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.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
2.A catholic insurance or institution will not as it is against the tenets of their faith (even if it a less practiced tenet).

I'm not sure what tenet of the Catholic faith forbids paying for birth control.

Though, for what its worth, the idea that you've said anything that entails desiring the death of another is unfounded.

Thou shalt not spill thy seed upon the ground or some such nonsense.

I'd just like to say that Limbaugh is an idiot.

Or possibly the greatest troll of our times.

Amaya wrote:Thou shalt not spill thy seed upon the ground

Every Sperm is Sacred

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
2.A catholic insurance or institution will not as it is against the tenets of their faith (even if it a less practiced tenet).

I'm not sure what tenet of the Catholic faith forbids paying for birth control.

it is the one about not being obtuse to "burn" someone on an off topic forum.

There is also that whole "BC is a Sin" belief in Catholic Church. This combined with the tenet of "causing another to sin is the same as sinning yourself" does clearing point out why they have a problem with it.

Again, there are a lot of insurance companies out there that would love to cover it! There is no gun to anyone's head about where you get your insurance. If you are morally opposed to the Catholic view, don't work for a Catholic institute or use their insurance plans. You have options.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
it is the one about not being obtuse to "burn" someone on an off topic forum.

There is also that whole "BC is a Sin" belief in Catholic Church. This combined with the tenet of "causing another to sin is the same as sinning yourself" does clearing point out why they have a problem with it.

I'm not trying to "burn" you. Believe me, you would know if I were.

I'm directly questioning the idea that the objection mounted by the Bishops is a legitimate religious objection.

You can't just say "Its religious." when you object to something and get a free pass.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Again, there are a lot of insurance companies out there that would love to cover it! There is no gun to anyone's head about where you get your insurance. If you are morally opposed to the Catholic view, don't work for a Catholic institute or use their insurance plans. You have options.

So do Catholic organizations. Simply having options has no bearing on what option should be exercised.

dogma wrote:

I'm not trying to "burn" you. Believe me, you would know if I were.

I'm directly questioning the idea that the objection mounted by the Bishops is a legitimate religious objection.

You can't just say "Its religious." when you object to something and get a free pass.

Simply having options has no bearing on what option should be exercised.

Okay, lets get into it.

Person A applied for a job at a Catholic Hospital. No force was used in the application. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Catholic Hospital offered employment to Person A. No force was used in the offer. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A accepts employment offer. No force was used in the acceptance. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A is offered Insurance thru the Catholic Hospital. No force was used in the offer. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A accepts the offer of insurance. No force was used in the acceptance. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A asks for BC. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
The Catholic Insurance declines on religions grounds. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.

Person A does not want to pay for his own BC outside of insurance. He feels that getting new insurance would cost more. He does not want to spend his money. He wants someone else to spend money. He attempts to force the Catholic Insurance to pay for it against their beliefs.

So person A made many choices, well aware of who he was getting into bed with, and at the end of all those choices he is unhappy.
Now that he is unhappy with the choices he has made, he wants others to cover the costs.

How is Person A a victim here?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
So person A made many choices, well aware of who he was getting into bed with, and at the end of all those choices he is unhappy.
Now that he is unhappy with the choices he has made, he wants others to cover the costs.

How is Person A a victim here?

Right, let me parse this a bit. There seem to be four issues here.

The first is that I think the emphasis on Catholicism is a red herring. The real issue you (I'm putting aside theology vs. pragmatism), and many others, are taking is that a group is being forced to do something that they don't want to do, for whatever reason.

The second is that there seems to be an idea that we should not force people to do, in general, things they do not want to do. I think this is a bit disingenuous, or at least highly selective, but I also studied philosophy so "doing things" is a highly flexible idea for me.

Third, making an informed choice entails the forfeiture of any power to try and alter the conditions of that choice.

Fourth, that there is victim.

Regarding the fourth issue, I consider the injection of victim terminology to be off base. There is no victim here, not by necessity, for much of the reason you outlined.

Broadly, I consider the third issue to be a non-issue. One can legitimately take a job and then demand/request certain concessions, it happens all the time.

The second issue is more complicated, but the essence of it is that no one has the option to do nothing, so any policy requires everyone to do something; where "something" is largely defined by what not to do.

The first is really just my appraisal given this thread, and other information.

Amaya wrote:Thou shalt not spill thy seed upon the ground or some such nonsense.

The meaning of that passage has really very little to do with "no birth control, no masturbation" or anything of that sort. But talking more about that would be a very of-topic theological discussion.

Monster Rain wrote:

Easy E wrote:Well, I'm interested in hearing how this would work.

It probably wouldn't.

The point you should take away from this is that someone being philosophically opposed to having money taken from them to pay for goods and services for other people doesn't mean that they think on some level that another poster's children should die.

I agree with you. I don't think that is what they are thinking.

However, one could argue that the poster aspousing such a position is not thinking their statement through to the full and logical conclusion. of course, not all treatable diseases lead to detah, but it does lead to someone having an untreated disease.


For example, I'm part of an insurance pool. But I and several others decide that we don't want to pay for X, because it is too expensive. Sadly, little Joe Bob has X., and his parents are part of the now limited insurance pool. Because I and several others reduced the pool of money due to X, their is not sufficient money to pay for claims related to X.

Now, who is going to pay for little Joe Bob who has X? What happens to Joe Bob if X is not treated? Who decides what part of the money pool that does exist for X goes to mary Sue or Joe Bob?

Edit: Monster Rain- I heartily endorse your use of that Monty Python clip.

@ Dogma.

Now that I read your assertions, I see that your were not stating what i thought you were.

i owe you an apology for the confrontational tone of my post. (I was on defense from the "Gen. Lee hates people" bit going on.)

taking Theology out of this, here is how I see it.

1. Two parties agree about coverage.
2. Later on one of the party changes its mind on desired coverage.
3. Neither party really has a right to force the other party to change the coverage.
4. The dissenting party has the right to walk away from the agreement.

So I don't see the need to force a change on one side, when both parties accepted the terms at the begining.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
1. Two parties agree about coverage.
2. Later on one of the party changes its mind on desired coverage.
3. Neither party really has a right to force the other party to change the coverage.
4. The dissenting party has the right to walk away from the agreement.

So I don't see the need to force a change on one side, when both parties accepted the terms at the begining.

I don't think need enters into the equation at all.

One party wants something that another party doesn't provide, so they attempt to force that party into providing it.

To generalize the issue, its much like agreeing to a particular contract, and then asking your boss for a raise or a bonus. Its simply that your boss said "No." and you therefore sought external restitution.

dogma wrote:
I don't think need enters into the equation at all.

One party wants something that another party doesn't provide, so they attempt to force that party into providing it.

To generalize the issue, its much like agreeing to a particular contract, and then asking your boss for a raise or a bonus. Its simply that your boss said "No." and you therefore sought external restitution.

The party can demand. Asking for a raise, asking for more vacation time, etc is all part of the great tradition of modern employment.
The party should not be allowed to force.
If you make demands, and they are not met, you walk or you go back to work. That's how it works.

Platinum Medical Insurance is not a right. But you do have freedom to select what coverage you want. In selecting you analyse costs to benefit ratios. If you select a cheaper insurance that provides partial coverage, you get exactly what you wanted. Partial coverage.

Easy E wrote:Now, who is going to pay for little Joe Bob who has X?

I suppose the simplest answer would be "Someone who wants to." This is getting a little far from the original topic, though, I think. I'm for helping people out when they need it to a certain extent, though. I can just understand not wanting money taken from you to pay for something optional for someone else. The "optional" part is what people seem to be missing.

Easy E wrote:What happens to Joe Bob if X is not treated?

Sadly, the same thing that will happen to all of us at some point, and happens to millions of people across the globe every day.

Easy E wrote:Who decides what part of the money pool that does exist for X goes to mary Sue or Joe Bob?

That decision will need to be made regardless of the size of the pool of money. There's always going to be a limit on resources.

Easy E wrote:Edit: Monster Rain- I heartily endorse your use of that Monty Python clip.

It seemed appropriate.

biccat wrote:[What I've learned from this whole situation (and thread) is that it's OK to attack conservatives when they insert themselves into the political debate (or have a brief connection with a political figure), but it's not OK to attack liberals when they insert themselves into the political debate.

Well, not so much "learned" as "confirmed."

Can you truly not see why people are painting you with the "deliberately obtuse" brush here?

Can you honestly say that you really believe that people were upset solely because Limbaugh attacked a "liberal activist", and not explicitly because of the way he chose to do so?

So far as the attacks on Breitbart right after he died, while it's true that he also said crappy things about Kennedy before the body was cold, that doesn't make it OK. The people on the left who did so should not have, and the fact that Breitbart would have, in their opinion, been OK with it is the worst sort of self-justifying rationalization. At some point we need to stop being jerks because someone "on the other team" acted like a jerk once.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The party can demand. Asking for a raise, asking for more vacation time, etc is all part of the great tradition of modern employment.
The party should not be allowed to force.
If you make demands, and they are not met, you walk or you go back to work. That's how it works.

That's not a real answer, its just "love it or leave it" all over again.

As regards force, why shouldn't people be allowed to exercise their freedom to kill other people and take their things?

No serious moral or legal thinker of the last 75 years has felt that an employment contract was between equals.

Hardly anybody takes a job because they want to work for a certain organization. They take the best/first/only job offered.

they also don't quit jobs to find better ones for a variety of reasons. All in all, you have person who needs the job more than the employer needs the employee.

This, by the way, is increasingly true for more easily replacable employees. Which, btw, are the ones least able to pay for BC, and likely the least hurt by unplanned pregnancy.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The party can demand. Asking for a raise, asking for more vacation time, etc is all part of the great tradition of modern employment.
The party should not be allowed to force.
If you make demands, and they are not met, you walk or you go back to work. That's how it works.

That's not a real answer, its just "love it or leave it" all over again.

As regards force, why shouldn't people be allowed to exercise their freedom to kill other people and take their things?

The old "Your freedom to more your arm ends where my nose begins."
You cant keep changing the rules of the discussion. Are we talking about rights or morals?
Religions have rights (See First Amendment, free practice). You may disagree with that and want to change it. But in a discussion about law, the law is relevant.

The "love it or leave it" is better stated as"Freedom for both parties". Freedom for the person to obtain whatever insurance they like and freedom for religions to believe what they want and act on those beliefs.

The funny thing about the last part you said (the "Kill and take" ) that is what is happening here in a way. People want to kill the catholic faith and force it to pay for "sin" (not that I agree that it is sin, to be clear)







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:No serious moral or legal thinker of the last 75 years has felt that an employment contract was between equals.

Hardly anybody takes a job because they want to work for a certain organization. They take the best/first/only job offered.

they also don't quit jobs to find better ones for a variety of reasons. All in all, you have person who needs the job more than the employer needs the employee.

This, by the way, is increasingly true for more easily replacable employees. Which, btw, are the ones least able to pay for BC, and likely the least hurt by unplanned pregnancy.

Freedom and Rights do not equal "fair".

Life is not fair. But while people will take whatever job, the great thing is that they can buy any insurance they want! They can research and verify BC coverage. They are free. They may get an offer of coverage from employment, but they can reject it!

So at the end of the day, we are talking about people not liking the service they receive from one group, while hundreds of competitors are available.
Or...
"I wanted steak at the Vegan Restaurant that is part of my Club Discount Membership . They don't have steak. I could go buy steak, but the steakhouse across the street is expensive. I will sue the Vegan Restaurant to force them to sell steak, because I am anemic and steak is an easy way to get iron!. "

Does that make sense? No.

Getting a job with the benefits you need/want is not as easy as picking a restaurant.

As Polonius said, people have limited options and it's an unbalanced power relationship.

Life is not fair. When we had no laws against child labor, it was worse. Society and government are there in part to even out some of these inequities for the general good.

Monster Rain wrote:Why does one person not wanting to pay for something, or even a sub-set of people in a society feeling that way mean that there can't be a way for people to get medical care that they can't afford?

There might be another way, through charity or something. Of course, there also might not. And that's the point, when people say they do not want government (and therefore themselves as taxpayers) to commit to paying for a thing, there is a chance that treatment will be denied because the money can't be raised, one way or another.

Now, if people are happy with that, because they feel most people can afford it by themselves (a reasonable to make over most birth control) or because charity is likely to step in, then fair enough. But it means what it means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Way to not read the thread. I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore.

Because dropping out of threads when your position begins to look ridiculous was beginning to take a toll on your ego?

What I've learned from this whole situation (and thread) is that it's OK to attack conservatives when they insert themselves into the political debate (or have a brief connection with a political figure), but it's not OK to attack liberals when they insert themselves into the political debate.

I don't attack conservatives. I attack that portion of the US right wing that's drifted off into loonie land, and is trying to drag the rest of the party with them. To the extent that you feel compelled to keep defending the crazies, well then you join them and become a target for that same criticism. Sorry if that makes you sad, but the simple solution would be to stop defending the crazies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I agree sebster is off base in claiming that he tacitly seeks anyone else's death based on his comments here.

You misread my argument. I didn't say he was seeking anyone's death, just that he was more willing to let someone die, than to consider paying for it himself.

But that really only means you're objecting to hostility towards conflicting political views in the context of the larger political debate. Which is sort of weird thing to object to. I mean, you've also called OWS "dangerous", and further described people you disagree with politically as "useful idiots".

There was also that thread where he called the left wing murderous lunatics, or something like that. That was a doozy.

sebster wrote:There might be another way, through charity or something. Of course, there also might not. And that's the point, when people say they do not want government (and therefore themselves as taxpayers) to commit to paying for a thing, there is a chance that treatment will be denied because the money can't be raised, one way or another.

If a sufficient portion Americans decided that they wanted universal healthcare and gave up a certain portion of their monthly income they could probably pull it off without a single Catholic (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Zoroastrian) having to pay for something they are philosophically opposed to.

sebster wrote:Now, if people are happy with that, because they feel most people can afford it by themselves (a reasonable to make over most birth control) or because charity is likely to step in, then fair enough. But it means what it means.

What it doesn't mean is that being opposed to taxpayer-funded optional medications means that you think other poster's children should be denied life-saving medical intervention.

Monster Rain wrote:If a sufficient portion Americans decided that they wanted universal healthcare and gave up a certain portion of their monthly income they could probably pull it off without a single Catholic (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Zoroastrian) having to pay for something they are philosophically opposed to.

But the Catholics, Muslims and Zoroastrians* would still be paying for it, because they'd be paying taxes that go into. The same reasoning is used by people opposed to abortion to make the case that no taxpayer money should go towards abortion, and they won that argument by the way - by law no taxpayer funding can go towards abortion.

What it doesn't mean is that being opposed to taxpayer-funded optional medications means that you think other poster's children should be denied life-saving medical intervention.

It means if the money can't be found, he'd prefer it be denied than be paid for by taxpayers.



*I met one of them like two weeks ago. Well, I'd met him a few times before that but it was only two weeks ago I found out he was Zoroastrians. Apparently the worst thing is that they have to marry within the faith, but there's hardly any of them of them around, so it's really hard to meet someone. Which means I guess I'd be surprised if they were opposed to contraception, because they clearly need more babies in their religion.

sebster wrote:But the Catholics, Muslims and Zoroastrians* would still be paying for it, because they'd be paying taxes that go into.

That doesn't really follow what I said. I'm not talking about taxation. I'm talking about everyone who wants universal healthcare in the US could chip in some money every month to build a fund.

Apparently, 62% of people want to have some sort of universal health care. source

That's 186,000,000 people in the US. (300,000,000 X .62)

If all of these people chipped in 30 dollars a month (1 dollar per day) that's $66,969,000,000 per year. That would cover all of these birth control expenses and then some. Or do they think that everyone should have healthcare, but they shouldn't be responsible for the bill?

sebster wrote:It means if the money can't be found, he'd prefer it be denied than be paid for by taxpayers.

No, it means that the people who are directly involved in the issue would have to find some way to pay for it.

Monster Rain wrote:That doesn't really follow what I said. I'm not talking about taxation. I'm talking about everyone who wants universal healthcare in the US could chip in some money every month to build a fund.

Apparently, 62% of people want to have some sort of universal health care. source

That's 186,000,000 people in the US. (300,000,000 X .62)

If all of these people chipped in 30 dollars a month (1 dollar per day) that's $66,969,000,000 per year. That would cover all of these birth control expenses and then some. Or do they think that everyone should have healthcare, but they shouldn't be responsible for the bill?

I think you need to realise that's a really unique and completely unworkable version of universal healthcare. First up, the present cost to cover that many people in the US (so 62% of the 2.324 trillion spent on healthcare in 2010) is $1.441 trillion, which works out at $7,747 per person, or $646 a month.

Then there's a problem with opt in/opt out. If the scheme is willing to deny new members because of pre-existing conditions, then you end up with 'universal healthcare' that's exactly like what you've got now. Or you say you'll accept anyone, and you have a problem with people waiting until they're sick before they bother joining. At which point you realise in order to have healthcare that'll accept anyone, you need to make people pay into it before they're sick. At which point you get people complaining that they don't want to be forced into paying for health cover, or they don't want to be forced to pay for stuff they're opposed to.

No, it means that the people who are directly involved in the issue would have to find some way to pay for it.

You keep pretending that there is always some way to pay for healthcare, and that just fething isn't true. If they're 'lucky' they get the treatment and then default on the payments later on (at which point other people's treatment goes up to cover the loss, so they're paying anyway) and that person goes bankrupt, losing whatever they had.

And you can't pretend that doesn't happen. Before the GFC medical costs were the most common form of bankruptcy.

sebster wrote:I think you need to realise that's a really unique and completely unworkable version of universal healthcare. First up, the present cost to cover that many people in the US (so 62% of the 2.324 trillion spent on healthcare in 2010) is $1.441 trillion, which works out at $7,747 per person, or $646 a month.

Surely you realize that the number that would be spent solely on the uninsured would be less than that.

sebster wrote:Then there's a problem with opt in/opt out. If the scheme is willing to deny new members because of pre-existing conditions, then you end up with 'universal healthcare' that's exactly like what you've got now. Or you say you'll accept anyone, and you have a problem with people waiting until they're sick before they bother joining. At which point you realise in order to have healthcare that'll accept anyone, you need to make people pay into it before they're sick. At which point you get people complaining that they don't want to be forced into paying for health cover, or they don't want to be forced to pay for stuff they're opposed to.

I don't know why we're talking about pre-existing conditions all of a sudden.

sebster wrote:You keep pretending that there is always some way to pay for healthcare, and that just fething isn't true.

If it costs money it can be paid for, right? Isn't that what insurance does?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The old "Your freedom to more your arm ends where my nose begins."

Why should I recognize that principle?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
You cant keep changing the rules of the discussion. Are we talking about rights or morals?

There isn't much of a distinction, unless you're speaking only to the Constitution, at which point we're really just having a legal argument. I do, however, generally subscribe to the notion that rights are contingent upon rough social consensus. If you cannot convince anyone that you have a right, then you don't have that right, but the convincing is still the result of a moral, or ethical, argument.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Religions have rights (See First Amendment, free practice). You may disagree with that and want to change it. But in a discussion about law, the law is relevant.

The only rights religions, specifically, have is to have no law made with respect to their establishment. In the broadest sense this means not only that there can be no official US religion, but that no law can specifically target a religion. This does not mean that practices that some people feel obligated to engage for a religious reason cannot be made illegal in a general sense. If it did, no law making would be possible.

Are law prohibiting murder, assault, and battery Unconstitutional because many Muslims feel they are religiously obligated to engage in violent Jihad?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The "love it or leave it" is better stated as"Freedom for both parties". Freedom for the person to obtain whatever insurance they like and freedom for religions to believe what they want and act on those beliefs.

Any given party is free to oppose a position if they so desire, if they lose the ensuing conflict they are free to find redress in a subsequent conflict, or a continuation of the first conflict. It is not possible for all people to have an equivalent degree of freedom, where freedom is the ability to do a thing unopposed.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The funny thing about the last part you said (the "Kill and take" ) that is what is happening here in a way. People want to kill the catholic faith and force it to pay for "sin" (not that I agree that it is sin, to be clear)

No one is "killing" the Catholic faith. The objection to birth control is ignored by most Catholics, and isn't heavily grounded in the faith (Why is a condom bad, while NFP is fine?. Further, the prohibition is against the use of birth control, not the purchase of insurance covering its use. And, as I said up thread, if this were really a moral objection to supporting the ability of people to access birth control, then the Church should be campaigning against all insurance, because doubtlessly some portion of the premiums paid by Catholics inevitably fund birth control for others.

Point 1) Why should anyone else have to pay for contraception. People don't have a right to have sex and no one died from lack of sex.

Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.

Phototoxin wrote:Point 1) Why should anyone else have to pay for contraception. People don't have a right to have sex and no one died from lack of sex.

Why should pacifists have to pay for the military? Why should people with no children help pay for public schools? Why should people who want pot legalized have to help fund police forces that raid and arrest people for smoking pot. Why should people who don't give two gaks about anyone other than themselves have to help foot the cost of a poor person who is hit by a car and is sent to an emergency room? I could go on all night.

The fact is that since it isn't just 12 of us living in a village together there are some things we are going to pay for in taxes we may not choose to on our own, but it also allows to pay for things we do want as well. The Catholic Church isn't being forced to hand out condoms in the church, but their business interests have to give the option to it's employees to allow a third party insurance company to help cover family planning costs if they choose to avail them of such. Just being a religion doesn't mean you get absolutely everything you want at all times in a pluralistic society. I personally don't think Churches should be tax exampt in the slightest but I'm ok with accepting that it is a reasonable thing to do, for a lot of reasons. Still, if it were up to me they would lose all those benefits.

Phototoxin wrote:Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.

Some people aren't seeking not to get pregnant. Just becuase a woman can use BCPs doesn't mean she is being forced to take them. Just becuase a man can wear a condom doesn't mean he has to.

Sex is a highly complicated biological and psychological event and sometimes smart people get caught up and make mistakes.

Some people aren't informed and actual information on safe sex is sometimes even purposely withheld becuase it is controversial to teach.

And then of course some people are just stupid and don't take anything into consideration beyond getting laid.

Also, that isn't ironic at all, and your misuse of ironic isn't ironic either.

Phototoxin wrote:

Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.

I didn't realize getting pregnant or having sex was an objective sin.

Phototoxin wrote:Point 1) Why should anyone else have to pay for contraception. People don't have a right to have sex and no one died from lack of sex.

A woman can die, or at the very least become an unproductive member of society, from lacking the birth control pill due to the pill's effects on the woman's biology not being exclusively linked to birth control.

It's a common point of ignorance amongst much of the population (especially the male half ,but not exclusively) that birth control pills are only there for birth control.

Phototoxin wrote:Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.

That's not ironic.

Phototoxin wrote:Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.

LOL. Man, you are a riot, my friend.