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.

Although I think you do bring up a point with regards to homosexual couples without kids paying a higher tax rate than heterosexual couples (as part of the tax cut is supposed to assist with the financial burden that children represent), I think you also have to have the same caveat for heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.

sourclams wrote: heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.

Awww damn.

sourclams wrote:Although I think you do bring up a point with regards to homosexual couples without kids paying a higher tax rate than heterosexual couples (as part of the tax cut is supposed to assist with the financial burden that children represent), I think you also have to have the same caveat for heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.

I agree with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Piston Honda wrote:

rockerbikie wrote: I have never seen a Straight Pride festival.

Well we have football an event filled with heterosexual testosterone and and cheerleaders in tight skimpy clothing,

I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.

Aww crap. Why didn't Micheal Savage warn me of this?

Look at it this way, Western Countries are the only "Multi-Cultural" Countries on the earth, isn't it our turn to show them our culture?

rockerbikie wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.

That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.

So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.

Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black. Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights, I have never seen a Straight Pride festival. I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I? I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids. I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.

So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.

rockerbikie wrote:
Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black.

I think this is the first time ive agreed with something dakka's resident neo nazi says, but here is some food for thought. According to the press, Patrice Evra admitted starting the argument with Luis Suazrez by mocking his sister and calling her a slut. Suarez responded by referring to the color of his skin and was banned for 3 months and heavily fined, no punishment was given to Patrice Evra.

Im not one to agree with racist people generally, but I do think the fear of being labelled a bigot does allows some overly harsh punishment of the majority to occur without criticism.

Patrice Evra should be sucking on the same punishment for what is essentially nothing more than name calling surely?

hotsauceman1 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.

That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.

So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.

Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black. Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights, I have never seen a Straight Pride festival. I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I? I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids. I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.

So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? [b]To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.[/b]

What you said doesn't make any sense. That's basically implying Heterosexual people don't deserve right because they have not been oppressed. Your setence doesn't make sense.

hotsauceman1 wrote:So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.

You clearly have never been married.

rockerbikie wrote:


Look at it this way, Western Countries are the only "Multi-Cultural" Countries on the earth, isn't it our turn to show them our culture?

No one is stopping you. Where I live (upstate New York) European ancestory is celebrated often.

June we have an Italian festival.

July is Greek.

October is German.

Russian is in August.

Just about everyone gets Columbus day off unless you work in retail and there is a parade.

St. Patrick's day is very stereotypical in my area. Everyone gets drunk and eats corned beef and wears green hats. I've been told St. Pat's day is bigger in the states than it is in Ireland. Is that true?

Up north a bit in Syracuse area there is the Scottish games and festival. You can watch very strong white guys toss logs while drinking beer from your new wooden mug.

I enjoy attending all these festivals but some of the cultural music is a bit painful.

The closest thing in my area that has a festival celebrating minorities is MLK day, and 10 people plus the mayor show up for that.

Unless there is a law prohibiting you from celebrating you cultural heritage I don't see the issue. Perhaps you should orchestrate you own festival? It takes a lot of work, it does not happen out of thin air.

None of the events I have attended or even helped at are run or funded by the government nor has there been any federal intervention stopping us.

I'm sure the same goes parades involving minorities.

The only real requirement is the same at any major event with a lot of people in attendance. Security/police, ambulance, proper route for fire engines, etc.

Piston Honda wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:


Look at it this way, Western Countries are the only "Multi-Cultural" Countries on the earth, isn't it our turn to show them our culture?

No one is stopping you. Where I live (upstate New York) European ancestory is celebrated often.

June we have an Italian festival.

July is Greek.

October is German.

Russian is in August.

Just about everyone gets Columbus day off unless you work in retail and there is a parade.

St. Patrick's day is very stereotypical in my area. Everyone gets drunk and eats corned beef and wears green hats. I've been told St. Pat's day is bigger in the states than it is in Ireland. Is that true?

Up north a bit in Syracuse area there is the Scottish games and festival. You can watch very strong white guys toss logs while drinking beer from your new wooden mug.

I enjoy attending all these festivals but some of the cultural music is a bit painful.

The closest thing in my area that has a festival celebrating minorities is MLK day, and 10 people plus the mayor show up for that.

Unless there is a law prohibiting you from celebrating you cultural heritage I don't see the issue. Perhaps you should orchestrate you own festival? It takes a lot of work, it does not happen out of thin air.

None of the events I have attended or even helped at are run or funded by the government nor has there been any federal intervention stopping us.

I'm sure the same goes parades involving minorities.

The only real requirement is the same at any major event with a lot of people in attendance. Security/police, ambulance, proper route for fire engines, etc.

I should of been more specific. There should be Multicultirsm happening in the Middle-east, Part of Asia, Africa and South America. There is only a Portuguese Club and a German Club where I live by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black.

I think this is the first time ive agreed with something dakka's resident neo nazi says, but here is some food for thought. According to the press, Patrice Evra admitted starting the argument with Luis Suazrez by mocking his sister and calling her a slut. Suarez responded by referring to the color of his skin and was banned for 3 months and heavily fined, no punishment was given to Patrice Evra.

Im not one to agree with racist people generally, but I do think the fear of being labelled a bigot does allows some overly harsh punishment of the majority to occur without criticism.

Patrice Evra should be sucking on the same punishment for what is essentially nothing more than name calling surely?

Yeah, I agree. I have asian friends and other friends from other ethnicies. We make jokes about each other ethnicies. That's not racism. Rascism still happens but it is dealt way too harshly in my opinion. An apology should be compulsary but a Match fine, that is pure foolishness.

rockerbikie wrote:
What you said doesn't make any sense. That's basically implying Heterosexual people don't deserve right because they have not been oppressed. Your setence doesn't make sense.

What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.
Also how the Heck are heterosexuals bein oppresed? its not like you cant marry who you wish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.

You clearly have never been married.

Nor do i plan to. While i think that marriage is something al deserve it doesnt appeal to me. Why get married and have a family when i dont have to anymore.
I also think having kds in ths day and age is irresponsible because it just adds to a overburdened society

hotsauceman1 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
What you said doesn't make any sense. That's basically implying Heterosexual people don't deserve right because they have not been oppressed. Your setence doesn't make sense.

What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.
Also how the Heck are heterosexuals bein oppresed? its not like you cant marry who you wish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.

You clearly have never been married.

Nor do i plan to. While i think that marriage is something al deserve it doesnt appeal to me. Why get married and have a family when i dont have to anymore.
I also think having kds in ths day and age is irresponsible because it just adds to a overburdened society

What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
What you said doesn't make any sense. That's basically implying Heterosexual people don't deserve right because they have not been oppressed. Your setence doesn't make sense.

What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.
Also how the Heck are heterosexuals bein oppresed? its not like you cant marry who you wish.

Thats nonsense. Everyone has rights or no one has rights. Reverse discimrination occurs in other fields. No reason to think it wouldn't or hasn't happened in this field either.

You clearly have never been married.

Nor do i plan to. While i think that marriage is something al deserve it doesnt appeal to me. Why get married and have a family when i dont have to anymore.
I also think having kds in ths day and age is irresponsible because it just adds to a overburdened society

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you vote Democratic...

rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.

Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.

Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.

You do know that without kids the race, er, ends right? Or are you just against breeders in general?

As the immortal bard once said: "Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."

hotsauceman1 wrote:What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.

What the heck are you talking about? Heterosexuals may not have been oppressed as a group, but they certainly still have rights.

Leaving your question for others, because that's just a flamewar waiting to happen.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I also think having kds in ths day and age is irresponsible because it just adds to a overburdened society

The US birthrate is at an all-time low, slightly below replacement level. Other western countries are exhibiting similar low birth rates. Japan is in terrible shape, averaging just over 1 child per woman.

These demographics pose two problems: first, and most obviously, the potential destruction of a people; and second, a disastrous effect on the welfare obligations to older generations (or younger, depending on who wins that fight). The no-kids (or 1-kid) viewpoint is not just wrong, it's dangerous.

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.

Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.

You do know that without kids the race, er, ends right? Or are you just against breeders in general?

As the immortal bard once said: "Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."

I just think we need to not have so many. The earth was not built to house us like this. The earth was not a living entiety that fresees everything. Everything is finite.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.

Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.

What you are saying that Heterosexuals shouldn't have rights yet you promote LBGTQIA? I am using logic in this situation, Modern Science will keep this world alive if we change to more efficent ways of energy. Technology got us there. Reproduction did not. We should not just kill the human race by not reproducing. If I am reborn in this realm, I want to be human again. Sorry to poke this out, your spelling is atrocious. Your arguments is going around in circles and going nowhere. I am not propagating fear in any way what soever. You are accusing me of something I did not do and victimizing yourself when it isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Your double standards by saying Heterosexuals can't have rights in contradictory and very foolish indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.

Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.

You do know that without kids the race, er, ends right? Or are you just against breeders in general?

As the immortal bard once said: "Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."

I just think we need to not have so many. The earth was not built to house us like this. The earth was not a living entiety that fresees everything. Everything is finite.

We will survive. Modern Science will prevail.

And if we don't who cares? The Earth doesn't. It doesn't even notice.

Frazzled wrote:And if we don't who cares? The Earth doesn't. It doesn't even notice.

the earth is watch you all the time.

the earth watches you poop.

Piston Honda wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And if we don't who cares? The Earth doesn't. It doesn't even notice.

the earth is watch you all the time.

the earth watches you poop.

make this happen please.

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.

What the heck are you talking about? Heterosexuals may not have been oppressed as a group, but they certainly still have rights.

Ok, I think i am misrepresenting myself here. Ofcourse heterosexuals have rights. What 'im saying is the term "Gay Rights" is not the same as heterosexual rights. "Gay rights" and many ofther thrms like it are used for people who have been deenied rights because of how they where born. Heterosexuals have never been oppressed or denied anything so th term "Heterosexual Rights" cant be used. And no one is tryng to say you cant marry

rockerbikie wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.

That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.

So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.

Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black. Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights, I have never seen a Straight Pride festival. I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I? I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids. I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.

Well gosh, I mean where to begin? Need I bother? These are the ramblings of someone who doesn't appreciate what being disadvantaged actually means. Gays seem to 'have a lot of rights', well yes they have many of the same human rights as every ones, what they don't have are equal right sin all things. Perhaps you suggest they should be happy with their lot and consider themselves lucky they are given the freedoms they already have?

Heterosexuals don't need 'straight pride' because they already have the same rights and more than people of other orientations. What do they need to raise awareness about? You need incentives other than "justice for homosexuals", ie you only agree with equality if they pay higher tax. Yeah whatever, well maybe in your tiny world, but actually lots of people don't have kids because they chose not to or can't for medical reasons. But tax them all higher?? I can't believe this is a serious suggestion.

And white heterosexuals are "going right down and being censored as alarmingly high rates" is just pathetically crying victim-hood, where do you get this crap from? White heterosexuals have a very easy time of it. Black people are still disproportionately targeted for stop and searches by police sadly there's still a lot of racial prejudice around and homosexuals are still discriminated against in various ways beyond marriage, eg. they can't donate blood.

Maybe heterosexuals do need more rights, perhaps you'd like to describe some you think you are lacking. I don't feel particularly hard done by myself, I suppose the only thing that comes to mind is that if a straight man gets a divorce there's a bias towards the woman winning custody of any children. But that's a gender equality issue not an orientation one. But I don't see a valid reason to prevent bringing homosexual rights to the same level as heterosexuals.

Frazzled wrote:"Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."

Except we aren't talking about different species. Humans of different ethnic backgrounds are still human, so if it is just about the species we are doing fine, considering we have morre humans alive at this point than any other in known history. The species, as it were, is doing fine.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:"Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."

Except we aren't talking about different species. Humans of different ethnic backgrounds are still human, so if it is just about the species we are doing fine, considering we have morre humans alive at this point than any other in known history. The species, as it were, is doing fine.

Yep. until the asteroids start hitting our cities, then its all "bugs are bombing this" and "bugs are bombing that." Don't say you haven't been warned...

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:"Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."

Except we aren't talking about different species. Humans of different ethnic backgrounds are still human, so if it is just about the species we are doing fine, considering we have morre humans alive at this point than any other in known history. The species, as it were, is doing fine.

Yep. until the asteroids start hitting our cities, then its all "bugs are bombing this" and "bugs are bombing that." Don't say you haven't been warned...

I'm nowhere near Rio so I'm feeling pretty good about my chances.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:"Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."

Except we aren't talking about different species. Humans of different ethnic backgrounds are still human, so if it is just about the species we are doing fine, considering we have morre humans alive at this point than any other in known history. The species, as it were, is doing fine.

Yep. until the asteroids start hitting our cities, then its all "bugs are bombing this" and "bugs are bombing that." Don't say you haven't been warned...

I'm nowhere near Rio so I'm feeling pretty good about my chances.

You say thatm, but the Bugs could always miss.

biccat wrote: The no-kids (or 1-kid) viewpoint is not just wrong, it's dangerous.

Are you arguing that its wrong to not have, or want, children?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote: The no-kids (or 1-kid) viewpoint is not just wrong, it's dangerous.

Are you arguing that its wrong to not have, or want, children?

Sounds like they're referring to the one child policy that China's following if anything? 0.o

But yeah, overpopulation's a bitch.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote: The no-kids (or 1-kid) viewpoint is not just wrong, it's dangerous.

Are you arguing that its wrong to not have, or want, children?

Depends entirely on what obligation you feel to the species as a whole.

Personally, I feel that depriving future generations of my genetic awesomeness would be a major loss for the species.

More to the point, I'm saying that it's wrong to promote childlessness.