So what if all the pharmacists in a deeply Christian county decided to get together and stop selling morning-after pills. Let's say there were only 4 pharmacies in a 100 mile radius area, so this scenerio is not that unlikely. Would this be ok?
If they got together to decide it? no -- but thats becasue of anti-trust and non-competative issues.
If it was coincedence? yes. it would be fine.
Its going to be extremely difficult for you to show me (or anyone else for that matter) that the morning after pill is anything but an elective convenience. So fart nothing has been posted to try and show its a necessity. Because its not.
Morning after pill can be medically necessary. Say, for example, someone doesn't want to get pregnant. Pregnancy is a very dangerous and taxing process. Preventing something that is likely to cause a great number of medical problems is something medically necessary.
It's not limiting one's freedom if they chose that line of work. A firefighter can't decide not to fight a fire because he believes that the person burning was deserving of that. It doesn't matter if the person inadvertently caused the fire, the firefighter puts it out.
I'll refer back to every group that has ever led another 'evil' group to genocide. From my seat, the liberals. . .oh I mean progressives position is this:
YOU MUST THINK AS I SAY. Anything else is evil.
While the conservative position . . . oh I mean the evil position is this:
Do as you want, just don't make me do as you want.
Let's just throw a tiny bit of reality in here shall we?
The fact I can't go home and smoke a joint is mainly because of conservatives. Also, I can't walk around the mall naked. I can't marry a man. I can't declare my homosexuality and join our military. I can't hire a prostitute. None of these affect you AT ALL.
If it were up to "conservatives", I wouldn't be able to have an abortion I wouldn't be able stop my children from attending mandatory prayer classes in public school. I couldn't burn an American flag on my property. And I couldn't perform homosexual acts ANYWHERE.
So this whole "Do as you want, just don't make me do as you want" conservative argument is the biggest piece of hypocrisy I think I've ever seen.
Let's just throw a tiny bit of reality in here shall we?
The fact I can't go home and smoke a joint is mainly because of conservatives. Also, I can't walk around the mall naked. I can't marry a man. I can't declare my homosexuality and join our military. I can't hire a prostitute. None of these affect you AT ALL.
If it were up to "conservatives", I wouldn't be able to have an abortion I wouldn't be able stop my children from attending mandatory prayer classes in public school. I couldn't burn an American flag on my property. And I couldn't perform homosexual acts ANYWHERE.
So this whole "Do as you want, just don't make me do as you want" conservative argument is the biggest piece of hypocrisy I think I've ever seen.
Its also one that not a single person in this thread has ever posed.
What you just posted is the quintessential straw man.
Actually, early in my life I realized you can't legislate morals. Hence I don't think the way you posted.
I do believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated.
I do believe that any sex between 18 year olds should be allowed (sans mentally infirm).
I do believe that very likely that burden of keeping pot illegal outweights the burdens introduced if pot was legalized. Like alcohol, nicotine and caffiene, there will be unintended consequences once legalized; however, like prohibition it appears that outlawing pot has failed.
I don't believe that homosexual partners should be afforded marriage; however, I do believe that ANY person should be allowed to grant to another person a power of attorney that confers marriatal rights (medical, inheritance, insurance, etc): with the strong restriction of if you're married you may not grant a marrital POA and vice versa. Realistically this would allow states to keep marriage as between a man and woman, keep closed multiple spouse issues (see mormans), keep close town marriage, while affording legal rights to the citizens. Also, if this new poa is created, I would like to see it invoked at every marriage. Too many people get married way too quickly. It lessens the institution.
I think that abortion after brain development is akin to murder. I also believe that the rest of the world will eventually agree and all those pro-choice person today will be morally judged with the same brush as those americans in the 1700 and 1800 how thought it was morally just to own another human.
Military access is a right of the Congress, not the citizen. There does not appear to be much in the Constitution nor its ammendments that limit that right.
So uhm, no. I think that you're the one imposing views on others here. You want your hatred of religion to be the law of the land. You want restrictions on an individuals moral compass. You want their freedoms restricted because they do not aline with your own. In short you are a despot.
Lol. Serves me right. I'm sorry, I should of never responded to you. Your line of thinking is just a little too outside the norm to have a rational debate. However, you must not be too in touch with the conservative movement in this cournty. Because if you were, you would know that all those things you said you believed are not shared by the majority of conservatives. I do happen to watch Fox news occasionally lol.
Anyways, I think I've debated you some time back and I got an infraction for it. So I will just leave this one alone. You win.
Yea, someone who didn't post at all what you called hypocritical.
He said "Do as you want, just don't make me do as you want". This strongly implies he believes the conservatives (which he claims to be one) don't limit personal freedoms. I argued conservatives have a LONG history of limiting personal freedoms, and cited a list. That was the point of the reply. I'm still not sure what you don't get?
He said "Do as you want, just don't make me do as you want". This strongly implies he believes the conservatives (which he claims to be one) don't limit personal freedoms. I argued conservatives have a LONG history of limiting personal freedoms, and cited a list. That was the point of the reply. I'm still not sure what you don't get?
I "got" what you were saying perfectly. What you were saying was a strawman and didn't help further your argument against him in any way.
Kind of like a boob job is necessary for someone who doesn't want to live with the embarrassment of small boobs?
You think pregnancy is that trivial a process? You seriously don't know of any reason why a pregnancy might be dangerous to a person's health? Take a health class, read a book, heck, I'll be satisfied if you watch some shows on TLC, but inform yourself.
And you know what, if your "moral compass" requires that you force your beliefs on others, beliefs that you cannot support, then we have every right to ridicule and belittle them.
I don't believe that homosexual partners should be afforded marriage; however, I do believe that ANY person should be allowed to grant to another person a power of attorney that confers marriatal rights (medical, inheritance, insurance, etc): with the strong restriction of if you're married you may not grant a marrital POA and vice versa. Realistically this would allow states to keep marriage as between a man and woman, keep closed multiple spouse issues (see mormans), keep close town marriage, while affording legal rights to the citizens. Also, if this new poa is created, I would like to see it invoked at every marriage. Too many people get married way too quickly. It lessens the institution.
This would only work if government got out of Marriage entirely. Which I agree it should. Government should grant legal civil partnerships to any consenting adults, but that is it. Let your marriage be between you, your deity and your church, whatever they may be. If some Christian denomination wants to grant gays religious marriages, that's their right. If the government wants to encourage child rearing, let them grant benefits for having children, not for getting hitched.
Also I do not see why the government should be able to control Polygamy. You can take care of the fundamentalist Mormon's with other laws like rape, incest and so forth. If 3 or more consenting adults want to have a civil union, so be it. There is no legitimate reason to deny them. They can easily live together and sleep together regardless.
I think that abortion after brain development is akin to murder. I also believe that the rest of the world will eventually agree and all those pro-choice person today will be morally judged with the same brush as those americans in the 1700 and 1800 how thought it was morally just to own another human.
Until the day when a fetus can be removed with no ill effect to the woman and kept alive in vitro, abortion will be a necessary option. You cannot force a person to keep a living thing inside them. The harm of attempting to do so in the form of illegal and self performed abortions as well as emotional trauma far outweigh the supposed benefits of prohibiting it. Is it an ideal solution, No. For now though it is the best we can do when prevention fails. Forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term is tantamount to torture. Do not tell me they had the choice not to have sex. Women are the only one's who bear this consequence to failed prevention. Saying women have to have sex on your terms is incredibly sexist.
So uhm, no. I think that you're the one imposing views on others here. You want your hatred of religion to be the law of the land. You want restrictions on an individuals moral compass. You want their freedoms restricted because they do not aline with your own. In short you are a despot.
I don't hate religion, in fact I hold many aspects of many religions in high regard. I hate the fact that people hold all the bad ideas just as sacred and refuse to rationally confront the flaws in their religious beliefs and accept the influence of man on their holy scriptures. God did not pen your holy books for you, men did. The books are full of good and bad ideas.
I want people to have to behave in accordance with the role they try to fulfill. "An abortion is elective" is your decision based on your religious beliefs. I do not consider abortions elective, yes you can choose to abort or not to abort, but it is rarely a choice that is not made up by the situation you are in. Comparing an abortion to breast augmentation just shows how incredibly sexist your argument is. Is an abortion life saving if it keeps your abusive spouse from killing you? Is an abortion life saving if it keeps you from dropping out of school and wasting the next 18 years of your life?
It is the religious right that wants to push its perspective on everyone, when anyone fights back and says leave your religion at home and do the job you signed up for they raise a fuss.
Your line of thinking is just a little too outside the norm to have a rational debate.
At least all of his statements are facts. He DOES believe those things.
From a brief glace of your posts, many of your statements are objectively wrong.
Where do you live that says you can't burn a flag on your property?
How can you claim naked people don't make people react differently than clothed people?
What proof do you have that the views of Fox News are representative of the "majority of conservatives?"
Do you plan on backing up any of these statements, because everything I know says they're just plain wrong.
Depends on how many pharmacies available. As far as I know, the US isn't that densely pharmacied to provide this luxuary.
It is. There are pharmacies everywhere. They are in just about every single super market. Off the top of my head I can probably name 10-15 pharmacies within a 10 minute drive of where I live. Walk into a Wal-Mart....there's one. CVS, ditto. Kroger, there's another. Then, there are multiples of those stores within 5 minutes of each other. No wonder everyone drives so poorly. We are all on drugs.
Edit: To stay on topic. Yes, intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance. The only difference between classic intolerance and the form described is that classic intolerance is not socially acceptable. It is still intolerance though.
Um... you walking around the mall naked would affect me.
Only because you let it affect you. What's the difference between seeing somebody with green hair and seeing somebody naked? In many cultures, it is the norm to walk around naked.
Quote from Taylor »
Um... yes, you can.
But, along that same vain should I be allowed to burn ANYTHING on my property?
You obviously failed to read the beginning of that paragraph where I stated "If it were up to conservatives".
Quote from Taylor »
Where do you live that says you can't burn a flag on your property?
See previous answer. Also, try finding a poll of whether conservatives favor the right to burn American flags. If you want me to google and link, I would be more than happy to.
Quote from Taylor »
How can you claim naked people don't make people react differently than clothed people?
I'm not saying they don't. But I am saying the reaction is one based completely off of cultural norms. There is no scientific or other logical based reasons anyone should have a negative reaction to seeing someone else naked. It's mainly because our society has somehow turned it bad.
Quote from Taylor »
What proof do you have that the views of Fox News are representative of the "majority of conservatives?"
Once again, if you don't know that Fox news has a very heavy conservative bias, I'm not sure how to debate you.
Quote from Taylor »
Do you plan on backing up any of these statements, because everything I know says they're just plain wrong.
Do you have any proof of what I'm saying is not wrong? I bet I can show you more proof it isn't.
Once again, if you don't know that Fox news has a very heavy conservative bias, I'm not sure how to debate you.
You're sidestepping his point on this. He asked "what makes you think Fox news represents the majority of conservatives" And you said "Fox news has a conservative bias"
That seems like an answer to his questions, but its not. Most people here would acknowledge that fox news is not "merely" conservative, but rather trends to the extreme right side of conservatism. Pushing what it says most likely beyond the realm of waht the "average" conservative thinks.
You're sidestepping his point on this. He asked "what makes you think Fox news represents the majority of conservatives" And you said "Fox news has a conservative bias"
That seems like an answer to his questions, but its not. Most people here would acknowledge that fox news is not "merely" conservative, but rather trends to the extreme right side of conservatism. Pushing what it says most likely beyond the realm of waht the "average" conservative thinks.
Ok. I'm going to provide two links.
If you want to know whether conservatives oppose the right to burn the american flag, here is a great link from a conservative source.
You think pregnancy is that trivial a process? You seriously don't know of any reason why a pregnancy might be dangerous to a person's health? Take a health class, read a book, heck, I'll be satisfied if you watch some shows on TLC, but inform yourself.
1) My wife and I are curently expecting a child, I'm aware of what a pregnancy involves (although not as much as she is, clearly).
2) I know that pregnancy can be a health risk. Thats not the issue here. People aren't going to a pharmacy for the morning after pill in order to stop a risky pregnancy. By the time someone knows they are pregnant the morning after pill is too late.
And you know what, if your "moral compass" requires that you force your beliefs on others, beliefs that you cannot support, then we have every right to ridicule and belittle them.
What part of me not providing you with the morning after pill is me forcing you not to take it? I'm not preventing you from getting it from someone else. I'm terribly sorry that you have to drive another 5 minutes to the next drug store, I wasn't aware that your convenience was a fundamental right that outweighed my freedom of religion.
Edit: lets also not confuse things here, we're talking about the narrow issue of the morning after pill specifically, not abortions in general. If you want to talk about that we can as well, but thats not what we've been talking about up to this point.
Edit: lets also not confuse things here, we're talking about the narrow issue of the morning after pill specifically, not abortions in general. If you want to talk about that we can as well, but thats not what we've been talking about up to this point.
Quote from bLatch#25 »
Nobody. Nobody is taking the morning after pill because of a medical necessity. They are taking it because they want an abortion. In what way is a law allowing a pharmacist the freedom to refrain from enabling a non-medically necessary act a limitation on freedoms?
Actually, you are the one who turned this into a talk about abortions...
Actually, you are the one who turned this into a talk about abortions...
With regard to the morning after pill. Specifically. It's right there in the sentence. You even quoted it! If you want to try and lie and say I was talking about the broader subject you may want to edit that bit of my quote out.
I don't get you at all. I am a Christian. I dislike sin as a whole. That includes people who make a living in the sex industry. People whose job is to get people drunk. People who keep score on the hundreds of women they've bedded. In that same vein I dislike homosexuality.
You are against one group oppressing the freedoms of another. This means that while you are personally against the sex industry, drunks, and homosexuals; you support their freedom to do so?
With regard to the morning after pill. Specifically. It's right there in the sentence. You even quoted it! If you want to try and lie and say I was talking about the broader subject you may want to edit that bit of my quote out.
Lied? Really? I'm just saying you are the first person in this thread to use the word abortion.
You are against one group oppressing the freedoms of another. This means that while you are personally against the sex industry, drunks, and homosexuals; you support their freedom to do so?
Did you read his post? He made his stance on each of those issues pretty clear.
Whoa, wait, Netherlands requires a certain level of proficiency in Dutch before people are allowed to immigrate? That's kind of lame. My family didn't speak any English when we immigrated to the US.
The nude beaches and lesbians making out, I'm on board with that one.
Oh, and I'm cool with intolerance, as long as it's of stuff I don't like. There's nothing immoral about intolerance per se.
Only because you let it affect you. What's the difference between seeing somebody with green hair and seeing somebody naked? In many cultures, it is the norm to walk around naked.
Well, by that same argument, you "let yourself" feel pain if I was to poke you with a pin.
My reaction to curtain stimuli is completely involuntary on my part. Some people might be immune to pain, or naked people, I am not.
See previous answer. Also, try finding a poll of whether conservatives favor the right to burn American flags. If you want me to google and link, I would be more than happy to.
I'm not saying they don't. But I am saying the reaction is one based completely off of cultural norms.
So, you would be, for example, all for me raping my dog on my lawn? I mean, sounds like that's something we don't like based just on our 'cultural norms.' And I do own my lawn, and my dog, and no "person" would be hurt.
There is no scientific or other logical based reasons anyone should have a negative reaction to seeing someone else naked. It's mainly because our society has somehow turned it bad.
I guess the same could be said about ANY form of imagery.
Should I be allowed to have an aborted fetus picture and shove it in people's faces? Or do people have the right to go to work without having to see that?
If they got together to decide it? no -- but thats becasue of anti-trust and non-competative issues.
If it was coincedence? yes. it would be fine.
Its going to be extremely difficult for you to show me (or anyone else for that matter) that the morning after pill is anything but an elective convenience. So fart nothing has been posted to try and show its a necessity. Because its not.
It's not limiting one's freedom if they chose that line of work. A firefighter can't decide not to fight a fire because he believes that the person burning was deserving of that. It doesn't matter if the person inadvertently caused the fire, the firefighter puts it out.
Kind of like a boob job is necessary for someone who doesn't want to live with the embarrassment of small boobs?
Let's just throw a tiny bit of reality in here shall we?
The fact I can't go home and smoke a joint is mainly because of conservatives. Also, I can't walk around the mall naked. I can't marry a man. I can't declare my homosexuality and join our military. I can't hire a prostitute. None of these affect you AT ALL.
If it were up to "conservatives", I wouldn't be able to have an abortion I wouldn't be able stop my children from attending mandatory prayer classes in public school. I couldn't burn an American flag on my property. And I couldn't perform homosexual acts ANYWHERE.
So this whole "Do as you want, just don't make me do as you want" conservative argument is the biggest piece of hypocrisy I think I've ever seen.
Its also one that not a single person in this thread has ever posed.
What you just posted is the quintessential straw man.
Uhmm. Did you not see my quote? I was responding to someone on the previous page.
Yea, someone who didn't post at all what you called hypocritical.
Lol. Serves me right. I'm sorry, I should of never responded to you. Your line of thinking is just a little too outside the norm to have a rational debate. However, you must not be too in touch with the conservative movement in this cournty. Because if you were, you would know that all those things you said you believed are not shared by the majority of conservatives. I do happen to watch Fox news occasionally lol.
Anyways, I think I've debated you some time back and I got an infraction for it. So I will just leave this one alone. You win.
He said "Do as you want, just don't make me do as you want". This strongly implies he believes the conservatives (which he claims to be one) don't limit personal freedoms. I argued conservatives have a LONG history of limiting personal freedoms, and cited a list. That was the point of the reply. I'm still not sure what you don't get?
Double post merged and warned.
I "got" what you were saying perfectly. What you were saying was a strawman and didn't help further your argument against him in any way.
Well dang. I thought it did. Sorry to flood this thread with useless garble (is that a word?).
And you know what, if your "moral compass" requires that you force your beliefs on others, beliefs that you cannot support, then we have every right to ridicule and belittle them.
This would only work if government got out of Marriage entirely. Which I agree it should. Government should grant legal civil partnerships to any consenting adults, but that is it. Let your marriage be between you, your deity and your church, whatever they may be. If some Christian denomination wants to grant gays religious marriages, that's their right. If the government wants to encourage child rearing, let them grant benefits for having children, not for getting hitched.
Also I do not see why the government should be able to control Polygamy. You can take care of the fundamentalist Mormon's with other laws like rape, incest and so forth. If 3 or more consenting adults want to have a civil union, so be it. There is no legitimate reason to deny them. They can easily live together and sleep together regardless.
Until the day when a fetus can be removed with no ill effect to the woman and kept alive in vitro, abortion will be a necessary option. You cannot force a person to keep a living thing inside them. The harm of attempting to do so in the form of illegal and self performed abortions as well as emotional trauma far outweigh the supposed benefits of prohibiting it. Is it an ideal solution, No. For now though it is the best we can do when prevention fails. Forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term is tantamount to torture. Do not tell me they had the choice not to have sex. Women are the only one's who bear this consequence to failed prevention. Saying women have to have sex on your terms is incredibly sexist.
I don't hate religion, in fact I hold many aspects of many religions in high regard. I hate the fact that people hold all the bad ideas just as sacred and refuse to rationally confront the flaws in their religious beliefs and accept the influence of man on their holy scriptures. God did not pen your holy books for you, men did. The books are full of good and bad ideas.
I want people to have to behave in accordance with the role they try to fulfill. "An abortion is elective" is your decision based on your religious beliefs. I do not consider abortions elective, yes you can choose to abort or not to abort, but it is rarely a choice that is not made up by the situation you are in. Comparing an abortion to breast augmentation just shows how incredibly sexist your argument is. Is an abortion life saving if it keeps your abusive spouse from killing you? Is an abortion life saving if it keeps you from dropping out of school and wasting the next 18 years of your life?
It is the religious right that wants to push its perspective on everyone, when anyone fights back and says leave your religion at home and do the job you signed up for they raise a fuss.
But, along that same vain should I be allowed to burn ANYTHING on my property?
At least all of his statements are facts. He DOES believe those things.
From a brief glace of your posts, many of your statements are objectively wrong.
Where do you live that says you can't burn a flag on your property?
How can you claim naked people don't make people react differently than clothed people?
What proof do you have that the views of Fox News are representative of the "majority of conservatives?"
Do you plan on backing up any of these statements, because everything I know says they're just plain wrong.
It is. There are pharmacies everywhere. They are in just about every single super market. Off the top of my head I can probably name 10-15 pharmacies within a 10 minute drive of where I live. Walk into a Wal-Mart....there's one. CVS, ditto. Kroger, there's another. Then, there are multiples of those stores within 5 minutes of each other. No wonder everyone drives so poorly. We are all on drugs.
Edit: To stay on topic. Yes, intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance. The only difference between classic intolerance and the form described is that classic intolerance is not socially acceptable. It is still intolerance though.
Decks
RW Blessed Destruction
BR Goblin Cult
G Elven Multiplayer
G Elven Explosion
G Can-o'-Wurms
UW Merfolk Paradise
UR Space Dragon
U Internet Lockdown
B Multiplayer Zombie Aggro
UB The Mill
EDH
WUBRG Slivers
Under Contruction
BR Kaervek's Domination
Only because you let it affect you. What's the difference between seeing somebody with green hair and seeing somebody naked? In many cultures, it is the norm to walk around naked.
You obviously failed to read the beginning of that paragraph where I stated "If it were up to conservatives".
See previous answer. Also, try finding a poll of whether conservatives favor the right to burn American flags. If you want me to google and link, I would be more than happy to.
I'm not saying they don't. But I am saying the reaction is one based completely off of cultural norms. There is no scientific or other logical based reasons anyone should have a negative reaction to seeing someone else naked. It's mainly because our society has somehow turned it bad.
Once again, if you don't know that Fox news has a very heavy conservative bias, I'm not sure how to debate you.
Do you have any proof of what I'm saying is not wrong? I bet I can show you more proof it isn't.
You're sidestepping his point on this. He asked "what makes you think Fox news represents the majority of conservatives" And you said "Fox news has a conservative bias"
That seems like an answer to his questions, but its not. Most people here would acknowledge that fox news is not "merely" conservative, but rather trends to the extreme right side of conservatism. Pushing what it says most likely beyond the realm of waht the "average" conservative thinks.
Ok. I'm going to provide two links.
If you want to know whether conservatives oppose the right to burn the american flag, here is a great link from a conservative source.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Flag_Desecration_Amendment
Here is a link which shows conservatives highly favor Fox News over other networks.
http://thinkprogress.org/?p=22396
1) My wife and I are curently expecting a child, I'm aware of what a pregnancy involves (although not as much as she is, clearly).
2) I know that pregnancy can be a health risk. Thats not the issue here. People aren't going to a pharmacy for the morning after pill in order to stop a risky pregnancy. By the time someone knows they are pregnant the morning after pill is too late.
What part of me not providing you with the morning after pill is me forcing you not to take it? I'm not preventing you from getting it from someone else. I'm terribly sorry that you have to drive another 5 minutes to the next drug store, I wasn't aware that your convenience was a fundamental right that outweighed my freedom of religion.
Edit: lets also not confuse things here, we're talking about the narrow issue of the morning after pill specifically, not abortions in general. If you want to talk about that we can as well, but thats not what we've been talking about up to this point.
In the interest of, oh I don't know honesty, neither of those reference says, or even purports to say what the majority of conservatives think.
Actually, you are the one who turned this into a talk about abortions...
With regard to the morning after pill. Specifically. It's right there in the sentence. You even quoted it! If you want to try and lie and say I was talking about the broader subject you may want to edit that bit of my quote out.
You are against one group oppressing the freedoms of another. This means that while you are personally against the sex industry, drunks, and homosexuals; you support their freedom to do so?
Lied? Really? I'm just saying you are the first person in this thread to use the word abortion.
yep, you got me. I used the word. That doesn't mean I was shifting the topic to the broad concept of abortion.
Did you read his post? He made his stance on each of those issues pretty clear.
The nude beaches and lesbians making out, I'm on board with that one.
Oh, and I'm cool with intolerance, as long as it's of stuff I don't like. There's nothing immoral about intolerance per se.
Well, by that same argument, you "let yourself" feel pain if I was to poke you with a pin.
My reaction to curtain stimuli is completely involuntary on my part. Some people might be immune to pain, or naked people, I am not.
Then, you should say "some conservatives."
Please do. I love reading real information.
So, you would be, for example, all for me raping my dog on my lawn? I mean, sounds like that's something we don't like based just on our 'cultural norms.' And I do own my lawn, and my dog, and no "person" would be hurt.
I guess the same could be said about ANY form of imagery.
Should I be allowed to have an aborted fetus picture and shove it in people's faces? Or do people have the right to go to work without having to see that?
Yes, it's MORE conservative than MOST conservatives, hence my statement about it not representing the majority.
Please do.