• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why doesn't God Protect us from disasters and terrorist attacks?

Spambiter

New member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Why doesn't God Protect us from disasters and terrorist attacks?

Because he doesn't exist.
And if he does, he's freaking out right now at how much he sucks at his job.
 

Argonath

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Location
Monrovia, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
can you imagine what it would be like to try and apply for that kind of job?
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,822
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Again spanking your children in the fifties had very little to do with racism........It is just and attempt to get off the subject.........Spanking both by parents in the home and teachers in the school was a great deterrent to misbehavior of children.........It was a way to enforce discipline...............

What is with your obsession with spanking? I was never spanked. I have never spanked my children. My parents taught me and I taught my children with words to be respectful. My parents taught me and I teach my children about the virtues of non-violence and tolerance.

To be frank, I did drugs in my youth (not heavily) but my own children do not do drugs and are in fact, quite anti-drugs...and anti-smoking for that matter. They make good grades in school. They are kind to everyone. And (you'll love this part) we are not Christians. Not a single prayer, not a single day in church.

What, has your God forsaken me? Or maybe he appreciates his values being nurtured in people rather than coerced through violence. Just free-thinking here....

Your crack about Dr. Spock was mean-spirited and tasteless. What was that about liberals making far-fetched rationalizations to support their ideas? Judgement starts at home kind sir.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is an illogical statement. Let's consider the images of the Tsunami. A single man survived at an island and still praid to what he calls "God". Even after everything was gone, he still prays, and what does he get?

I think you just answered that question. He got his life dude. You see possessions come and go true with life as well. But as long as you are still alive you have the ability and potential of getting all those possessions back. And God will provide a way.

Illogical? No. Its called faith. Some have it some dont. Thats a choice you make. Theres no ideology in it its very simple and childish. You either beleive or you dont.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,822
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
And one more thing. How do we all feel when we see a child struck by his/her parent in public? There is an instant of revulsion, right? You can almost hate that parent for a second, right? You give them dirty looks, right? Or, maybe it's just me that does that. Well, it looks that way at home, too. A child being hit by an adult as punishment is just wrong. We know it in our gut.
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
mixedmedia said:
And one more thing. How do we all feel when we see a child struck by his/her parent in public? There is an instant of revulsion, right?

Not in the least. If I ever feel revulsion towards a parent, I feel it when I see parents letting their kids run around like wild animals.

mixedmedia said:
You can almost hate that parent for a second, right? You give them dirty looks, right? Or, maybe it's just me that does that.

I won't say it's just you, but, unless it's excessive, I have no problem with it whatsoever.

mixedmedia said:
Well, it looks that way at home, too. A child being hit by an adult as punishment is just wrong. We know it in our gut.

A child being beaten by an adult is wrong. A child getting spanked isn't. I know that in my gut.

And, if you're curious, I was spanked as a child (probably not as often as I deserved ;) ). I am not a violent person. As a matter of fact, I take pride in never having been in a fight. To be clear, I don't count sparring in a dojo, or bouncing someone out of a bar as fighting. Even as a bouncer, I never resorted to fighting, I have sufficient training that I can control someone without striking a blow. Jui-jitsu is a wonderful thing!
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Theres a differnce between beating and chastising a child. However, I will agree the best way is groundng otr time outs. However, every child is different some fear time outs more and some fear spankings more. It depends on the child.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,822
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
MrFungus420 said:
And, if you're curious, I was spanked as a child (probably not as often as I deserved ;) ). I am not a violent person. As a matter of fact, I take pride in never having been in a fight. To be clear, I don't count sparring in a dojo, or bouncing someone out of a bar as fighting. Even as a bouncer, I never resorted to fighting, I have sufficient training that I can control someone without striking a blow. Jui-jitsu is a wonderful thing!

I didn't mean to infer that spanking makes people violent. Just that there are other ways of dealing discipline to our children than hitting that are just as effective and a lot easier on the kids and the parents. Granted, my experience is my own.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
5,189
Reaction score
2,877
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Most violent behavior in kids is a result of exposure to violence.

http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsFam/behavior.htm

Yay for spanking! Maybe that's why public executions and blatent racism is such a big part of our history. Kids didn't bring uzzis to school, but they got their fix for violence elsewhere. :shock:

On topic - I think God has a "hands off" approach on the universe. No miracles, no disaster prevention. He made it, and now he's just watching waiting for us to make the best of it. And we will, but it's taking longer than it should.
 

DonRicardo

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SKILMATIC said:
I think you just answered that question. He got his life dude. You see possessions come and go true with life as well. But as long as you are still alive you have the ability and potential of getting all those possessions back. And God will provide a way.

Very simplistic, I'd say. Obviously you are not aware of the inequality of life quality. THere is no perfect distribution of life quality, that's why He who is considered as allmighty, cannot be moral, if he exists.

What about all those who preyed and died.

SKILMATIC said:
Illogical? No. Its called faith. Some have it some dont. Thats a choice you make. Theres no ideology in it its very simple and childish. You either beleive or you dont.

1. It's not childish. It's growing up and learning that all teachings made to you are not necessairly correct. It's learning to accept what knowledge and be sceptical about what you get in front of you. It's learning to morality is far much more complicated and will never be achieved. We can only aim for morality and we all bear guilt.

One thing: never accept knowledge blindly. Always ask yourself "why".

2. There is logic to define theories. Let me show you this:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3106&page=6

Reading my - still even - post, you will get a better view. I even did not mention the possible quantum fluctuation theory.

If you cannot give a reply to this, than in fact your religion is nothing but either (a) a brainwash, (b) weakness to believe in the afterlife in order to hide your fear for death.

Many children get stocked with religion in their young ages. They do not get to choose between scientific theories (big bang) and religion.

Another reason is that faith is weakness. It is for those who cannot accept death. We all fear death, because of our animal instinct, but I believe there's nothing bad about it. It's a form of unconsciousness. Why not simply accept the "suggesting" truth?


Ask yourself now "Why did he do it and how?". If you cannot answer or give an appropriate suggestion, then in fact you're wrong. Time is an infinite straight line. Many people simply use "God" to get rid of explanations. Hence, they do not realise an explanation can never be finished.
 
Last edited:

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Binary_Digit said:
Most violent behavior in kids is a result of exposure to violence.

http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsFam/behavior.htm

Yay for spanking! Maybe that's why public executions and blatent racism is such a big part of our history. Kids didn't bring uzzis to school, but they got their fix for violence elsewhere. :shock:

On topic - I think God has a "hands off" approach on the universe. No miracles, no disaster prevention. He made it, and now he's just watching waiting for us to make the best of it. And we will, but it's taking longer than it should.

Kids couldnt bring Uzis to school if they couldnt get their hands on them ;) Second amendment needs amending ;)

DonRicardo - good post.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Parmenion said:
Kids couldnt bring Uzis to school if they couldnt get their hands on them ;) Second amendment needs amending ;)

DonRicardo - good post.

Name for me one student who legally possessed the gun that they brought to school.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Posted by DonRicardo;
Another reason is that faith is weakness. It is for those who cannot accept death. We all fear death, because of our animal instinct, but I believe there's nothing bad about it. It's a form of unconsciousness. Why not simply accept the "suggesting" truth?

My dear DonRicardo, faith is for the weak because faith makes the weak strong.

It is because of my faith that I accept my inevitable death. It is because of my faith that I know how to enjoy life and look forward to my death. It is because of my faith that I have over-ridden my bestial fear of death with the spiritual intelligence of God.

If faith is only for thouse who otherwise can not accept or who fear death, then given the fact that faith fills these spiritual holes, faith is a strength.

You are effectively saying that taking medicine is wrong because medicine is only for the sick & weak.

I say that you (along with everyone ells on this Earth) are also sick & weak, and that you refuse to take this medicine because to do so would be admitting that you are sick & weak; and being sick & weak is something that you just can not face.

Face your fear. Admit your sickness and your weakness. Take the medicine that God offers you, and become strong.
 

DonRicardo

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Busta said:
Posted by DonRicardo;
Another reason is that faith is weakness. It is for those who cannot accept death. We all fear death, because of our animal instinct, but I believe there's nothing bad about it. It's a form of unconsciousness. Why not simply accept the "suggesting" truth?

My dear DonRicardo, faith is for the weak because faith makes the weak strong.

It is because of my faith that I accept my inevitable death. It is because of my faith that I know how to enjoy life and look forward to my death. It is because of my faith that I have over-ridden my bestial fear of death with the spiritual intelligence of God.

If faith is only for thouse who otherwise can not accept or who fear death, then given the fact that faith fills these spiritual holes, faith is a strength.

You are effectively saying that taking medicine is wrong because medicine is only for the sick & weak.

I'll immediately start with a simple question: "Do medecines make you strong?".

I always tought that they break down one's natural resistance. Let's have a look at evolution:

- A man breaks down his muscle cells. His body reacts and will create more cells. He becomes stronger.
- Eqyptians can swim in the Nile and drink from it, while we, western people, would get infections from the spoled water. Does this have a link with natural resistance and medication?

I see a certain correlation between medication and natural resistance. Medication offers a lower natural resistance.

Well, in fact it's the same with mental strength. How can someone become stronger, if he weakens himself by not seeing true facts?

Busta said:
I say that you (along with everyone ells on this Earth) are also sick & weak, and that you refuse to take this medicine because to do so would be admitting that you are sick & weak; and being sick & weak is something that you just can not face.

I do have no problems admitting my weakness. In fact I dead already by explaining you that I do fear death. But fear is not weakness, cowardness is.

Besides, it's a stupid generalisation. Atheism has nothing to do with the weakness of faith. The main reason why I am an atheist is because of lack of evidence and illogical assumptions of religion. You simply neglected everything I said, because in fact you cannot reply to it. You simply can't deny all facts I wrote down.

Busta said:
Face your fear. Admit your sickness and your weakness. Take the medicine that God offers you, and become strong.

You run away from it, not wanting to admit that death is the end. That is something which I got past in my teenager years.

As someone once said "The strongest man is the one who stands most alone". I don't need pathethic fable stories.

Busta said:
It is because of my faith that I accept my inevitable death.

Indeed, what you're saying now is that religion is nothing but a fable. It makes you "believe", but still you know what the very truth is don't you?
 
Last edited:

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ah, you have already made up your mind. Well, there isn't much reason for us to debate then.

You did say 2 things that I liked, however.
- A man breaks down his muscle cells. His body reacts and will create more cells. He becomes stronger.
This is a good analogy as to why we are on this Earth. We are braking down our "spiritual muscles" and creating more so that we become stronger. Just as a physical workout hurts (and we might also question our Earthly father as to why he might want us to do something so painfull), so does our spiritual workout on Earth hurt.

"Well, in fact it's the same with mental strength. How can someone become stronger, if he weakens himself by not seeing true facts?"

Indeed.

I'm sorry that you think that you have all of this figured out. Certainly your missconceptions and presumed assumptions about me prove that this is not true, but hay, to each his own.
 

TheTruth

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Busta said:
Ah, you have already made up your mind. Well, there isn't much reason for us to debate then.

you only debate so you can convert?
 

DonRicardo

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Busta said:
Ah, you have already made up your mind. Well, there isn't much reason for us to debate then.

Where did you get that? Probably an observation beyond perception, I assume?

Busta said:
You did say 2 things that I liked, however.
- A man breaks down his muscle cells. His body reacts and will create more cells. He becomes stronger.
This is a good analogy as to why we are on this Earth. We are braking down our "spiritual muscles" and creating more so that we become stronger. Just as a physical workout hurts (and we might also question our Earthly father as to why he might want us to do something so painfull), so does our spiritual workout on Earth hurt.

"Well, in fact it's the same with mental strength. How can someone become stronger, if he weakens himself by not seeing true facts?"

Indeed.

I'm sorry that you think that you have all of this figured out. Certainly your missconceptions and presumed assumptions about me prove that this is not true, but hay, to each his own.

I just realise what kind of hilaric answer you give me here. You were the first one to compare "medecine" with mental strength and you comparance was even fully wrong.

Obviously, you have a very naieve view of mental strength.


You claim that by "softening" the situation of life, you will become stronger. That is ridiculous. Let's make a comparance with the muscle cells example:

There are two persons, one who lives in a dream world, the believer, and the atheistic, logic person. He, the last one, is able to solve problems quickly by critical thinking and neglecting his immediate desires (such as not being able to confront death). The believer, instead, dreams himself away and tries to neglect true facts, he abandons true knowledge and denies observations.

Tell me what person will be the one who is most competent? Take away the first person's religion and he will fall. While the other, the logic person, will try to find a quick solution whenever he is in trouble.

If he is in big trouble, danger, hazardous conditions, whatever, ... the first will pray to God. The believer got used to have support by his fantasies. He thinks God supports him and when he gets in trouble so deeply, he suddenly starts to question his belief. That is when he will fall.

While the second person, will quickly consider all options and evaluate the best. His chances are higher for survival. He is much stronger, can live without having need to something as a superiour, garding force. He can stand by himself.

Once more: faith is weakness, because a person seeks support and is too lame to make his own situation of life better. He fears death and makes up a story to comfor himself. While an atheist acts to bring hope, he sees the world as it is (maturity) and uses consequent, coherent thinking to handle problems. He is far much more competent and independent.


If you get children and you educate them with religion, you make them weak. It's like a drug: take it away and they fall.

A toddler needs to get 'dis-used' from his baby's dummy.


Also, your misconception of atheism was ridiculous. You point out a detail of all of what I've said. Proving that such "supernatural being" as a deity is immoral (which I haven't even made clear to you yet) is still nothing compared to what true philosophy suggests: the inexistance of a deity. And that is the major point of the atheistic view.
 
Last edited:

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
DonRicardo said:
Where did you get that? Probably an observation beyond perception, I assume?



I just realise what kind of hilaric answer you give me here. You were the first one to compare "medecine" with mental strength and you comparance was even fully wrong.

Obviously, you have a very naieve view of mental strength.


You claim that by "softening" the situation of life, you will become stronger. That is ridiculous. Let's make a comparance with the muscle cells example:

There are two persons, one who lives in a dream world, the believer, and the atheistic, logic person. He, the last one, is able to solve problems quickly by critical thinking and neglecting his immediate desires (such as not being able to confront death). The believer, instead, dreams himself away and tries to neglect true facts, he abandons true knowledge and denies observations.

Tell me what person will be the one who is most competent? Take away the first person's religion and he will fall. While the other, the logic person, will try to find a quick solution whenever he is in trouble.

If he is in big trouble, danger, hazardous conditions, whatever, ... the first will pray to God. The believer got used to have support by his fantasies. He thinks God supports him and when he gets in trouble so deeply, he suddenly starts to question his belief. That is when he will fall.

While the second person, will quickly consider all options and evaluate the best. His chances are higher for survival. He is much stronger, can live without having need to something as a superiour, garding force. He can stand by himself.

Once more: faith is weakness, because a person seeks support and is too lame to make his own situation of life better. He fears death and makes up a story to comfor himself. While an atheist acts to bring hope, he sees the world as it is (maturity) and uses consequent, coherent thinking to handle problems. He is far much more competent and independent.


If you get children and you educate them with religion, you make them weak. It's like a drug: take it away and they fall.

A toddler needs to get 'dis-used' from his baby's dummy.


Also, your misconception of atheism was ridiculous. You point out a detail of all of what I've said. Proving that such "supernatural being" as a deity is immoral (which I haven't even made clear to you yet) is still nothing compared to what true philosophy suggests: the inexistance of a deity. And that is the major point of the atheistic view.

See what I mien, TheTruth? There is no point in trying to debate with a septic. It will always turn into arguing, personal attacks, insults, etc....
 

DonRicardo

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Busta said:
See what I mien, TheTruth? There is no point in trying to debate with a septic. It will always turn into arguing, personal attacks, insults, etc....

Did I directly insult you? I did not mention a single name that refers to you. An example of name calling would be "bastard" or "moron". Excuse you for the big words here, but these are merely examples.

I compared religion with a baby's dummy. I could as well have compared it with steroids.

If a person takes steroids, he increases male hormons. His body reacts and build less hormons. This might result in female breasts, smaller genetalics, etc ...

You are making a serious mistake here. Show me where I made a personal attack. You were previously assuming statements, which I had never made. This is a spam post, which is far off-topic. We're not discussing your personal life here, but religion in the first place.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Parmenion said:
Where did I say they did?

Post #41: "Kids couldn't bring Uzis to school if they couldn't get their hands on them Second amendment needs amending."

More laws will not stop unruly children who do not follow the law. Amending the second amendment will not keep Uzis out of children's hands.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Posted by Busta;
"See what I mien, TheTruth? There is no point in trying to debate with a septic. It will always turn into arguing, personal attacks, insults, etc...."

DonRicardo said:
Did I directly insult you? I did not mention a single name that refers to you. An example of name calling would be "bastard" or "moron". Excuse you for the big words here, but these are merely examples.

I compared religion with a baby's dummy. I could as well have compared it with steroids.

If a person takes steroids, he increases male hormons. His body reacts and build less hormons. This might result in female breasts, smaller genetalics, etc ...

You are making a serious mistake here. Show me where I made a personal attack. You were previously assuming statements, which I had never made. This is a spam post, which is far off-topic. We're not discussing your personal life here, but religion in the first place.


Personal insults were not the only thing in that sentence. The "etc..." includes unfounded assumption ("Where did you get that? Probably an observation beyond perception, I assume?"), literal interpretation of a symbolic generalization ("I always tought that they break down one's natural resistance. Let's have a look at evolution....."), irrelevant and in-compadable cross requirements between science and faith ("The main reason why I am an atheist is because of lack of evidence and illogical assumptions of religion"), more unfounded assumptions ("You run away from it, not wanting to admit that death is the end.").......etc.....

Septics already have all of their own answers, so there is no point in debating with them.
 

DonRicardo

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Busta said:
Personal insults were not the only thing in that sentence.

Show the personal insults before you proceed. Otherwise you are claiming a statement without evidence.

Busta said:
The "etc..." includes unfounded assumption ("Where did you get that? Probably an observation beyond perception, I assume?"), literal interpretation of a symbolic generalization ("I always tought that they break down one's natural resistance. Let's have a look at evolution....."), irrelevant and in-compadable cross requirements between science and faith
("The main reason why I am an atheist is because of lack of evidence and illogical assumptions of religion"), more unfounded assumptions ("You run away from it, not wanting to admit that death is the end.").......etc.....

Let me clear some things up ...

As for your "literal interpretation of a symbolic generalization", you made a comparance between "medication and physical strength" and "religion and mental strength". I responded to that that your comparance was wrong. Would you please pick up the arguments of the final post?I compared "getting used of absence of steroids and baby's dummy" to taking away religion. That is a correct comparance.

The last assumption you mentioned is not illogical either:
"You run away from it, not wanting to admit that death is the end".You told me that you believe, because it makes you accept the inevitable death. What else do you do than run away from truth? You believe in afterlife.

All assumptions made were either:
(a) based upon your replies
(b) true comparances, which you did not counter, because you gave no reason WHY they are wrong.

and thus were not illogical. Next time also explain why they are false. I'm interested in a serious conversation here. Your answers were all illogical. You even made a generalisation and 2 false assumptions. I hope I don't have to point them for you.

Busta said:
Septics already have all of their own answers, so there is no point in debating with them.

Different persons often have various answers. The forum is designed for debate. This is highly irrelevant information. Would you please either (a) discuss the situation further with valid counterarguments or (b) admit you're wrong? "There is no point in debating with them" is not a valid counterargument. You are evading discussion so I assume you have no valid counterarguments. Let's stay on topic, please.

One more thing: what is wrong with scepticism?
And also if you reply, don't pick out one piece, but reply to all arguments. Because if you can't deny all of them, why would it be worth to reply?


Have you actually read what I placed here?
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3513
Gladly, I'd receive a reply to this first, before you proceed debating on minor points.

Also, reply to this first:
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3513&page=4
Obviously, you picked out a minor point ("faith is weakness") and neglected the rest. Is it because you have no valid reply to this all? If not, there is no way in debating with you anymore ...
 
Last edited:

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You are the one who picked "personal insults" out of the list of things that septics do. I didn't say that you insulted me, that is your missunderstanding.
The reason that attempting debate with a septic is pointless is that the septic will never accept the authority of your points. You have already decided that there is no God, so there is nothing that I could say that would persuade your view of faith. Faith is a personal philosophical observation without direct, independent, reproducible evidence. Faith does not comply with science as it is today. The part of you that requires evidence will have to be altered in order for you to have faith, and that is not something that I can do.

"Baby's dummy".....what the.......oh, you mien a pacifier? Now I get it.
 
Top Bottom