Social Politics Thread

[Unas]

Personally though, I think that democracy is mature to decide on this matter.

You already know about my doubts in that respect, so I won't describe all of them again.
Supposing that voting people really are mature in terms of political and social awareness, then the rest of your paragraph holds, but that's a very, very optimistic point of view.
See about how some of you on this topic kept complaining about votes being rigged because of some voters having a religion ? Well, if they are right, it means that an important number of people are not mature enough to think by themselves; if, like I think, they are wrong, it means a great number of people are not mature enough to accept democratic decisions as such, since they have to blame other entities for results that don't satisfy them.
In both cases, it highlights a lack of "democratic maturity" in the population.

On the whole, our moral universe is quite similar. It's a testament to the complexity of moral thinking that we can reach entirely different conclusions based on largely compatible premises =) So many qualitative judgments to make...

Indeed. And the whole point of my argumentation regarding gay marriage isn't to prove that it's wrong to do it, but to make it clear that people have legitimate reasons to refuse it - whether they be pragmatic, moral or religious arguments. Agreeing to those or not is a choice, but a choice that people have to be aware of.
I'm tired of the way people always present those they don't agree with them as horrible persons, and make of that a generality... You could say that, by this kind of debates, I aim at improving a little the maturity of a few people - that maturity without which democracy is bound to fail.

On that... I will simply say that the notion of sanctity of human life isn't as absolute as it may seem. The same people that are pro-life are prone to thinking there are "just wars", for example.

I wonder how these same people react when their own life is in danger... they might be subject to a great moral shift then.
Besides, I haven't seen anyone yet who, presented with the argument that abortion was murder, reacted saying that lives could be disposed of. They all said the problem was the definition of the human being - though they could not provide one - but never admitted to be advocating murder.
So I think that the value of human life is still considered important. The problem is that it it's easier to find vague reasons for which it would not apply, rather than accept the consequences.

Also is putting spaces before colons and semi-colons a French thing? I've seen Frenchy and Unas do it

French typography, among other details, includes putting spaces before colons, question marks and exclamation marks. In that respect, my English is bad, because I don't bother adapting my typography

But just as they (eventually) changed their belief to "The Earth revolves around the Sun

Which is as true as its opposite (Sun revolving around Earth) is. In most of the debates I've been in that reached the question of religion, this precise case was presented as a great victory of reason against religion.
People who say that are no scientists, clearly, and know nothing of that "reason" they mention. The first thing we're taught in mechanics classes is that the study of any movement entirely depends on the chosen referential (one point and three axes that we consider "fixed" for the sake of experience).
In an heliocentric referential, the Earth revolves around the Sun; in a geocentric referential, the Sun revolves around the Earth. No one has either been wrong or right in that matter.
Sorry for the scientific digression, but that's a single sentence that I can't stand seeing people use in a debate, as it's scientifically unfounded.

Now, onto what you say : I agreed that the understanding of the founding texts and values of a religion could change, but as a result of the careful study and interpretation of those; not as a reaction to society. In that respect, it might happen that gay marriage be recognised by religion in the future, though doubt it, but people have no right to demand it, unless they can present theological evidence to defend their claim.

Well, there are definitely religious people that do consider the religious argument and other arguments and deem the religious arguments more convincing, but there are definitely people who just blindly follow their religion. (Hello Jim Jones.) So if there are enough of these blind followers...

True, there are some, but while you are careful enough to put an "if", your (or okappa's ) previous argument implied that this was actually the case in general. This, without any evidence, basically saying that the votes from religious persons had no value. This is what I obviously cannot agree with.

birth control isn't 100% effective.

Birth control perhaps isn't; self control (aka abstinence) is.
Any sexual act bears the chance of conceiving a child, even though all these birth control fanatics try to hide that fact. When accomplishing one, one should be aware of this fact and ready for the consequences if they happen.
I won't judge teen sexual relations from a moral point of view - it's people's choice. But it is a choice. If the choice is inappropriate, the person can only blame herself, or blame her environment for misinforming her.
The child, however, hasn't committed any act that would justify for him to be killed. I mean, murder is only legal in 3 situations : self-defence, judicial decision (though death penalty has been abandoned in many countries) or war. The child is not a soldier, and did not attempt murder. It is therefore illegal and unfair to kill him.

What if she doesn't have the finances? Having a baby unarguably changes a woman's life, and not necessarily for the better. Why should her life be ruined for one bad choice?

Here, you're in a pretty pessimistic situation. You consider that she is all alone, has no family caring about her, that state does not give any allowance, etc.

First, this is a very extreme case, and as I said, deciding a general law based on extreme situations is nonsense.
Again, it's like saying "there is a risk that some day that people be threatened to death by others. Let's add a law to authorise general murder, that way they will be able to fight back". This is absurd. Extreme cases are to be dealt with specific laws - here, self-defence.
And as a matter of fact, most people who use abortion are far from what you describe. It's interesting to think about the situation at the French/Spanish boundary in that respect. You have to know that France allows abortion only before 10 weeks in normal situations, whereas Spain allows for 14 weeks. Therefore, plenty of "abortion clinics" have opened in Spain, some of which close to the French boundary, where some French people go when they want to practice late abortion. Then they just come back to France without the baby. Do you think these people are the poor resourceless type ?

Second, this is what social care is for. If all those conditions happen to be true for the same person, it pretty much means your whole social system is rotten. Should you try to fix it, or take measures to officialise its decline ?
I mean, in France, there are

• State allowances for poor people
• State allowances for families with children, depending on the number of children
• Volunteer Associations to help Mothers and Families

And throughout the French society, Family is (still) a strong value, so that I hardly imagine someone being completely left out by his family in such a situation.

I remember someone telling me that "It (homosexuality) is the greatest rebellion against God."

This is one of the reasons why I'm atheist. I don't believe in what most of the stuff most religions stand for. It's ridiculous.

I'm atheist too, but because I'm very tolerant.
Having a religion would be against my principles, since they're not tolerant at all xD

Please go back reading a few of my previous walls of text, will you ? If you still honestly wish to argue that, I will be pleased to take on that issue again.

Thanks Phantom and Geno (I thought I'd never see you agreeing ) for clarifying things in a shorter way, though

I'm not going to go into details, but if there was a God, why does he leave the world to suffer?

I'm not going into details either, but because he leaves man free of his choices, and men tend to impose suffering on each other.

[Bad Player]

Individuals that are extremists are what give religion a bad name. Religion, true religion, seeks to help people, not oppress them. Unfortunately, the news stories and the impressions that most leave their mark are that of the extremists: it's hard to notice true, peaceful moderation.

Also, being an atheist doesn't automatically make you tolerant. I'm friends with atheists that are both tolerant of others, and atheists that are complete jerkwads.

Religion doesn't make people intolerant.
Not even being human makes you intolerant.
These are excuses, and not reasons for intolerance. Intolerance is a symptom of ignorance, which begets fear, which begets hatred.

QFT

I'm not going to go into details, but if there was a God, why does he leave the world to suffer?

(Watch out Frenchy might have a 200-page report on this when you check this thread again...)
There have been several theories to account for this, for example, Deism.

[Ami]

Polite reminder: this thread isn't here to debate religions, nor the validity of any theistic ideal. If your religious background is relevant to the discussion, go ahead, but I'd rather not see a religious debate grow from this.

I think we can all agree on the following:
- All humans have rights.
- There shouldn't be a denial of human rights.
- Homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as everyone else.

The only point that people here disagree on is whether they should have "marriage", within legal and theistic definitions. While looking for a theistic equivalent is a choice of every congregation, a legal equivalent shouldn't be denied.

Otherwise, what we run into are, at its core, theological and/or idealistic differences. In matters like these, one can attempt to convince, but as long as human rights aren't obstructed, it hurts no one.

I've also read that someone doesn't get transexuals. There are those that truly believe that s/he was born in the wrong gender. So, with today's surgery, one hopes to transmogrify themselves into their ideal selves (we all wish something to at least lesser extent, if not more). If you are referring to a hermaphrodite (having both sexual organs) by mistake, they too are oppressed, have rights, and are under the LGBT umbrella (though not listed as an initial all the time).

[Bad Player]

Oh wow, I completely skipped over Unas' post before... xD

But just as they (eventually) changed their belief to "The planets revolve around the Sun

Which is as true as its opposite (Sun revolving around Earth) is. In most of the debates I've been in that reached the question of religion, this precise case was presented as a great victory of reason against religion.
People who say that are no scientists, clearly, and know nothing of that "reason" they mention. The first thing we're taught in mechanics classes is that the study of any movement entirely depends on the chosen referential (one point and three axes that we consider "fixed" for the sake of experience).
In an heliocentric referential, the Earth revolves around the Sun; in a geocentric referential, the Sun revolves around the Earth. No one has either been wrong or right in that matter.
Sorry for the scientific digression, but that's a single sentence that I can't stand seeing people use in a debate, as it's scientifically unfounded.

My bad, my bad.
I retconned it to be scientifically appropriate

Now, onto what you say : I agreed that the understanding of the founding texts and values of a religion could change, but as a result of the careful study and interpretation of those; not as a reaction to society. In that respect, it might happen that gay marriage be recognised by religion in the future, though doubt it, but people have no right to demand it, unless they can present theological evidence to defend their claim.

What if the interpretation of the passages changes from a reaction in the change in society...?

birth control isn't 100% effective.

Birth control perhaps isn't; self control (aka abstinence) is.
Any sexual act bears the chance of conceiving a child, even though all these birth control fanatics try to hide that fact. When accomplishing one, one should be aware of this fact and ready for the consequences if they happen.

But birth control (when used properly) is still highly effective. Is it really fair to punish the 1% (or however small it is) with the punishment despite taking proper precautions?

I won't judge teen sexual relations from a moral point of view - it's people's choice. But it is a choice. If the choice is inappropriate, the person can only blame herself, or blame her environment for misinforming her.

So the individual should pay the price for the faults of society?

The child, however, hasn't committed any act that would justify for him to be killed. I mean, murder is only legal in 3 situations : self-defence, judicial decision (though death penalty has been abandoned in many countries) or war. The child is not a soldier, and did not attempt murder. It is therefore illegal and unfair to kill him.

Hmm... but it's not a "child" yet, is it? (Weak, I know, but continued below. Hey, I'm a poet and I didn't even know it!)

What if she doesn't have the finances? Having a baby unarguably changes a woman's life, and not necessarily for the better. Why should her life be ruined for one bad choice?

Here, you're in a pretty pessimistic situation. You consider that she is all alone, has no family caring about her, that state does not give any allowance, etc.

First, this is a very extreme case, and as I said, deciding a general law based on extreme situations is nonsense.
Again, it's like saying "there is a risk that some day that people be threatened to death by others. Let's add a law to authorise general murder, that way they will be able to fight back". This is absurd. Extreme cases are to be dealt with specific laws - here, self-defence.
And as a matter of fact, most people who use abortion are far from what you describe. It's interesting to think about the situation at the French/Spanish boundary in that respect. You have to know that France allows abortion only before 10 weeks in normal situations, whereas Spain allows for 14 weeks. Therefore, plenty of "abortion clinics" have opened in Spain, some of which close to the French boundary, where some French people go when they want to practice late abortion. Then they just come back to France without the baby. Do you think these people are the poor resourceless type ?

Second, this is what social care is for. If all those conditions happen to be true for the same person, it pretty much means your whole social system is rotten. Should you try to fix it, or take measures to officialise its decline ?
I mean, in France, there are

• State allowances for poor people
• State allowances for families with children, depending on the number of children
• Volunteer Associations to help Mothers and Families

And throughout the French society, Family is (still) a strong value, so that I hardly imagine someone being completely left out by his family in such a situation.

All right, I was giving an extremely, relatively rare example.
But having a child is still a huge burden emotionally, physically, and financially, and completely changes a woman's life. I think if she doesn't want to have the child, she shouldn't be forced to have it.


(Also don't forget the alternative... the child having a mother who didn't want him)

[SwagmaWampyr]

To clarify for this upcoming rant: I don't have any problem whatsoever with religion, as I am somewhat religious myself. I don't go to church or anything but I do think there is a deity in the grand scheme of things and I try to pay my respects every night.

However, that's no excuse for what Texas is doing right now, to just give up and pray to god to solve all their problems for them. The time spent on this prayer convention could be spent working and spiking money into the economy, which is what would actually WORK. Thunderf00t made a video on this that kind of took the words out of my mouth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFTUkRc4JSE

That being said, like I said, I do believe that a deity exists. But I believe that said deity doesn't just wave a magic wand and makes things happen, all he does is give us the potential to do certain things, and we need to harness that potential to make our goals reality on our own. And that's why I think that God, or whoever this deity is, is ignoring the prayers of Texas, because they CAN fix things on their own, but they insist on begging for help instead, instead of fixing their problems with their own two hands. It's like how Harold Camping got a stroke and suffered a speech impairment, which I believe was God's punishment for the lies he spread throughout America.

Course, that's just what I think.

...This is the right thread, right?

[Gombarry]

I'm going to agree with unas on the topic of sex before marriage. Like unas said, abstinence has a 0% chance of having yourself a baby when you don't want one. Sure birth control is effective and all. But it still has that chance of getting a child when you don't want it. There's still risk. And as for abortion, it's murder. Plain and simple. And if you don't agree with that. Well, it's cheaper to be abstinent. If you still want to do it, that's fine with me. Just remember YOU'RE the one that has to deal with the consequences. And with that being said. Abstinence is the better choice. At least in my view anyway.

[sabisaotome]

....Uh....shedding some personal insight into the matter of marriage and such...

My parents are divorced.

Spoiler : backstory, ish :

My father was always sort of abusive to my mother-very misogynistic. He even hit her a few times, bashed her head into a mirror and...well, I won't go into some of the other stuff here. When I was around 12 or 13, my mom met someone online that she made fast friends with. She went to see him, and he restored her self-esteem through a bond of true friendship. *w* ((Everyone else thinks she had an affair with him, but given how close I was throughout the situation, I can say -at best- it's doubtable. I really don't believe she did, although she did cheat on my dad with his best friend. After he cheated on her several times with his best friend's sister, some coworkers, and even a woman he brought to live with us while she was having troubles-my best friend's mom))
Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but the point is that they were both flawed and horrendously incompatible.

TL;DR my mom kicked my father out. A bunch of traumatic stuff happened to my brothers and I, and we were basically messengers in a war between my father (along with my then soon-to-be-stepmother) and my mother.

It was a nasty, bitter and prolonged fight with underhanded tactics abounding, pitting my brothers and I against each other and our parents, "legal" kidnapping and stealing, and no real resolution. Even now, nobody on my father's side of the family will talk to me (not that I mind terribly) and my father owes tons of back child support.

I can honestly say that marriage does not a happy couple make.


These troubles are possible even with a gay couple, I'm sure, but that's the thing, you know? We're all human.
Everyone deserves a chance to try to make it work.

If a gay couple wants to devote their lives to each other, far be it from me to disallow them. They'll probably be better off than my parents.

Spoiler : More opinions and stuff :

Also, this whole idea of marriage for the purpose of raising children I keep hearing about is utterly incomprehensible to me.
If it fails, it's that much harder on the kids. My parents got married because my mom got pregnant with me.
All those years of misery were for my sake.

That's really hard to live with, even now that I'm all grown and moved out. I feel guilty to this day that my existence is the reason my mother is so damaged; why she got married to someone who controls her every move now just because she felt she couldn't provide well enough for her children.

Tch.


And on the subject of abstinence, that cannot be the only option. Abstinence-only education has seen a dramatic increase in the spread of STDs and pregnancies.

Spoiler : A bit about contraception :

In Japan, they have whole stores and vending machines for condoms everywhere. It works, man. It really does. You can't just expect the ignorant masses (and I can say that because I live in redneck central) to actually understand and use birth control or common sense unless you serve it up on a platter. That's the reality of the situation. Almost everyone I went to high school with is pregnant or already has children. It's really scary.

[Unas]

Well, about your personal story, I've got little to say, except that it's indeed a sad example of failing marriage. It must have been tough indeed.

I would react, though, to the following statement

Also, this whole idea of marriage for the purpose of raising children I keep hearing about is utterly incomprehensible to me.
If it fails, it's that much harder on the kids. My parents got married because my mom got pregnant with me.
All those years of misery were for my sake.

I think that's where the core of the problem is.
Marriage is not supposed to be forced. That's mostly why I consider that having sex - and more, children - before marriage isn't a good idea : marriage is supposed to be a free and open decision from the parents, only dictated by their real and exclusive love for each other.
Having a child beforehand creates another loved being, as well as a "social responsibility", that both weaken that freedom. And I do believe that a forced marriage is quite unlikely to be happy.

However cliché it may sound, I'll also say that you probably don't have to feel guilty about that yourself ("probably", since I don't know what you did as a child, but I'll suppose that you were not a monster ) - the mistake if there really was one came from above.

You can't just expect the ignorant masses (and I can say that because I live in redneck central) to actually understand and use birth control or common sense

Well, that's precisely the problem.
My hope is to make these masses less ignorant and give them more common sense, rather than providing all the solutions for them to stay as ignorant as they are, which would kind of officialise the decline of society.

[Bad Player]

Also, this whole idea of marriage for the purpose of raising children I keep hearing about is utterly incomprehensible to me.
If it fails, it's that much harder on the kids. My parents got married because my mom got pregnant with me.
All those years of misery were for my sake.

I think that's where the core of the problem is.
Marriage is not supposed to be forced. That's mostly why I consider that having sex - and more, children - before marriage isn't a good idea : marriage is supposed to be a free and open decision from the parents, only dictated by their real and exclusive love for each other.
Having a child beforehand creates another loved being, as well as a "social responsibility", that both weaken that freedom. And I do believe that a forced marriage is quite unlikely to be happy.

Agree. But I also think that people should be able to have (safe) sex before marriage, if they so choose.

[sabisaotome]

The fact of the matter is that people will continue to do things as they think they should, regardless of what they're told.

They need to learn all their options. =A= Abstinence is pretty impractical, too, if you think about it. Sex affords us many benefits health-wise.

Spoiler : And an odd thought; :

If everyone were gay and procreation were carefully controlled, that would be an interesting world. The only thing to worry about would be STDs, and that's not a new problem, so meh.

Spoiler : Breaking Zeel's heart now: :

FYI, I'm engaged to a transgender (NOT A TRANSVESTITE) now. When he's legally male we'll be tying the knot. Not because we're in love with each other, but because we love each other. I want to spend the rest of my life with him, and he feels the same for me, even though we're not physically attracted to one another. I can't have kids anyway without seriously risking death for the baby and myself, so all the better I don't have to worry about it at all. If gay marriage were legal where I live, we'd already be married and happier for it, and the sex-change stuff could come later.

Feel free to share opinions on your moral and ethical stance regarding this. I'll love you even if you disagree with me.

[FenrirDarkWolf]

The fact of the matter is that people will continue to do things as they think they should, regardless of what they're told.

They need to learn all their options. =A= Abstinence is pretty impractical, too, if you think about it. Sex affords us many benefits health-wise.

Spoiler : And an odd thought; :

If everyone were gay and procreation were carefully controlled, that would be an interesting world. The only thing to worry about would be STDs, and that's not a new problem, so meh.

Spoiler : Breaking Zeel's heart now: :

FYI, I'm engaged to a transgender (NOT A TRANSVESTITE) now. When he's legally male we'll be tying the knot. Not because we're in love with each other, but because we love each other. I want to spend the rest of my life with him, and he feels the same for me, even though we're not physically attracted to one another. I can't have kids anyway without seriously risking death for the baby and myself, so all the better I don't have to worry about it at all. If gay marriage were legal where I live, we'd already be married and happier for it, and the sex-change stuff could come later.

Feel free to share opinions on your moral and ethical stance regarding this. I'll love you even if you disagree with me.

Aww, that's sweet Sabi! In my eyes, love should be available for everyone, and marriage should be as well!

[Singidava]

Speaking of gay marriages - parlament members are trying to make a new law proposal about gender neutral marriage without support from the goverment here. Since Finnish politics are a mess, forming the new goverment was really hard and they had to make a promise: when the parties were forming the goverment the Christian Democrats said they would join only if the goverment wouldn't make a proposal about gender neutral marriage. This is why invidual members have to try and make the proposal. It's much harder when you don't have the goverment to back it up but it going through is still possible.

In Japan, they have whole stores and vending machines for condoms everywhere. It works, man. It really does. You can't just expect the ignorant masses (and I can say that because I live in redneck central) to actually understand and use birth control or common sense unless you serve it up on a platter.

Indeed that helps a lot, but even more important is spreading the informarion and changing the attitudes.

I have heard that people don't have health ed at all in some parts of US and even if they do the parents can forbid their child attending the classes which, I think, is quite ridiculous.

...It's been quite a while since this happened but I remember AAO member A and AAO member B arguing (the ones I'm talking about will recognize themselves) in the chat. Apparently the older AAO member A thought, based on the system in US, that the younger that AAO member B wouldn't know that girls have periods because their health class began in the final year of high school which both I and the European AAO member B found ridiculous.

Come on, maybe it would be a good a idea to tell the girls before they, you know, start actually having them?

And if people don't know about periods how are they supposed to know about contraception..?

[Mimi]

Mmmm... I'll throw my opinion on the plate.

Spoiler : Gay Marriages :

The Con People Say:
-Bible doesn't allow it.
-It's not right.
-It spreads STDs.

^this is what I've heard.

Now, I say:

The Pro People (Me)
-The Bible is not God. God is not a book. Since when has an angel, directly ascended and told us that gay people can't marry? I haven't heard that yet.
-How is it not right? Because the Bible says so? The word "gay" wasn't associated with homosexuality until sometime after 19th century. It's only used recently now. So you cannot say "gay" was explicitly shunned in the bible. Now, about homosexuals... I need to research on that.

Either way, even if you don't believe it's not right, there's the matter of tolerance. Who said you need to believe it's right? Do you need to believe in God in order to tolerate his existence? I don't believe in God (sorry, I currently follow no religion), but is it the tiniest bit hard to tolerate his existence? NOPE. I don't need to believe in him to be okay with it.

The point is, nobody is going to die or get murdered or get raped or get abused or get stolen or anything that violates the Ten Commandments if people with the same sex marry. Even if that happens, it's only in individual cases. Marriage isn't easily made, you know. I'm sure people will know what they are doing.

-Now, for spreading STDs...

Only if you don't protect yourself. Heck, gender preference has nothing to do with STDs. I could back it up with my statistics about how many straight people get STDs compared to people that like the same gender. STDs have no preference. It just happens.

Spoiler : Abortions :

This is a very difficult issue. I personally believe that any women that gets pregnant should take responsibility of the kid they will bring into life.

...But what if they're raped?

Unlucky chance. Should she be forced to keep this child that was forced upon her?

This child is a life. This child has a mind. Wouldn't you want to be brought into life? But then again... it's all on the mother. I don't think we should dictate what they believe. Hopefully, she will think about it and make the right decision.

I guess I'm saying it depends on the case. Unfortunately, abortion is an issue I'm very vague on... so...

[Dypo deLina]

Speaking of gay marriages - parlament members are trying to make a new law proposal about gender neutral marriage without support from the goverment here. Since Finnish politics are a mess, forming the new goverment was really hard and they had to make a promise: when the parties were forming the goverment the Christian Democrats said they would join only if the goverment wouldn't make a proposal about gender neutral marriage. This is why invidual members have to try and make the proposal. It's much harder when you don't have the goverment to back it up but it going through is still possible.

In Japan, they have whole stores and vending machines for condoms everywhere. It works, man. It really does. You can't just expect the ignorant masses (and I can say that because I live in redneck central) to actually understand and use birth control or common sense unless you serve it up on a platter.

Indeed that helps a lot, but even more important is spreading the informarion and changing the attitudes.

I have heard that people don't have health ed at all in some parts of US and even if they do the parents can forbid their child attending the classes which, I think, is quite ridiculous.

...It's been quite a while since this happened but I remember AAO member A and AAO member B arguing (the ones I'm talking about will recognize themselves) in the chat. Apparently the older AAO member A thought, based on the system in US, that the younger that AAO member B wouldn't know that girls have periods because their health class began in the final year of high school which both I and the European AAO member B found ridiculous.

Come on, maybe it would be a good a idea to tell the girls before they, you know, start actually having them?

And if people don't know about periods how are they supposed to know about contraception..?

For reference: AAO Member A = Ryuusai09, European AAO Member B = Me. *remembers that conversation*

And about the text I bolded, that's almost an exact quote of what I said that day.

[deHughes]

So I tend to avoid this topic, but BB wanted me to read Sabi's post because she gave my childhood a running, and I have to say. Wow, we have a lot of things in common! xD Though I don't think my parents ever cheated on each other. But aside from that, word for word!

And most of all congratz of the engagement! Best of luck with the legalization and marriage! (Wish I could say this in a different topic, but it would probably be way too out of place and sudden. )