NationStates Jolt Archive


Peace or Freedom?

The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 09:32
Tough question, but what would you rather have if the situation came to point where you had to sacrifice one for the other. Would you have peace or freedom?
United Island Empires
11-04-2006, 10:15
Freedom, definately.
Pseudonesia
11-04-2006, 10:18
I would have to agree, I would say it would be more likely to achieve peace through freedom, rather than freedom from peace, if you can do such a thing.
Damor
11-04-2006, 10:41
I think most people, when you put a gun to their head, would choose peace. As being not dead, is a more immediate desire than being free.
And without a metaphorical gun to your head, you already have some measure of peace.

I suppose it depends on the situation, and what exactly you mean by peace and freedom. Sure, I'd like to say I would choose freedom. But I'd be lying if I said I knew I would.
Dez2
11-04-2006, 10:53
Peace all the way, at least you would be happy!:cool:
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 10:53
It's a bit like a bird in a cage. The bird in the cage gets food taken to it without it having to do anything and is protected from predators but is incarcerated for life. The bird in the wild gets freedom but has to defend itself and find its own food.
Psychotic Mongooses
11-04-2006, 10:57
Ultimate peace or ultimate freedom?
Peace.

Freedom is overrated.
Lunatic Goofballs
11-04-2006, 11:00
Freedom. Humans can't do peace. It'd never last. :p
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 11:09
You can't have freedom without peace and you can't have peace without freedom.
When there is no peace (war, battles, ...) You aren't free to do what you want, you will always have to watch out for someone with a gun and therefore, you won't be free.

When there is no freedom there need to be people to make sure other people aren't free (police, soldiers, ...)and people who want their freedom, so there will be conflicts and no peace.
Frozopia
11-04-2006, 11:09
Gods you can almost bet a £100 that this was started by an American.
Freedom is beyond overrated.
Yootopia
11-04-2006, 11:11
You can't have freedom without peace and you can't have peace without freedom.
When there is no peace (war, battles, ...) You aren't free to do what you want, you will always have to watch out for someone with a gun and therefore, you won't be free.

When there is no freedom there need to be people to make sure other people aren't free (police, soldiers, ...)and people who want their freedom, so there will be conflicts and no peace.

Switzerland seems to be doing alright.
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 11:11
Gods you can almost bet a £100 that this was started by an American.
Freedom is beyond overrated.

Or an anarchist....
And freedom is NOT overrated, as I just said, it is necessary to be free in order to have peace
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 11:12
Gods you can almost bet a £100 that this was started by an American.
Freedom is beyond overrated.

Wrong! English.
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 11:12
Or an anarchist....
And freedom is NOT overrated, as I just said, it is necessary to be free in order to have peace

Correct! Walk this way to collect your prizes.
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 11:14
Switzerland seems to be doing alright.

Do you know Swiss people?
There isn't a lot known about Switzerland. For example, a couple of years ago they were on the edge of a civil war, the army had to send tanks out in the streets to keep the peace.
Yootopia
11-04-2006, 11:16
Correct! Walk this way to collect your prizes.

Not true in the slightest. Cuba isn't particularly free and it hasn't had a real war for ages (100-ish years). Note : Bay of Pigs does not count, as that was a piss-poor revolution effort rather than a war.

Nor does Castro's revolution. Because that was also not a war.
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 11:20
Not true in the slightest. Cuba isn't particularly free and it hasn't had a real war for ages (100-ish years). Note : Bay of Pigs does not count, as that was a piss-poor revolution effort rather than a war.

Nor does Castro's revolution. Because that was also not a war.

But when I say peace I do not mean it as the opposite of war, I also mean that people don't get arrested, robbed or encountered with violence.
A revolution is not peaceful!
Daisetta
11-04-2006, 11:23
Do you know Swiss people?
There isn't a lot known about Switzerland. For example, a couple of years ago they were on the edge of a civil war, the army had to send tanks out in the streets to keep the peace.

Gosh, and here was me living just up the road in Munich, and visiting Switzerland, and no one even noticed!! I mean there was I on the streets of Geneva and I completely failed to see all those nasty horrible tanks! Switzerland was NOT on the verge of civil war a couple of years ago and it did NOT have to send tanks into the streets to keep the peace. Where on Earth did you dig up this little piece of lunacy?
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 11:24
Or an anarchist....
And freedom is NOT overrated, as I just said, it is necessary to be free in order to have peace

Do you happen to know Evil Little Boys? He's a mate of mine.
Yootopia
11-04-2006, 11:25
But when I say peace I do not mean it as the opposite of war, I also mean that people don't get arrested, robbed or encountered with violence.
A revolution is not peaceful!

People don't get arrested, robbed or encountered with violence? That's not peace, that's oppression.

Peace to me is generally feeling safe and not having my state in any wars, not the utter control of everything by the government. The two are different.

I'd rather live in a benevolent dictatorship than an aggressive and corrupt democracy, if that's what you generally meant.
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 11:26
Gosh, and here was me living just up the road in Munich, and visiting Switzerland, and no one even noticed!! I mean there was I on the streets of Geneva and I completely failed to see all those nasty horrible tanks! Switzerland was NOT on the verge of civil war a couple of years ago and it did NOT have to send tanks into the streets to keep the peace. Where on Earth did you dig up this little piece of lunacy?

I thought that sounded odd. When I went skiing in the Alps there a few months ago it was extremely civilized and peaceful.
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 11:27
Gosh, and here was me living just up the road in Munich, and visiting Switzerland, and no one even noticed!! I mean there was I on the streets of Geneva and I completely failed to see all those nasty horrible tanks! Switzerland was NOT on the verge of civil war a couple of years ago and it did NOT have to send tanks into the streets to keep the peace. Where on Earth did you dig up this little piece of lunacy?

Ok, maybe a couple of years is a bit too short. I can't recall exactly when, but I'm pretty sure about that, I got it from someone who left Switzerland, but he's like 50 now, so it might as well be 30 years ago.


Do you happen to know Evil Little Boys? He's a mate of mine.
(shhh, I'm his alter ego)
Yootopia
11-04-2006, 11:27
Yes, I do know Swiss people and they've said nothing about it.

If it's so secretive, then how did you manage to find your little piece of wisdom? Wikinews?
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 11:31
(shhh, I'm his alter ego)

Well, he was talking the other day about liberating 'Anarchism'. How do you feel about that?
Bolol
11-04-2006, 11:31
Damn...that IS a tough question...

As much as I would want peace between people and nations, if it comes at the cost of a totalitarian state...then I'd take freedom over that.
LondoMolari
11-04-2006, 11:35
Not true in the slightest. Cuba isn't particularly free and it hasn't had a real war for ages (100-ish years). Note : Bay of Pigs does not count, as that was a piss-poor revolution effort rather than a war.

Nor does Castro's revolution. Because that was also not a war.

Cuba had thousands of troops in Africa fighting in civil wars during the 1980s.
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 11:35
Yes, I do know Swiss people and they've said nothing about it.

If it's so secretive, then how did you manage to find your little piece of wisdom? Wikinews?

Ok, maybe I was misinformed, I'll ask the guy again next time I see him.

The point is that in democracy there is no freedom nor peace. There is no absolute freedom and therefore, people revolt.
In order to keep the state of democracy police and soldiers are needed. When democracy is threatened, they get on the streets with clubs, riot gear, tear gas, rubber bullets, and if necessary, live rounds.
That's hardly freedom or peace to me.
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 11:37
Well, he was talking the other day about liberating 'Anarchism'. How do you feel about that?

The region is liberated I think, so no need to bother.
Yootopia
11-04-2006, 11:37
Cuba had thousands of troops in Africa fighting in civil wars during the 1980s.

That was one or two wars, then. Not nearly as many as the US government's been in in the last 60-ish years.

*edits*

@ Evil Little Girls

Yes, I know, that's my point. I'd rather live in a benevolent dictatorship than an aggressive, corrupt government.
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 11:38
The region is liberated I think, so no need to bother.

Oh, good. Shame the AA can't be the heroes of today though...
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 11:43
That was one or two wars, then. Not nearly as many as the US government's been in in the last 60-ish years.

*edits*

@ Evil Little Girls

Yes, I know, that's my point. I'd rather live in a benevolent dictatorship than an aggressive, corrupt government.

So, in this dictatorship, suppose people oppose the dictator, how would he react? For a dictator to remain in place, he needs decent military support. So there goes your peace.
Yootopia
11-04-2006, 11:57
A benevolent dictator tries to get the best for people, so that they don't. And they would probably ask the public what was making it unhappy, and if it was them then they'd step down.
Evil little girls
11-04-2006, 12:02
A benevolent dictator tries to get the best for people, so that they don't. And they would probably ask the public what was making it unhappy, and if it was them then they'd step down.

But life isn't that black and white, what is 60% wanted the government to stay And oppress a minority group of about 20% of the population?
Yootopia
11-04-2006, 12:14
But life isn't that black and white, what is 60% wanted the government to stay And oppress a minority group of about 20% of the population?

Then they'd try to re-educate the population to make 100% of people feel good about each other, rather than hateful.
The Bruce
11-04-2006, 12:35
Unless you have bigger guns than your neighbours you have to have peace to have freedom. You have limited sense of freedom in a state of violent chaos if you are a peaceful person.
Kilobugya
11-04-2006, 12:59
You can't have freedom without peace and you can't have peace without freedom.
When there is no peace (war, battles, ...) You aren't free to do what you want, you will always have to watch out for someone with a gun and therefore, you won't be free.

When there is no freedom there need to be people to make sure other people aren't free (police, soldiers, ...)and people who want their freedom, so there will be conflicts and no peace.

I agree with you :)
Psychotic Mongooses
11-04-2006, 17:07
So, in this dictatorship, suppose people oppose the dictator, how would he react? For a dictator to remain in place, he needs decent military support. So there goes your peace.

You do know what the word benevolent means right? As in a benevolent dictator? Thats a good thing.

Its the best form of rule in theory.
Romanar
11-04-2006, 17:19
You do know what the word benevolent means right? As in a benevolent dictator? Thats a good thing.

Its the best form of rule in theory.

The problem is, they don't stay benevolent. Even if the current dictator doesn't get corrupted with power, he eventually dies and his sadistic son takes over.
Frangland
11-04-2006, 17:22
Freedom
Utracia
11-04-2006, 17:22
Peace is impossible. There will always be someone out there to cause trouble that will bring war. Freedom however is most definately possible if we make sure that nothing interferes with it. We will only lose our freedom if we allow it to happen.
Psychotic Mongooses
11-04-2006, 17:25
The problem is, they don't stay benevolent. Even if the current dictator doesn't get corrupted with power, he eventually dies and his sadistic son takes over.

Hence me saying.. in theory ;)

Thats what all this is, just theory. In a make believe world- who needs to be free (and what does that even mean anyway? Some anarchistic style world? No thank you.)
CanuckHeaven
11-04-2006, 17:27
Tough question, but what would you rather have if the situation came to point where you had to sacrifice one for the other. Would you have peace or freedom?
I believe that for me to answer the poll, you would need to better clarify what peace and freedom would entail.
United Island Empires
11-04-2006, 17:29
Peace all the way, at least you would be happy!:cool:
But without freedom you couldn't be happy.

I'd much rarther live in wartime britain than a big bother state from nineteen eighty four.
Utracia
11-04-2006, 17:33
But without freedom you couldn't be happy.

I'd much rarther live in wartime britain than a big bother state from nineteen eighty four.

In 1984 didn't the government keep the people afraid with one war or another? Sounds like no freedom OR peace.
Saxnot
11-04-2006, 17:52
Freedom. Easily.
Saxnot
11-04-2006, 17:54
In 1984 didn't the government keep the people afraid with one war or another? Sounds like no freedom OR peace.
The war was not really war in our sense of the word. Just a way of using up resources to ensure scarcity. WAR IS PEACE.
Haerodonia
11-04-2006, 18:04
Most definately peace.

Freedom's a nice idea but not really practical when you're too busy trying not to get shot/bombed/hacked to death with machettes.
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 18:08
I voted 'Peace'. This is partly because you could say Iraqis have lots of freedom but, as you may have realized, not much peace.
CanuckHeaven
11-04-2006, 18:10
I voted 'Peace'. This is partly because you could say Iraqis have lots of freedom but, as you may have realized, not much peace.
How do you figure that the Iraqis have lots of "freedom"?
Duntscruwithus
11-04-2006, 18:17
Freedom.

First, Last, and Always.
The New Diabolicals
11-04-2006, 18:17
How do you figure that the Iraqis have lots of "freedom"?

Well, everyone keeps saying that the place is complete bedlam. They have lots of freedom but not enough morals. But, yes, I figure they do have freedom - the freedom to shoot at passing aircraft, the freedom to kidnap by-standers, the freedom to blow themselves up.
Anarchic Christians
11-04-2006, 18:34
Peace all the way, at least you would be happy!:cool:

They make a desolation and call it peace - Tacitus
The UN abassadorship
11-04-2006, 18:37
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"- George Washington
The Lightning Star
11-04-2006, 18:37
Peace.

What's the point of Freedom if you don't have a life?
The Lightning Star
11-04-2006, 18:48
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"- George Washington

Lol, George Washington didn't say that.
Dogburg II
11-04-2006, 23:57
Freedom.

If you had total freedom you'd be free from conflict and hurt as well. Aha.
The Lightning Star
12-04-2006, 00:14
Freedom.

If you had total freedom you'd be free from conflict and hurt as well. Aha.

What's your logic for that? Total freedom is you doing anything you wanted. That is called Anarchy. And that doesn't end well. Look at Somalia, for example.
Canada6
12-04-2006, 01:18
Freedom no question about it.

However having one does not imply going without the other. Quite the contrary.
Trotskytania
12-04-2006, 01:28
Thank you.

Freedom, by the way.
The UN abassadorship
12-04-2006, 02:18
Lol, George Washington didn't say that.
yes he did, thats why its famous
The Lightning Star
12-04-2006, 02:22
yes he did, thats why its famous

No, Patrick Henry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty_or_give_me_death) did.
Szanth
12-04-2006, 03:22
A totalitarian government doesn't offer peace. It offers oppression, so there is no peace, and by default no freedom.

Both freedom and peace are playing a balancing game on a highwire - you can't have one without the other, and you can't have either for very long.
The Lightning Star
12-04-2006, 03:28
A totalitarian government doesn't offer peace. It offers oppression, so there is no peace, and by default no freedom.

Both freedom and peace are playing a balancing game on a highwire - you can't have one without the other, and you can't have either for very long.

You aren't completely right on that one;

For example, the Roman Empire was pretty totalitarian. Yeah, it had the Senate, but it was just there for show. Roman citizens lived the good life, and did they complain? No. Granted, Rome went to war alot, but during the Pax Romana there was generally little fighting and Rome was in pretty swell condition.
Duntscruwithus
12-04-2006, 05:19
What's your logic for that? Total freedom is you doing anything you wanted. That is called Anarchy. And that doesn't end well. Look at Somalia, for example.

Somalia actually has a bunch of miniature governments. We call them warlords. It ain't anarchy, 'tis chaos.
Ladamesansmerci
12-04-2006, 05:21
What's your logic for that? Total freedom is you doing anything you wanted. That is called Anarchy. And that doesn't end well. Look at Somalia, for example.

Anarchy is not bad. Why do people look down on it so much?

Freedom, obviously.
Ravenshrike
12-04-2006, 05:28
I think most people, when you put a gun to their head, would choose peace. As being not dead, is a more immediate desire than being free.
And without a metaphorical gun to your head, you already have some measure of peace.

I suppose it depends on the situation, and what exactly you mean by peace and freedom. Sure, I'd like to say I would choose freedom. But I'd be lying if I said I knew I would.
A gun right next to my head? Freedom, as in the freedom to knock your hand away, kick you in the balls, and just generally beat the shit out of you.

Tip for threatening someone with a ranged weapon. NEVER let it within their reach.
Ravenshrike
12-04-2006, 05:30
You aren't completely right on that one;

For example, the Roman Empire was pretty totalitarian. Yeah, it had the Senate, but it was just there for show. Roman citizens lived the good life, and did they complain? No. Granted, Rome went to war alot, but during the Pax Romana there was generally little fighting and Rome was in pretty swell condition.
Tell that to the gladiators and slaves, as well as the christians.
Ravenshrike
12-04-2006, 05:31
In 1984 didn't the government keep the people afraid with one war or another? Sounds like no freedom OR peace.
If I remember correctly all of the governments were at manufactured war with one another. At least that was the impression I picked up from it.
The Cat-Tribe
12-04-2006, 05:36
A gun right next to my head? Freedom, as in the freedom to knock your hand away, kick you in the balls, and just generally beat the shit out of you.

Tip for threatening someone with a ranged weapon. NEVER let it within their reach.

You were too busy being Chuck Norris to get the point.

Although my knee-jerk answer is also freedom, it is a bit trickier if the question is literally your liberty or your life. It is rather hard to celebrate the freedom of death.
The Cat-Tribe
12-04-2006, 05:39
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"- George Washington

Lol, George Washington didn't say that.

yes he did, thats why its famous

Priceless. Just priceless.
The UN abassadorship
12-04-2006, 07:33
No, Patrick Henry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty_or_give_me_death) did.
George Washington was in attendance. Perhaps he gave henry the line beforehand. You know, to make Henry feel better about not being as cool as George.
Utracia
12-04-2006, 07:41
If I remember correctly all of the governments were at manufactured war with one another. At least that was the impression I picked up from it.

Yeah from what I remember the wars were all faked to keep patriotism in the nation. I really liked how they were supposively at war with one nation, then WAIT we are actually at war with THAT nation and they destroy all evidence of the previous "war". Crazy. Perhaps I should take another look at it, refresh my memory.
Canada6
12-04-2006, 12:16
The UN abassadorship... your political compass score... Hard authoritarian while slightly right. You do realise this is similar to what Hitler would have been estimated to receive?
Infinite Revolution
12-04-2006, 12:36
freedom, without question
Evil little girls
12-04-2006, 13:45
Somalia actually has a bunch of miniature governments. We call them warlords. It ain't anarchy, 'tis chaos.

Thank you, I always get pissed when people Say 'Somalia' everytime I say 'anarchy'
Evil little girls
12-04-2006, 13:47
If I remember correctly all of the governments were at manufactured war with one another. At least that was the impression I picked up from it.

I don't think so, every once in a while they had to erase all records of previous wars because the enemy had changed, why go through all that trouble if there isn't any real war?
Yootopia
12-04-2006, 13:53
The people of the various superpowers were killing each other (and themselves, it could be inferred). I wouldn't call that peace.
Sdaeriji
12-04-2006, 14:36
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"- George Washington

You get sigged, so that even after you get yourself deleted for trolling, future generations of NSers will know how hilarious you were.
Judge Learned Hand
12-04-2006, 14:46
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

-Benjamin Franklin
Duntscruwithus
12-04-2006, 17:37
Thank you, I always get pissed when people Say 'Somalia' everytime I say 'anarchy'

I know exactly what you mean. Too many people confuse anarchy with chaos. Had to laugh awhile back when that idiot journalist Nicolas Kristoff claimed Somalia was in a state of anarchy. Right after he had just finished complaining about the chaotic situation caused by all the warlords and their crews running around shooting at anything that moves.........

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

-Benjamin Franklin

Damned straight.
The Lightning Star
12-04-2006, 19:08
Tell that to the gladiators and slaves, as well as the christians.

In any society, someone is going to luck out. Turns out in Rome it was the criminals, those who decided to go to war with Rome, and a rebellious sect of Jews (who were pretty damn rebellious themselves). If they had just been like the OTHER 95% of the population of the Roman Empire, and let the Romans build their damned temples, the Christians and Jews wouldn't have been so screwed over.
The UN abassadorship
12-04-2006, 19:08
The UN abassadorship... your political compass score... Hard authoritarian while slightly right. You do realise this is similar to what Hitler would have been estimated to receive?
I didnt realize that but, I guess so. Are you saying Im Hilter like?
People without names
12-04-2006, 19:11
Peace all the way, at least you would be happy!:cool:

peace doesnt make you happy, it just makes it so you wont be hurt intentionally
Utracia
12-04-2006, 19:16
I don't think so, every once in a while they had to erase all records of previous wars because the enemy had changed, why go through all that trouble if there isn't any real war?

Keep patriotism flowing. Saying some other nation out there is going to destroy you is good for fear as well.
Relkan
12-04-2006, 19:17
"Peace is not the absense of war, it is the absense of threat and the presence of justice."--Rush Limbaugh

I expect angry jeers from many about how worthless Rush Limbaugh is, but regardless of what you think about him, this is an accurate description of peace in practical terms (not necessairily what a dictionary would say).
Eutrusca
12-04-2006, 19:20
Tough question, but what would you rather have if the situation came to point where you had to sacrifice one for the other. Would you have peace or freedom?
"Peace at any cost" is totally unacceptable. If you're not willing to defend that which is important to you, I don't want to hear from you when it's lost.
Eutrusca
12-04-2006, 19:22
"Peace is not the absense of war, it is the absense of threat and the presence of justice."--Rush Limbaugh

I expect angry jeers from many about how worthless Rush Limbaugh is, but regardless of what you think about him, this is an accurate description of peace in practical terms (not necessairily what a dictionary would say).
Given the current climate on here, and the ever-vigiliant flock of vultures, that took considerable courage to quote Limbaugh. Expect to be placed on a number of "ignore" lists. :rolleyes:
Eutrusca
12-04-2006, 19:23
peace doesnt make you happy, it just makes it so you wont be hurt intentionally
I would go even further and say that peace doesn't make you happy, it just makes it more likely that someone who wants what you have will attack you.
The Lightning Star
12-04-2006, 19:23
"Peace is not the absense of war, it is the absense of threat and the presence of justice."--Rush Limbaugh

I expect angry jeers from many about how worthless Rush Limbaugh is, but regardless of what you think about him, this is an accurate description of peace in practical terms (not necessairily what a dictionary would say).

That actaully makes sense.

Wait, did I just say Someting Rush Limbaugh said was correct? AAHHH!!

*jumps off a ciff*
Eutrusca
12-04-2006, 19:28
I know exactly what you mean. Too many people confuse anarchy with chaos. Had to laugh awhile back when that idiot journalist Nicolas Kristoff claimed Somalia was in a state of anarchy. Right after he had just finished complaining about the chaotic situation caused by all the warlords and their crews running around shooting at anything that moves.........
"Anarchy:

"1. Absence of any form of political authority.
"2. Political disorder and confusion.
"3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

Yup. I think Somalia qualifies.
Yootopia
12-04-2006, 19:30
"Anarchy:

"1. Absence of any form of political authority.
"2. Political disorder and confusion.
"3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

Yup. I think Somalia qualifies.

It qualifies 100%, actually.
The Lightning Star
12-04-2006, 19:32
"Anarchy:

"1. Absence of any form of political authority.
"2. Political disorder and confusion.
"3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

Yup. I think Somalia qualifies.

So do I.
Waterkeep
12-04-2006, 19:42
Perfect freedom can't exist. Literally can not. Because perfect freedom also implies the freedom to oppress. If that freedom does not exist, it's not perfect, and if that freedom does exist, it's not perfect.

Perfect peace, however, can exist.

It's called death.

So given the choice between death and non-existance?
I think I'll go have a snack instead.
The Lightning Star
12-04-2006, 19:44
Perfect freedom can't exist. Literally can not. Because perfect freedom also implies the freedom to oppress. If that freedom does not exist, it's not perfect, and if that freedom does exist, it's not perfect.

Perfect peace, however, can exist.

It's called death.

So given the choice between death and non-existance?
I think I'll go have a snack instead.

DAMN YOU AND YOUR LOGIC!
Canada6
13-04-2006, 00:05
I didnt realize that but, I guess so. Are you saying Im Hilter like?
Not at all. I hardly know you. I sure hope you're not Hitler like.