happy to remove ‘God is all-loving’ why continue to muse on the issue. Your great conundrum can be solved by the statement ‘God is a jackass’.

Because I like the exploration of the idea of a creator. Whether it is aware of its actions, us, any sort of plan, or even itself. The idea is interesting to me.

I was told once by a physics teacher that our universe was created when it collided with another (hence the big bang followed by the universal expansion). I like to think about far off things.

Sebster: your arguments run into a few problems. God existence is beyond human understanding. This isn't just mystical handwaving, it's an important aspect to any serious debate about a creator god.

God didn't just create the world, or the universe, he created the entire system of matter and energy. The laws of chemistry, physics, mathematics and even logic were all creations of the divine. God's ominipotence is not merely super human, it's beyond super human. He's not a maxed out God level character with straight 18's, he's the guy that created the rules. God can divide by zero, decrease entropy in a closed system, play with magnetic monopoles, etc.

As for god being all loving, let's not mistake our concepts of love for god's. If go erased suffering, we would no longer be human, we would be angels. God has plenty of those: they are extensions of his being. Suffering is what makes us human, without suffering we could not have accomplishment and joy and victory.

In the end, any conception of god that assumes he can be caught up in paradoxes is overly anthropomorphizing the divine. God is beyond space and time, and he's beyond simply logical games.

Polonius wrote:Sebster: your arguments run into a few problems. God existence is beyond human understanding. This isn't just mystical handwaving, it's an important aspect to any serious debate about a creator god.

God didn't just create the world, or the universe, he created the entire system of matter and energy. The laws of chemistry, physics, mathematics and even logic were all creations of the divine. God's ominipotence is not merely super human, it's beyond super human. He's not a maxed out God level character with straight 18's, he's the guy that created the rules. God can divide by zero, decrease entropy in a closed system, play with magnetic monopoles, etc.

As for god being all loving, let's not mistake our concepts of love for god's. If go erased suffering, we would no longer be human, we would be angels. God has plenty of those: they are extensions of his being. Suffering is what makes us human, without suffering we could not have accomplishment and joy and victory.

In the end, any conception of god that assumes he can be caught up in paradoxes is overly anthropomorphizing the divine. God is beyond space and time, and he's beyond simply logical games.

That view, of a God that can create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it until later on he lifts it… or that he even manages to simultaneously lift the rock while also being unable to because it’s all beyond anything as mundane as our basic logic… that is one view of God. It isn’t every view of God.

My problem with Shuma’s argument was that he assumed, as you were, that that God is the only possible form He could take.

ShumaGorath wrote:Because I like the exploration of the idea of a creator. Whether it is aware of its actions, us, any sort of plan, or even itself. The idea is interesting to me.

I was told once by a physics teacher that our universe was created when it collided with another (hence the big bang followed by the universal expansion). I like to think about far off things.

Ever considered the idea that the universe was created, but without us in mind. That is to look at the vast expanses of space and the millions of planets, and consider us, covering a small portion of a small planet that takes up hardly any space in one of millions of solar systems. And then to compare this to mould in one corner of a fishtank looking out at the expanse of that fishtank and assuming the whole thing was put there for them?

It’s an idea I think about a little bit. It seems to reconcile the scale and magnificence of the universe with the fact that it isn’t very kind on many of its human inhabitants.

sebster wrote:
That view, of a God that can create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it until later on he lifts it… or that he even manages to simultaneously lift the rock while also being unable to because it’s all beyond anything as mundane as our basic logic… that is one view of God. It isn’t every view of God.

My problem with Shuma’s argument was that he assumed, as you were, that that God is the only possible form He could take.

If you assume a god is omnipotent, really omnipotent, than I'm not sure what other form he could take. If you want to portray god is simply a very, very powerful being that is still restricted to the basic rules of creation, than that's fine, but that's different from most views of divinity.

I'm a pretty rational guy. I'm not unaware of the arguments against god, in fact I've used them all many times myself. I wouldn't say I was "born again" or any such, but I realized that taking concepts like "eternal", "creator", and "omnipotent" to the extremes resulting in a breaking down of logic itself. That god can exist in the margins, beyond our reasoning. The basic questions that haunt us about god (do we have truly have free will? Why must there be suffering?) continue to exist without god.

I think that any god that isn't omnipotent by my definition isn't really omnipotent, and therefore isn't God. He may be a god, but not the God.

Polonius wrote:If you assume a god is omnipotent, really omnipotent, than I'm not sure what other form he could take. If you want to portray god is simply a very, very powerful being that is still restricted to the basic rules of creation, than that's fine, but that's different from most views of divinity.

It’s not that hard if you consider some things constants of our universe. The strength of gravity. The atomic weight of carbon. Omnipotence would be the ability to change any of that if he wanted. But other things are basic truths that aren’t rules by the nature of creation, but the nature of what they are. 1+1=2 is not a thing to be created, it’s a wholly contained fact. It’s a very different thing to suggest a God that can that, an entirely different form of omnipotence.

It may be that God can’t change the latter. It may be that God can change the latter, or maybe he can’t. I’m not God, and you aren’t either. Well, I’m probably not. And you probably aren’t either.

And yeah, limitations of the power of God are assumed in a lot of different forms of faith. Free will and the argument for evil assume it, for a start, as the underlying logic is that God can’t have created a universe with both free will and an absence of evil.

I think that any god that isn't omnipotent by my definition isn't really omnipotent, and therefore isn't God. He may be a god, but not the God.

I wouldn’t look at a God that created the universe and say ‘if you can’t make 1+1=2 then I just don’t think you’re omnipotent”. If something created the universe then its God, whether or not it needs worship, or deserves, is another question.

Well here it goes i like a good religous debate but here is where I stand.
1: without darkness there can be no light
2: one man's "evil" is another mans good
3: Im Pagan so i belave there are many gods and one all powerful god
4: Muslims, Jews, and Chrstians are all sons of Abraham
5: The golden rules of "most" faiths treat others the way you wanted to be treated
6: "NO" faith is right nor is it wrong
7:Life is one thing that cannot truly be explained as there are far too many questions which go with it.
8:Live each day to its fullest as it could be yours/slash mine last and every second is precious.
9: Death is inevitable for all of us so we "must" try to find a way to coexist as it is fruitless to debate who is right and who is wrong.
10:all faiths of the world suffer from this pointing fingere complex.
There is how i feel in a nut shell so feel free to burn me

sebster wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:The thing is, every time I see one, or sometimes even women who are wearing this black dress which covers everything except their face, I keep thinking: "Do they waer this because they really believe so much in what is written in the Koran? Or because the rest of their family does?"

There’s the head scarf worn with ordinary clothing, called the Hijab. It’s common in more moderate Muslim communities. Then there’s the Niqab, which covers the whole body but leaves the eyes, and the Burqa, which covers the eyes as well (a mesh is all they’ve got to look through).

It’s a cultural thing, as Dogma says the Koran only calls for modest dress.

The question remains who's choice it was to do that in the first place. And I don't get why there's so much fuzz about covering the head/hair but that might just be a cultural thing.

The Islamic dress code for women is not in the Koran, but in the Hadith, which is a supplement and technically not scripture. Best described as Mohammeds 'notes'.

The story goes that Mohammed was visiting someone and saw women of the household wearing fairly skimpy clothing. He said to his hosts that once a girl becomes an adult (puberty) all that should be seen are 'these' (pointing to the eyes) and 'these' (pointing to the hands) when she is outside the home.

Thus under strict Islam pre-pubescent girls have no dress restrictions except that required for common modesty. When going out or in public Islamic women should generally cover up. How big 'these' are is another matter. The Burqa goes very far that Niqab is closest to a textual interpretation however the idea that wearing a head covering and long sleeves is enough tends to suffice.

Like in Christianity and Judaism dress codes show a lot about the denomination. If modesty is Mohammeds intent the Hijab is perfectly good, the Naqa takes a more literal stance and the Burqa oversteps in order to safeguard the law, hold this point.

'Safeguarding the law' is a doctrine stemming from Rabbinic law by which a tradition is formed that surrounds the law so that if the tradition is not broken the law is not broken. Both Jesus and Mohammed rewrote the book on these points. I cannot speak for Mohammed in any depth but Jesus casually broke tradition both in the cases of safeguard traditions which are not part of Judaic law at all and those aspects of the law itself it was broken while a exercising an act of mercy or compassion.


If you want to know why these laws and traditions were formed Anung Un Rama.

There are two basic reasons:

1. Sexual conduct. In the middle east women can walk around comfortably wearing very little. I will not need to explain this one any further.

2. Skin health. In the middle east a womans skin deteriorates quickly. Ending up rough is ok for a man, less so for a woman. covering up prevents sun damaged and keeps the skin pale and smooth. Thus a womans beauty lasts much longer. Remember no sunblock cream, so a bikini lifestyle will result in a withered hag by 25-30 on the outside.

This point is not restricted to the ancient religions but life in general. The Greeks are a good example. They had no such thing as a dress code, to go around naked in Greece was often acceptable. In the Olympic games events were competed while naked, possibly to prove no cheating is going on and to even everyone out.

However with regarding women, especially those of class, flowing dresses were recommended and full covering was recommended outdoors so as to preserve skin beauty from sunlight.

In summary, then:

- 5 pages;
- lots of wishes/beliefs;
- zero evidence.

In short, my view is: if god(s) existed, we would know. There wouldn't be room for even a hint of doubt or question. It would be as obvious as the sun in the sky or the wind on our faces. And I'm afraid it just isn't.

kged wrote:In summary, then:

- 5 pages;
- lots of wishes/beliefs;
- zero evidence.

In short, my view is: if god(s) existed, we would know.

Would we?

Perhaps because there is no proof and no disproof, you are most likely dealing with something very smart that manages to stay off camera.

If your post hints at anything, neutrally speaking, it is that whatever God is out there is good at covering his media relations, leaving some evidence for people to find, but no proof.

kged wrote:
There wouldn't be room for even a hint of doubt or question. It would be as obvious as the sun in the sky or the wind on our faces. And I'm afraid it just isn't.

Furthermore there is good reason for this. If we knew without doubt there would be no room for faith or a defacto choice, you would just get dictator God.

Besides speaking as a Christian, the fact that there is no proof has been pre-reckoned and a primose made on that account. In the Christian theology this promise is the 'second coming', when everyone will know the truth without any doubt. In fact one of Jesus's warnings is that many can be deceived beleiving a second coming has occured, this cannot be if there is any disagreement. The real second coming is a total inclusion event with 0% room for doubt.
Other religions may have similar views/promises in their Holy Books, IIRC Islam has very similar thinking regarding the end times. Buddhism & Hinduism do not because they are more concerned with a repeated incarnation cycle that ends individually at enlightenment, which can be achieved after any number of lifetimes.

So the no proof angle has been recrtified as a future promise at least, it has not been glibly ignored in the scriptures.

Orlanth wrote:The Islamic dress code for women is not in the Koran, but in the Hadith, which is a supplement and technically not scripture. Best described as Mohammeds 'notes'.

It's a lot more complicated than that, because they were only formally recorded around 200 years after Muhammad, and they are very open to debate between different sects. Hence the considerable variance in dress standards from one muslim group to the next.

The Hadith you cite, about covering all but the hands and eyes, is not recognised universally.

This point is not restricted to the ancient religions but life in general. The Greeks are a good example. They had no such thing as a dress code, to go around naked in Greece was often acceptable. In the Olympic games events were competed while naked, possibly to prove no cheating is going on and to even everyone out.

Got a cite on the walking around nude? It's documented that the Olympics were in the nuddy, but that was a special occasion and was all about seeing the best athletes in the world in all their glory. It's also worth pointing out women were not permitted to watch.