DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Jan 25, 2023 4:32:18 GMT
I thought it was alright. It felt like they rushed the story just to get the Avengers to break up so they could have a big moment where they get them back together for Endgame. I also thought Zemo was a terrible villain and that the movie really didn't need a villain.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 25, 2023 9:24:55 GMT
There's also the inverse of what happens when the UN orders the Avengers to attack someone they actually think is innocent? Like, let's say the UN ordered the Avengers to kill every last Talocan because they think its a danger to other countries? I'm fairly certain the UN only orders defensive &/or aid missions. Probably not even defensive, just protection for neutrals... I forget. The UN has never faced worldwide threats like the ones in the MCU movies nor have they ever had a superpowered strike force like the Avengers. You can't really presume how they'll react in these situations.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jan 25, 2023 10:50:53 GMT
There's no easy answer to this, which is why I prefer a middle ground approach. The Avengers and other superpowered individuals should be registered. Since they are not operating under any government department or law enforcement agency, they are inherently vigilantes. After the fall of SHIELD, they are technically a private entity funded by Stark Industries. However, I can understand Captain America's distrust in government institutions, especially one like the United Nations. There can be too much bureaucracy and red tape when waiting for a UN panel approval. Let's say, a supervillain strikes a major city and wrecks havoc. Under the Accords, the Avengers would have to wait for approval from the UN panel. If no decision is made within at least an hour, this only gives the supervillain more time to accomplish their nefarious deed, which could lead to more casualties. Several lives could be saved if the Avengers can arrive on the scene sooner, but this is not always a guarantee. Collateral damage is inevitable with or without the Accords depending on the situation. In my honest opinion, the Avengers and other heroes that want to fight crime should be registered, but should a world-threatening event occur, they should be allowed some extra leniency to go in there to contain the situation and save as many lives as possible. There's also the inverse of what happens when the UN orders the Avengers to attack someone they actually think is innocent? Like, let's say the UN ordered the Avengers to kill every last Talocan because they think its a danger to other countries? The Talocan are a danger to other countries did you not watch them trick people into killing themselves and invade Wakanda in Black Panther 2? What were you watching?
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jan 25, 2023 11:21:38 GMT
It's a good Avengers movie under the guise of a Captain America movie.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 25, 2023 15:28:40 GMT
Yes. Iron Man and Captain America's viewpoints was interesting. One favors government insight over superhero involvement while the other believes superheroes shouldn't have to wait for UN approval but work independently. Both sides are not entirely wrong, but it's hard to find a middle ground in the discussion. Regardless, Vision's statement that their "very strength invites challenge" which manifests into destruction is pretty profound. However, Ant-Man and Spider-Man had no real agency and only sided with Iron Man or Captain America because they were told to. Helmut Zemo was an excellent villain. He had a good motivation and had no superpowers of his own to challenge the Avengers. Instead, he had them fight amongst themselves. However, the third act fight was kind of weak. Was Zemo anticipating Iron Man to show up so he could show him the murder video of his parents? Black Panther was another excellent addition to the roster of Marvel superheroes. Again, he had a good motivation to avenge his father and seek revenge. Instead of him being a token black character shown to look cool and intimidating, he had a nice little character arc that mirrored Zemo's. Other than that, the fight sequences and stunt work were really good. Unfortunately, the cinematography (most particularly, the color grading) does this movie no service. Everything looks so grey and muted so no vibrant colors stand out. Overall, it's a really good Marvel film. Technically, Cap had two viewpoints that were explored here. The first is that he didn't trust a government entity to ethically handle a group of superpowered individuals. Like, what happens if the government asks them to kill a specific target that they didn't agree with? Or what happens when there's a worldwide threat but the government was too busy with red tape before they could send the Avengers in (which is pretty much what happened with those remaining Winter Soldiers potentially getting woken up)?The second viewpoint is that he saw an innocent man, a friend nonetheless, that the government was trying to kill without due process. And Cap couldn't just stand by and watch an innocent man die. It was a well done movie because you could see how both sides were right but how they were also both wrong. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
The government is not going to sit on their hands when Thanos (or anyone else) is attacking the planet because they have paperwork to sign. We all know the Avengers would be sent in and that part dealt with later.
Innocent isn't the right word. He did kill many people. Crazy circumstances behind it, but he did do commit many murders.
It's irrelevant he's Cap's friend. Conflict of interest, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 25, 2023 16:19:20 GMT
Technically, Cap had two viewpoints that were explored here. The first is that he didn't trust a government entity to ethically handle a group of superpowered individuals. Like, what happens if the government asks them to kill a specific target that they didn't agree with? Or what happens when there's a worldwide threat but the government was too busy with red tape before they could send the Avengers in (which is pretty much what happened with those remaining Winter Soldiers potentially getting woken up)?The second viewpoint is that he saw an innocent man, a friend nonetheless, that the government was trying to kill without due process. And Cap couldn't just stand by and watch an innocent man die. It was a well done movie because you could see how both sides were right but how they were also both wrong. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
The government is not going to sit on their hands when Thanos (or anyone else) is attacking the planet because they have paperwork to sign. We all know the Avengers would be sent in and that part dealt with later.
Innocent isn't the right word. He did kill many people. Crazy circumstances behind it, but he did do commit many murders.
It's irrelevant he's Cap's friend. Conflict of interest, if anything.
There was already a worldwide threat in this movie, the awakening of the winter soldiers, yet the Avengers were ordered to chase down Bucky instead of handling that threat. This movie already showed exactly what Cap was saying. I'm not saying he was right, but he certainly wasn't wrong either. Bucky was innocent of the bombing of the UN summit, and that was the crime he was being hunted down for and ordered to be killed on sight.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 25, 2023 16:54:34 GMT
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
The government is not going to sit on their hands when Thanos (or anyone else) is attacking the planet because they have paperwork to sign. We all know the Avengers would be sent in and that part dealt with later.
Innocent isn't the right word. He did kill many people. Crazy circumstances behind it, but he did do commit many murders.
It's irrelevant he's Cap's friend. Conflict of interest, if anything.
There was already a worldwide threat in this movie, the awakening of the winter soldiers, yet the Avengers were ordered to chase down Bucky instead of handling that threat. This movie already showed exactly what Cap was saying. I'm not saying he was right, but he certainly wasn't wrong either. Bucky was innocent of the bombing of the UN summit, and that was the crime he was being hunted down for and ordered to be killed on sight. Why would a group of frozen dudes take priority over the mass murderer who was awake and free? Of course they go after the active threat first.
They tried to kill Thanos on sight too. The U.N. incident was not the first time his existence was revealed. He's a known offender who has killed like 2 dozen people, of course they tried to kill him. So people didn't know someone wearing his face? No one would know that.
Cap got lucky guessing Bucky didn't bomb the U.N. Everything else? Completely and totally wrong. The safest hands are still our own? Get out of here. They're vigilantes. They don't have a right to do that. Cap thinks he's above the law and rejects the same type of hierarchy cops, soldiers, and every other public servant on the front lines has to adhere to.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 25, 2023 18:28:44 GMT
There was already a worldwide threat in this movie, the awakening of the winter soldiers, yet the Avengers were ordered to chase down Bucky instead of handling that threat. This movie already showed exactly what Cap was saying. I'm not saying he was right, but he certainly wasn't wrong either. Bucky was innocent of the bombing of the UN summit, and that was the crime he was being hunted down for and ordered to be killed on sight. Why would a group of frozen dudes take priority over the mass murderer who was awake and free? Of course they go after the active threat first.
They tried to kill Thanos on sight too. The U.N. incident was not the first time his existence was revealed. He's a known offender who has killed like 2 dozen people, of course they tried to kill him. So people didn't know someone wearing his face? No one would know that.
Cap got lucky guessing Bucky didn't bomb the U.N. Everything else? Completely and totally wrong. The safest hands are still our own? Get out of here. They're vigilantes. They don't have a right to do that. Cap thinks he's above the law and rejects the same type of hierarchy cops, soldiers, and every other public servant on the front lines has to adhere to.
And had Zemo decided to awaken the winter soldiers instead of killing them, the world would have been reeling from dealing with a dozen or so crazy super soldiers, all of whom were far more dangerous than Bucky. Then Ross, Stark and their UN delegation would be kicking themselves in hindsight for not listening to Cap. They were lucky that Zemo acted the way he did. And again, I'm not saying Cap was right. I actually agree more with Tony. But that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that Cap had a point. After all, Hydra had infiltrated both SHIELD and the UN. Had the Avengers been under UN control at that time then project insight would have launched and the world would have had preemptive mass murders all sanctioned by the government.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 25, 2023 18:56:36 GMT
Why would a group of frozen dudes take priority over the mass murderer who was awake and free? Of course they go after the active threat first.
They tried to kill Thanos on sight too. The U.N. incident was not the first time his existence was revealed. He's a known offender who has killed like 2 dozen people, of course they tried to kill him. So people didn't know someone wearing his face? No one would know that.
Cap got lucky guessing Bucky didn't bomb the U.N. Everything else? Completely and totally wrong. The safest hands are still our own? Get out of here. They're vigilantes. They don't have a right to do that. Cap thinks he's above the law and rejects the same type of hierarchy cops, soldiers, and every other public servant on the front lines has to adhere to.
And had Zemo decided to awaken the winter soldiers instead of killing them, the world would have been reeling from dealing with a dozen or so crazy super soldiers, all of whom were far more dangerous than Bucky. Then Ross, Stark and their UN delegation would be kicking themselves in hindsight for not listening to Cap. They were lucky that Zemo acted the way he did. And again, I'm not saying Cap was right. I actually agree more with Tony. But that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that Cap had a point. After all, Hydra had infiltrated both SHIELD and the UN. Had the Avengers been under UN control at that time then project insight would have launched and the world would have had preemptive mass murders all sanctioned by the government. Super Soldier who is awake, a known criminal, and free > a dozen frozen ones.
Everyone is under government control, it's a part of living in a society. You and I are expected to obey laws. If we don't - depending on the level of crimes - cops, federal agents, or the military will come after us. While they enforce the laws, they too are expected to act within it. Cap acts outside the law. They all do, but refused to hold himself to the standards we all must adhere to.
"___ could happen." "What if____ tells us to ____." This is a slippery slope fallacy. The foundation of his argument is not a valid argument.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 25, 2023 19:44:46 GMT
And had Zemo decided to awaken the winter soldiers instead of killing them, the world would have been reeling from dealing with a dozen or so crazy super soldiers, all of whom were far more dangerous than Bucky. Then Ross, Stark and their UN delegation would be kicking themselves in hindsight for not listening to Cap. They were lucky that Zemo acted the way he did. And again, I'm not saying Cap was right. I actually agree more with Tony. But that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that Cap had a point. After all, Hydra had infiltrated both SHIELD and the UN. Had the Avengers been under UN control at that time then project insight would have launched and the world would have had preemptive mass murders all sanctioned by the government. Super Soldier who is awake, a known criminal, and free > a dozen frozen ones.
Everyone is under government control, it's a part of living in a society. You and I are expected to obey laws. If we don't - depending on the level of crimes - cops, federal agents, or the military will come after us. While they enforce the laws, they too are expected to act within it. Cap acts outside the law. They all do, but refused to hold himself to the standards we all must adhere to.
"___ could happen." "What if____ tells us to ____." This is a slippery slope fallacy. The foundation of his argument is not a valid argument.
Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not trying to tell you that Cap was right. I'm trying to explain his point of view. Do you understand the difference? You don't need to convince me that Cap was breaking the law, I already agree he was. That doesn't stop me from understanding where he was coming from. And yes, 1 super soldier who's awake, free and has half the Avengers team keeping him in check << An entire strikeforce of mentally unstable super soldiers who'd disappear into the world as soon as they're awake. As for everyone being under government control and obey laws, yes, that's what we have in the real world. Unfortunately, superheroes aren't quite as applicable in the real world. Majority of superheroes break a tremendous amount of laws on a daily basis in these movies. Besides, real-life vigilantes exist, bounty hunters as well, and some of them actually get some support and respect from law enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 25, 2023 20:07:51 GMT
Super Soldier who is awake, a known criminal, and free > a dozen frozen ones.
Everyone is under government control, it's a part of living in a society. You and I are expected to obey laws. If we don't - depending on the level of crimes - cops, federal agents, or the military will come after us. While they enforce the laws, they too are expected to act within it. Cap acts outside the law. They all do, but refused to hold himself to the standards we all must adhere to.
"___ could happen." "What if____ tells us to ____." This is a slippery slope fallacy. The foundation of his argument is not a valid argument.
Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not trying to tell you that Cap was right. I'm trying to explain his point of view. Do you understand the difference? You don't need to convince me that Cap was breaking the law, I already agree he was. That doesn't stop me from understanding where he was coming from. And yes, 1 super soldier who's awake, free and has half the Avengers team keeping him in check << An entire strikeforce of mentally unstable super soldiers who'd disappear into the world as soon as they're awake. As for everyone being under government control and obey laws, yes, that's what we have in the real world. Unfortunately, superheroes aren't quite as applicable in the real world. Majority of superheroes break a tremendous amount of laws on a daily basis in these movies. Besides, real-life vigilantes exist, bounty hunters as well, and some of them actually get some support and respect from law enforcement. I don't give a shit about Cap's "POV", it's an invalid argument. He is a vigilante who has been allowed to break the law - and when asked to obey it like the rest of those who enforce it - says no because someone "might" ask him to do something he doesn't like. His opinion has no merit. He lectures them about responsibility and refuses to accept any because woulds and coulds. There's no logic or reason there. It's pure emotion. Paranoia and arrogance to be more specific.
Yes, bounty hunter's get support, that's because it is a real job. They pay taxes and are expected to obey laws, unlike say....
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 25, 2023 20:45:54 GMT
Vigilantes - and that's what they are - don't have the right to do what they do. Their actions themselves are illegal, but they were tolerated because they saved people. But when the damage started getting bigger and people's livelihoods were destroyed and people died? This is a problem. There's outrage over a rogue cop, but heroes can get away with it because we like them? Nah. Maybe a different scale/measuring stick because of what they do, but outright get away with it? I can walk up to a stranger and punch him in the face. If I get caught, I'm going to jail. Strange can wipe out the memories of millions of people and....nothing.
You're right, very good movie. It examines some very interesting issues, has a great villain, and was practically an Avengers movie. Due for a re-watch, now that you mention it.
There's no easy answer to this, which is why I prefer a middle ground approach. The Avengers and other superpowered individuals should be registered. Since they are not operating under any government department or law enforcement agency, they are inherently vigilantes. After the fall of SHIELD, they are technically a private entity funded by Stark Industries. However, I can understand Captain America's distrust in government institutions, especially one like the United Nations. There can be too much bureaucracy and red tape when waiting for a UN panel approval. Let's say, a supervillain strikes a major city and wrecks havoc. Under the Accords, the Avengers would have to wait for approval from the UN panel. If no decision is made within at least an hour, this only gives the supervillain more time to accomplish their nefarious deed, which could lead to more casualties. Several lives could be saved if the Avengers can arrive on the scene sooner, but this is not always a guarantee. Collateral damage is inevitable with or without the Accords depending on the situation. In my honest opinion, the Avengers and other heroes that want to fight crime should be registered, but should a world-threatening event occur, they should be allowed some extra leniency to go in there to contain the situation and save as many lives as possible. What does being registered involve? I agree something needed/needs to be done to keep them in check. Registration entails what? Just knowing who they are or some kind of chain of command? I totally agree they should be registered, but they should also be held to some kind of standards/consequences.
If there's a world-wide threat, no one is ever gonna say, "Hold on, we have to vote on this first." Never.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 25, 2023 21:24:00 GMT
Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not trying to tell you that Cap was right. I'm trying to explain his point of view. Do you understand the difference? You don't need to convince me that Cap was breaking the law, I already agree he was. That doesn't stop me from understanding where he was coming from. And yes, 1 super soldier who's awake, free and has half the Avengers team keeping him in check << An entire strikeforce of mentally unstable super soldiers who'd disappear into the world as soon as they're awake. As for everyone being under government control and obey laws, yes, that's what we have in the real world. Unfortunately, superheroes aren't quite as applicable in the real world. Majority of superheroes break a tremendous amount of laws on a daily basis in these movies. Besides, real-life vigilantes exist, bounty hunters as well, and some of them actually get some support and respect from law enforcement. I don't give a shit about Cap's "POV", it's an invalid argument. He is a vigilante who has been allowed to break the law - and when asked to obey it like the rest of those who enforce it - says no because someone "might" ask him to do something he doesn't like. His opinion has no merit. He lectures them about responsibility and refuses to accept any because woulds and coulds. There's no logic or reason there. It's pure emotion. Paranoia and arrogance to be more specific.
Yes, bounty hunter's get support, that's because it is a real job. They pay taxes and are expected to obey laws, unlike say....
So would you also say people who joined in the BLM riots should be persecuted by the law? They broke the law after all. Were the Germans who fought against the Nazis in WW2 wrong since they clearly went against their government? Was Spartacus wrong for leading a revolt against the Romans? I mean, using your logic then majority of freedom fighters in history would be considered "wrong" since they pretty much went against an existing government.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 25, 2023 22:44:59 GMT
I don't give a shit about Cap's "POV", it's an invalid argument. He is a vigilante who has been allowed to break the law - and when asked to obey it like the rest of those who enforce it - says no because someone "might" ask him to do something he doesn't like. His opinion has no merit. He lectures them about responsibility and refuses to accept any because woulds and coulds. There's no logic or reason there. It's pure emotion. Paranoia and arrogance to be more specific.
Yes, bounty hunter's get support, that's because it is a real job. They pay taxes and are expected to obey laws, unlike say....
So would you also say people who joined in the BLM riots should be persecuted by the law? They broke the law after all. Were the Germans who fought against the Nazis in WW2 wrong since they clearly went against their government? Was Spartacus wrong for leading a revolt against the Romans? I mean, using your logic then majority of freedom fighters in history would be considered "wrong" since they pretty much went against an existing government. Why would I NOT say rioters should be prosecuted? I think the conversation is over when we're comparing the Summer of Love to fighting Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jan 26, 2023 1:03:16 GMT
There's no easy answer to this, which is why I prefer a middle ground approach. The Avengers and other superpowered individuals should be registered. Since they are not operating under any government department or law enforcement agency, they are inherently vigilantes. After the fall of SHIELD, they are technically a private entity funded by Stark Industries. However, I can understand Captain America's distrust in government institutions, especially one like the United Nations. There can be too much bureaucracy and red tape when waiting for a UN panel approval. Let's say, a supervillain strikes a major city and wrecks havoc. Under the Accords, the Avengers would have to wait for approval from the UN panel. If no decision is made within at least an hour, this only gives the supervillain more time to accomplish their nefarious deed, which could lead to more casualties. Several lives could be saved if the Avengers can arrive on the scene sooner, but this is not always a guarantee. Collateral damage is inevitable with or without the Accords depending on the situation. In my honest opinion, the Avengers and other heroes that want to fight crime should be registered, but should a world-threatening event occur, they should be allowed some extra leniency to go in there to contain the situation and save as many lives as possible. What does being registered involve? I agree something needed/needs to be done to keep them in check. Registration entails what? Just knowing who they are or some kind of chain of command? I totally agree they should be registered, but they should also be held to some kind of standards/consequences.
If there's a world-wide threat, no one is ever gonna say, "Hold on, we have to vote on this first." Never.
The movie only states the Accords will register and monitor the superheroes. To my honest opinion, being registered means the superhero's identity, personal information, use of advanced technology, and enhanced abilities are on the record. Signing the Accords gives the superhero clearance to fight crime on international territory. Operating outside of the Accords is punishable with incarceration at the Raft. Lastly, their actions are subject to being monitored. In Ant-Man and the Wasp, Ant-Man had to wear a leg monitor under house arrest because he violated the Accords. Secretary Ross literally states the Avengers will "operate under the supervision of a United Nations panel, only when and if that panel deems it necessary." So, even in the case of a worldwide threat, only this UN panel can allow the Avengers to fight.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 26, 2023 13:01:26 GMT
What does being registered involve? I agree something needed/needs to be done to keep them in check. Registration entails what? Just knowing who they are or some kind of chain of command? I totally agree they should be registered, but they should also be held to some kind of standards/consequences.
If there's a world-wide threat, no one is ever gonna say, "Hold on, we have to vote on this first." Never.
The movie only states the Accords will register and monitor the superheroes. To my honest opinion, being registered means the superhero's identity, personal information, use of advanced technology, and enhanced abilities are on the record. Signing the Accords gives the superhero clearance to fight crime on international territory. Operating outside of the Accords is punishable with incarceration at the Raft. Lastly, their actions are subject to being monitored. In Ant-Man and the Wasp, Ant-Man had to wear a leg monitor under house arrest because he violated the Accords.
Secretary Ross literally states the Avengers will "operate under the supervision of a United Nations panel, only when and if that panel deems it necessary." So, even in the case of a worldwide threat, only this UN panel can allow the Avengers to fight. Oh, the movie. I thought you were stating your take. I generally agree with how it's laid out in the movie. Exceptions or a sliding scale would make sense considering what they deal with - Bucky being a perfect example - but some type of accountability is necessary. Just look at some of the actions since. Bucky and Sam break Zemo out of a foreign prison, Strange's disastrous spell, Wanda's actions. None of this is acceptable, but they get away with it. There needs tp be a Civil War II imo.
I don't think you understood me. The UN would be their boss/superior officers, but NO ONE is going to see a bunch of aliens bombing cities, a Godzilla -sized monster, or some equally similar world-wide threat and say, "Hold up, guys. Can't go yet. We have to meet to approve your involvement." That is never going to happen.They are going to tell the Avengers to go and will deal with the paperwork later.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 26, 2023 13:45:57 GMT
So would you also say people who joined in the BLM riots should be persecuted by the law? They broke the law after all. Were the Germans who fought against the Nazis in WW2 wrong since they clearly went against their government? Was Spartacus wrong for leading a revolt against the Romans? I mean, using your logic then majority of freedom fighters in history would be considered "wrong" since they pretty much went against an existing government. Why would I NOT say rioters should be prosecuted? I think the conversation is over when we're comparing the Summer of Love to fighting Hitler. Well, Hitler would have been small fish compared to Hydra had they been able to launch project insight. And the only reason that didn't occur is because Cap broke his orders and went rogue. And that's what freedom fighters are: they're basically rebels who fought against the government. So this idea of yours that just because Cap went against the government means he's automatically wrong.. it's not the greatest argument.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 26, 2023 14:58:27 GMT
Why would I NOT say rioters should be prosecuted? I think the conversation is over when we're comparing the Summer of Love to fighting Hitler. Well, Hitler would have been small fish compared to Hydra had they been able to launch project insight. And the only reason that didn't occur is because Cap broke his orders and went rogue. And that's what freedom fighters are: they're basically rebels who fought against the government. So this idea of yours that just because Cap went against the government means he's automatically wrong.. it's not the greatest argument.
*Clears throat*
The people who fought Hitler were freedom fighters, yes, because he was A DICTATOR.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 26, 2023 16:46:52 GMT
Well, Hitler would have been small fish compared to Hydra had they been able to launch project insight. And the only reason that didn't occur is because Cap broke his orders and went rogue. And that's what freedom fighters are: they're basically rebels who fought against the government. So this idea of yours that just because Cap went against the government means he's automatically wrong.. it's not the greatest argument.
*Clears throat*
The people who fought Hitler were freedom fighters, yes, because he was A DICTATOR.
I see my point clearly went over your head.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 26, 2023 17:02:17 GMT
*Clears throat*
The people who fought Hitler were freedom fighters, yes, because he was A DICTATOR.
I see my point clearly went over your head. Your point is a logical fallacy.
|
|