Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 7:50:24 GMT
That schedule was mine for decades, with brief interludes of true love, deep sorrow, meaningful creative work, hideously miserable work, contentedness in nature... kind of like a long-running TV series, with multi-episode arcs. Now that I am retired, my goal is simple contentedness, the least amount of trouble, but that still remains elusive for a few reasons. Really? How does that prove god exists? And how does that make anything better? God has to exist because most people don't kill themselves. Life is terrible. The good moments of life barely make a dent in the bullshit. So why don't most people just kill themselves? The only reason most of us decide to keep living through the shit is because of a greater force compelling us to. Because of God we keep enduring and creating new life. Despite the fact that life is mostly terrible and our children will have to live through it. It's a strange theory that God must exist because people don't kill themselves. There are a number of reasons why humans have evolved to be averse to suicide. However many millions years of evolution have instilled in us a strong aversion to death, to the point where usually any alternative fate other than death would seem preferable. Usually, those survival instincts are too powerful for us to fight them, and I know this from first hand experience. We're evolved to keep on chasing the carrot dangling in front of our nose no matter what, because only the organisms that were fittest, from the evolutionary standpoint, were capable of surviving in order to pass on their genetic material and ensuring the continued survival of the species. Our instinctual aversion to suicide has also caused human societies to stigmatise suicide as being selfish, against God's will, cowardly, etc. If some sort of god does exist, then it isn't a benevolent god, it's an amoral or malevolent god.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 12:03:52 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 12:15:57 GMT
This is a strawman retort. My proposal would involve doctors, nurses of pharmacists who consented to participate. I never said anything about dragging some random person in off the street and forcing them to kill someone else.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 12:20:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 12:27:13 GMT
The family doesn't have to be involved in an assisted suicide, that would be their choice. So yes, a strawman argument. And it's nobody's business whether a person is assisted to die, other than the person receiving the assistance, and the person giving the assistance. You're suggesting that it's OK to force people to suffering because with your archaic religious principles, you would be "aghast" at the possibility that people could actually be supported in the right to choose.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 12:45:39 GMT
tpfkar The family doesn't have to be involved in an assisted suicide, that would be their choice. So yes, a strawman argument. And it's nobody's business whether a person is assisted to die, other than the person receiving the assistance, and the person giving the assistance. You're suggesting that it's OK to force people to suffering because with your archaic religious principles, you would be "aghast" at the possibility that people could actually be supported in the right to choose. Everyone is involved via the state. And you over and over specifically bemoaned the fact that you couldn't involve your family and friends as they might bring in the authorities to stop you. So of course, straw absurdity, just another in a long line from you. I'm suggesting that any mentally competent person can trivially accomplish the end of their life if they've actually decided, and that the state should do no harm to those whose mental illness is speaking nor should it be used for liquid courage or a venue pure selfish vanity. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 13:12:42 GMT
tpfkar The family doesn't have to be involved in an assisted suicide, that would be their choice. So yes, a strawman argument. And it's nobody's business whether a person is assisted to die, other than the person receiving the assistance, and the person giving the assistance. You're suggesting that it's OK to force people to suffering because with your archaic religious principles, you would be "aghast" at the possibility that people could actually be supported in the right to choose. Everyone is involved via the state. And you over and over specifically bemoaned the fact that you couldn't involve your family and friends as they might bring in the authorities to stop you. So of course, straw absurdity, just another in a long line from you. I'm suggesting that any mentally competent person can trivially accomplish the end of their life if they've actually decided, and that the state should do no harm to those whose mental illness is speaking nor should it be used for liquid courage or a venue pure selfish vanity. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. So you're saying that people shouldn't get to have this right because of people with puritanical moral codes who cannot resist interfering in the affairs of others? They have to suffer because your puritanical Catholic sensibilities would be offended otherwise? Pretty much the same rationale that was always used to justify prohibiting pornography, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and the whole gamut. What if the suicidal person just went to a veterinarian and paid for Nembutal, not involving the state except for the fact that the state didn't have laws on the books based on religious delusions - why should that not be allowed? If suicide were legally above board and accessible through the state, then that would surely mean that one's family and friends wouldn't be able to have someone imprisoned just for having the wrong philosophy. I personally wouldn't mind all that much if I had to keep the secret to myself (because I wouldn't want anyone trying to exercise coercion over me), but the point is whether others would have the right to exercise violence, or call up authorities to exercise violence in order to prevent someone from dying through their own choice. And you've still failed to justify how you can ever be harming someone by assisting them to die peaceful, at that person's request, and there's no kind of afterlife in which they're going to be regretting their decision.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 13:20:39 GMT
tpfkar Everyone is involved via the state. And you over and over specifically bemoaned the fact that you couldn't involve your family and friends as they might bring in the authorities to stop you. So of course, straw absurdity, just another in a long line from you. I'm suggesting that any mentally competent person can trivially accomplish the end of their life if they've actually decided, and that the state should do no harm to those whose mental illness is speaking nor should it be used for liquid courage or a venue pure selfish vanity. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. So you're saying that people shouldn't get to have this right because of people with puritanical moral codes who cannot resist interfering in the affairs of others? They have to suffer because your puritanical Catholic sensibilities would be offended otherwise? Pretty much the same rationale that was always used to justify prohibiting pornography, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and the whole gamut. What if the suicidal person just went to a veterinarian and paid for Nembutal, not involving the state except for the fact that the state didn't have laws on the books based on religious delusions - why should that not be allowed? If suicide were legally above board and accessible through the state, then that would surely mean that one's family and friends wouldn't be able to have someone imprisoned just for having the wrong philosophy. I personally wouldn't mind all that much if I had to keep the secret to myself (because I wouldn't want anyone trying to exercise coercion over me), but the point is whether others would have the right to exercise violence, or call up authorities to exercise violence in order to prevent someone from dying through their own choice. And you've still failed to justify how you can ever be harming someone by assisting them to die peaceful, at that person's request, and there's no kind of afterlife in which they're going to be regretting their decision. Did you leave out words this time too? Just checking, as it's no less deranged. Suicide pills/liquids at the pharmacy is a no-go for the same reason TNT isn't available at Walmart, cigarettes for kids nor razor blades or antifreeze for toddlers. If a grown person is minimally physically capable and mentally competent then they don't need for the state to be corrupted to accomplish the trivial if actually decided upon physical act. And I've justified plainly why kicking the messed up over a cliff is harming them. You'll just rant your babble ignoring it until you die of a very very old age all the while trying to get people who you don't believe can actually choose to choose to die young. And yes, "dead can't regret" remains the psychopath's breakfast of choice. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 13:23:20 GMT
tpfkar So you're saying that people shouldn't get to have this right because of people with puritanical moral codes who cannot resist interfering in the affairs of others? They have to suffer because your puritanical Catholic sensibilities would be offended otherwise? Pretty much the same rationale that was always used to justify prohibiting pornography, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and the whole gamut. What if the suicidal person just went to a veterinarian and paid for Nembutal, not involving the state except for the fact that the state didn't have laws on the books based on religious delusions - why should that not be allowed? If suicide were legally above board and accessible through the state, then that would surely mean that one's family and friends wouldn't be able to have someone imprisoned just for having the wrong philosophy. I personally wouldn't mind all that much if I had to keep the secret to myself (because I wouldn't want anyone trying to exercise coercion over me), but the point is whether others would have the right to exercise violence, or call up authorities to exercise violence in order to prevent someone from dying through their own choice. And you've still failed to justify how you can ever be harming someone by assisting them to die peaceful, at that person's request, and there's no kind of afterlife in which they're going to be regretting their decision. Did you leave out words this time too? Just checking, as it's no less deranged. Suicide pills/liquids at the pharmacy is a no-go for the same reason TNT isn't available at Walmart, cigarettes for kids nor razor blades or antifreeze for toddlers. If a grown person is minimally physically capable and mentally competent then they don't need for the state to be corrupted to accomplish the trivial if actually decided upon physical act. And I've justified plainly why kicking the messed up over a cliff is harming them. You'll just rant your babble ignoring it until you die of a very very old age all the while trying to get people who you don't believe can actually choose to choose to die young. And yes, "dead can't regret" remains the psychopath's breakfast of choice. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.So to recap on the garbled nonsense above, the only reason that we shouldn't have this is owing to your religious beliefs? Thanks for confirming that, albeit in a very roundabout, ad hominem manner.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 13:28:04 GMT
tpfkar Did you leave out words this time too? Just checking, as it's no less deranged. Suicide pills/liquids at the pharmacy is a no-go for the same reason TNT isn't available at Walmart, cigarettes for kids nor razor blades or antifreeze for toddlers. If a grown person is minimally physically capable and mentally competent then they don't need for the state to be corrupted to accomplish the trivial if actually decided upon physical act. And I've justified plainly why kicking the messed up over a cliff is harming them. You'll just rant your babble ignoring it until you die of a very very old age all the while trying to get people who you don't believe can actually choose to choose to die young. And yes, "dead can't regret" remains the psychopath's breakfast of choice. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.So to recap on the garbled nonsense above, the only reason that we shouldn't have this is owing to your religious beliefs? Thanks for confirming that, albeit in a very roundabout, ad hominem manner. Sure, that was the nonsense you pulled out of your Ada-ass once again. And bonus funny for the ironic usage of "roundabout". Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 14:57:17 GMT
Saying “life is hard,” of course, does not diminish its value. Life is the only thing that grants value or meaning to anything. Think of all the beauty you have seen or enjoyed in life – especially that created by fellow sentients – and try to imagine no one left to experience it – this is the meaning of the extreme anti-natalist stance. Again, we do want people to be reasonably sure, if they have children, that they will be well provided for. Once born, though, a fellow sentient should be treated in a way that will bring out the potential for love and fascination immanent in each of us. Bringing out this potential is a challenge now, as depression is becoming epidemic in my country, so I would advise anyone with the time to create and/or share works that might help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 17:30:04 GMT
Life is easy with built-in occasional reminders that I am not fully in control. Those reminders can suck, but for the most part, life is easy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 1:39:25 GMT
Saying “life is hard,” of course, does not diminish its value. Life is the only thing that grants value or meaning to anything. Think of all the beauty you have seen or enjoyed in life – especially that created by fellow sentients – and try to imagine no one left to experience it – this is the meaning of the extreme anti-natalist stance. Again, we do want people to be reasonably sure, if they have children, that they will be well provided for. Once born, though, a fellow sentient should be treated in a way that will bring out the potential for love and fascination immanent in each of us. Bringing out this potential is a challenge now, as depression is becoming epidemic in my country, so I would advise anyone with the time to create and/or share works that might help. "Life is hard" refers to the cost of life. And life has tremendous costs not just for the particular person/animal living that one life, but on any other person or animal affected. So for one single human life, there is a cost to other humans and also the animals who needed to be tortured, have their habitats ruined, etc, in order that the needs of that one human can be met. I'm as sensitive to the beauty in the world as anyone; but I wouldn't have been deprived of it had I never been born...and neither would you, nor anyone else. It's impossible to imagine a world without anyone to appreciate the beauty, because by trying to imagine it, you place yourself within it as an observer. But there's no reason to think that the universe as it existed before sentient life was a tragic place with any void of experience that urgently needed to be filled.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 23, 2018 6:05:04 GMT
Saying “life is hard,” of course, does not diminish its value. Life is the only thing that grants value or meaning to anything. Think of all the beauty you have seen or enjoyed in life – especially that created by fellow sentients – and try to imagine no one left to experience it – this is the meaning of the extreme anti-natalist stance. Again, we do want people to be reasonably sure, if they have children, that they will be well provided for. Once born, though, a fellow sentient should be treated in a way that will bring out the potential for love and fascination immanent in each of us. Bringing out this potential is a challenge now, as depression is becoming epidemic in my country, so I would advise anyone with the time to create and/or share works that might help. "Life is hard" refers to the cost of life. And life has tremendous costs not just for the particular person/animal living that one life, but on any other person or animal affected. So for one single human life, there is a cost to other humans and also the animals who needed to be tortured, have their habitats ruined, etc, in order that the needs of that one human can be met. I'm as sensitive to the beauty in the world as anyone; but I wouldn't have been deprived of it had I never been born...and neither would you, nor anyone else. It's impossible to imagine a world without anyone to appreciate the beauty, because by trying to imagine it, you place yourself within it as an observer. But there's no reason to think that the universe as it existed before sentient life was a tragic place with any void of experience that urgently needed to be filled. I am very sensitive to the beauty of the world and very conscious of the increasing negative effect that human life has on the beauty of the world. Back in the seventies, I wanted to move out of the suburbs that I had been raised in. My father had grown up on that piece of land when it was still farmland. By the seventies it was a long-established suburb that had sprung up in the fifties. I wanted to live in the country, with my horse in a pasture behind my house. So I moved miles out of the city to find that. But over the years, the human developments have diminished that countryside that I loved. Many a natural pasture or woodland has been made into a housing development. Country roads have become six lane highways. Family farms are becoming a thing of the past. Nature is shrinking. I chose an area that hasn't developed that much, but if people continue to reproduce at the rate they are going, soon there won't be any natural areas left. There won't be any beauty in nature left. If people stop having children, with zero population growth and perhaps a loss of population as a goal, the world could be sustained, and have less suffering for the sentient life already here. As sentient life diminished, living beings might have a better quality if life, and when sentient life ceased, unborn lives would never miss what they never had. I don't feel any sadness that my unconceived children never got to ride my horse or see the changing colors of the leaves. I do feel glad that they didn't have to experience the dysfunction that runs in my family, a source of suffering for me even now. I also didn't genetically pass on the gene for cancer; my treatment for that was a terrible, miserable ordeal. I got an extended life as a result of the treatment, but made sure no child of mine would have to suffer that way. It just seems to me that a shrinking population would lessen suffering.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 23, 2018 17:42:51 GMT
We are, like all living things, adaptable creatures, and that includes adjusting to our environment circumstances of existence. We adjust our expectations accordingly, just like if you stare at a pattern without moving your eyes, your perception of that pattern gradually fades out. I think to a large extent, the question "is life hard" is relative. Certainly some individuals have it harder (or easier) than most, but on average, life is pretty hard and pretty fun.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 23, 2018 17:59:06 GMT
tpfkar "Life is hard" refers to the cost of life. And life has tremendous costs not just for the particular person/animal living that one life, but on any other person or animal affected. So for one single human life, there is a cost to other humans and also the animals who needed to be tortured, have their habitats ruined, etc, in order that the needs of that one human can be met. I'm as sensitive to the beauty in the world as anyone; but I wouldn't have been deprived of it had I never been born...and neither would you, nor anyone else. It's impossible to imagine a world without anyone to appreciate the beauty, because by trying to imagine it, you place yourself within it as an observer. But there's no reason to think that the universe as it existed before sentient life was a tragic place with any void of experience that urgently needed to be filled. I am very sensitive to the beauty of the world and very conscious of the increasing negative effect that human life has on the beauty of the world. Back in the seventies, I wanted to move out of the suburbs that I had been raised in. My father had grown up on that piece of land when it was still farmland. By the seventies it was a long-established suburb that had sprung up in the fifties. I wanted to live in the country, with my horse in a pasture behind my house. So I moved miles out of the city to find that. But over the years, the human developments have diminished that countryside that I loved. Many a natural pasture or woodland has been made into a housing development. Country roads have become six lane highways. Family farms are becoming a thing of the past. Nature is shrinking. I chose an area that hasn't developed that much, but if people continue to reproduce at the rate they are going, soon there won't be any natural areas left. There won't be any beauty in nature left. If people stop having children, with zero population growth and perhaps a loss of population as a goal, the world could be sustained, and have less suffering for the sentient life already here. As sentient life diminished, living beings might have a better quality if life, and when sentient life ceased, unborn lives would never miss what they never had. I don't feel any sadness that my unconceived children never got to ride my horse or see the changing colors of the leaves. I do feel glad that they didn't have to experience the dysfunction that runs in my family, a source of suffering for me even now. I also didn't genetically pass on the gene for cancer; my treatment for that was a terrible, miserable ordeal. I got an extended life as a result of the treatment, but made sure no child of mine would have to suffer that way. It just seems to me that a shrinking population would lessen suffering. As badly as you want to agree with your sour partner, sustainability is not extermination.
Take, eat; this is my body.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Jan 23, 2018 19:38:31 GMT
That schedule was mine for decades, with brief interludes of true love, deep sorrow, meaningful creative work, hideously miserable work, contentedness in nature... kind of like a long-running TV series, with multi-episode arcs. Now that I am retired, my goal is simple contentedness, the least amount of trouble, but that still remains elusive for a few reasons. Really? How does that prove god exists? And how does that make anything better? God has to exist because most people don't kill themselves. Life is terrible. The good moments of life barely make a dent in the bullshit. So why don't most people just kill themselves? The only reason most of us decide to keep living through the shit is because of a greater force compelling us to. Because of God we keep enduring and creating new life. Despite the fact that life is mostly terrible and our children will have to live through it. Many people don't try to kill themselves because if they don't get it right, they could REALLY be fucked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 0:43:50 GMT
"Life is hard" refers to the cost of life. And life has tremendous costs not just for the particular person/animal living that one life, but on any other person or animal affected. So for one single human life, there is a cost to other humans and also the animals who needed to be tortured, have their habitats ruined, etc, in order that the needs of that one human can be met. I'm as sensitive to the beauty in the world as anyone; but I wouldn't have been deprived of it had I never been born...and neither would you, nor anyone else. It's impossible to imagine a world without anyone to appreciate the beauty, because by trying to imagine it, you place yourself within it as an observer. But there's no reason to think that the universe as it existed before sentient life was a tragic place with any void of experience that urgently needed to be filled. I am very sensitive to the beauty of the world and very conscious of the increasing negative effect that human life has on the beauty of the world. Back in the seventies, I wanted to move out of the suburbs that I had been raised in. My father had grown up on that piece of land when it was still farmland. By the seventies it was a long-established suburb that had sprung up in the fifties. I wanted to live in the country, with my horse in a pasture behind my house. So I moved miles out of the city to find that. But over the years, the human developments have diminished that countryside that I loved. Many a natural pasture or woodland has been made into a housing development. Country roads have become six lane highways. Family farms are becoming a thing of the past. Nature is shrinking. I chose an area that hasn't developed that much, but if people continue to reproduce at the rate they are going, soon there won't be any natural areas left. There won't be any beauty in nature left. If people stop having children, with zero population growth and perhaps a loss of population as a goal, the world could be sustained, and have less suffering for the sentient life already here. As sentient life diminished, living beings might have a better quality if life, and when sentient life ceased, unborn lives would never miss what they never had. I don't feel any sadness that my unconceived children never got to ride my horse or see the changing colors of the leaves. I do feel glad that they didn't have to experience the dysfunction that runs in my family, a source of suffering for me even now. I also didn't genetically pass on the gene for cancer; my treatment for that was a terrible, miserable ordeal. I got an extended life as a result of the treatment, but made sure no child of mine would have to suffer that way. It just seems to me that a shrinking population would lessen suffering. Here in Scotland, our uplands are almost all dreary, barren and treeless because humans cut down all the trees, whereas at one time, long, long ago, the whole of Scotland would have been thickly forested. And in Britain as a whole, you almost never see butterflies any more and there is significantly reduced biodiversity compared to what existed prior to maybe the 1960s. So in every way, the human effect is writ large across our entire landscape. We have a population of 65 million + filling a land area the size of Oregon, so the effect is much worse than even what you're used to. Hardly any ancient woodlands left anywhere in Britain. I suppose that it could also be said that humans have been beneficial in the sense that there are now a great deal fewer animals around to experience lives fiilled with the brutal horrors of nature, and in that sense our continued presence helps to further antinatalism because we can't seem to help but kill off other species just by being here. If people stopped having children, there would be suffering associated with that, and of course, there would be nobody to look after the elderly. But then the cycle of harm and imposition would be contained just within the pool of people already alive, rather than being perpetuated eternally.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 1:35:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 24, 2018 16:44:53 GMT
I am very sensitive to the beauty of the world and very conscious of the increasing negative effect that human life has on the beauty of the world. Back in the seventies, I wanted to move out of the suburbs that I had been raised in. My father had grown up on that piece of land when it was still farmland. By the seventies it was a long-established suburb that had sprung up in the fifties. I wanted to live in the country, with my horse in a pasture behind my house. So I moved miles out of the city to find that. But over the years, the human developments have diminished that countryside that I loved. Many a natural pasture or woodland has been made into a housing development. Country roads have become six lane highways. Family farms are becoming a thing of the past. Nature is shrinking. I chose an area that hasn't developed that much, but if people continue to reproduce at the rate they are going, soon there won't be any natural areas left. There won't be any beauty in nature left. If people stop having children, with zero population growth and perhaps a loss of population as a goal, the world could be sustained, and have less suffering for the sentient life already here. As sentient life diminished, living beings might have a better quality if life, and when sentient life ceased, unborn lives would never miss what they never had. I don't feel any sadness that my unconceived children never got to ride my horse or see the changing colors of the leaves. I do feel glad that they didn't have to experience the dysfunction that runs in my family, a source of suffering for me even now. I also didn't genetically pass on the gene for cancer; my treatment for that was a terrible, miserable ordeal. I got an extended life as a result of the treatment, but made sure no child of mine would have to suffer that way. It just seems to me that a shrinking population would lessen suffering. Here in Scotland, our uplands are almost all dreary, barren and treeless because humans cut down all the trees, whereas at one time, long, long ago, the whole of Scotland would have been thickly forested. And in Britain as a whole, you almost never see butterflies any more and there is significantly reduced biodiversity compared to what existed prior to maybe the 1960s. So in every way, the human effect is writ large across our entire landscape. We have a population of 65 million + filling a land area the size of Oregon, so the effect is much worse than even what you're used to. Hardly any ancient woodlands left anywhere in Britain. I suppose that it could also be said that humans have been beneficial in the sense that there are now a great deal fewer animals around to experience lives fiilled with the brutal horrors of nature, and in that sense our continued presence helps to further antinatalism because we can't seem to help but kill off other species just by being here. If people stopped having children, there would be suffering associated with that, and of course, there would be nobody to look after the elderly. But then the cycle of harm and imposition would be contained just within the pool of people already alive, rather than being perpetuated eternally. I am so sad to hear about the trees in Scotland, mic. Something similar happened to the woodlands along our eastern seaboard, and the Appalachian Trail. Several species were harvested to extinction. Trees have been replanted, but the habitat has changed forever. Though my property is a registered Monarch butterfly waystation, with milkweed purposely grown and maintained for their migration, I see fewer every year. It's been five years since I saw a Monarch emerge from a chrysalis - a magic moment - and it worries me deeply.
|
|