Pregnant? British? Here's some healthy food money!

Discussion in 'BOARDANIA' started by Roman_K, Sep 9, 2007.

  1. Maljonic Administrator

    I think a lot of people try to do that with a few different religions, even creating new religions and/or beliefs out of it.

    I don't know anything about PETA, in fact I never even heard of them until I read this thread. I personally hover in and out of vegetarianism. I don't think we should be hurting and eating animals, but I do still eat them now and again - even though it makes me feel bad on some level.
  2. mowgli New Member

    Join the club, Mal! ::looks down with guilt at a plate of sushi::*

    *Which was vegetarian sushi THIS time, but I mean... it could have been fish!
  3. Cynical_Youth New Member

    Yeah, that is inexcusable.

    I really hate to see what PETA is doing to a good message.
  4. Marcia Executive Onion

    PETA are very (in)famous in the United States

    I agree with you there. I don't see where PETA have the right to dictate how people practice their religion. (Unfortunately, their website is down at the moment, so I can't check it out myself.)

    I also agree that the comparison with Holocaust victims is outrageous.
  5. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Ignoring PETA and getting back to the original argument...

    Wendy, the important difference between pets and children - as others have said less directly - is that children grow up into adults, whereas pets will stay dependent all their lives. You can love a pet intensely, but they are not an investment for the future of our society.

    Roman, could you clarify whether your problem is with the scheme itself or with the way it's been implemented? I agree with the notion that vouchers would be easier to regulate than cash - but I believe that support for the parents equates indirectly to support for the child, and cash is more flexible.

    Good food is expensive in this country and we have a large underclass of malnourished, poorly-educated people (stuck in cycles of poverty that affect generation after generation) who simply don't realise what they need to do to grow a healthy baby. A Government-provided lecture may not seem to be the best means of getting the information across, but it's worked in other areas, and surely any attempt to educate these women is worthwhile? If we can reduce the number of dependent poor in this country, so much the better. (Then, Wendy, people like you wouldn't have to be supporting them. By the way, have you looked into the Working Tax Credit? Tax Credits aren't just for people with families.)

    Also, there are plenty of people in this country who appear well-off on paper and based on assumptions to do with social class and money. Garner and I are statistically well-off (we can afford to rent a house, we don't qualify for tax credits), but money towards a baby would be not just welcome but probably an absolute life-saver, as we'd be looking at me being out of work for several months too. Women who are saving for the hard months ahead might well think they should stick to the fish fingers and economy line baked beans over healthier options, regardless of their education and preferences.

    So I think any step towards better care and better education for the people who need it is a step in the right direction. As a society, we are stupid if we don't try to improve the lot of these people. Or do we prefer simply complaining about what a drain on society they are while doing nothing about the problem? I know that when I'm old, if I'm in a hospital or a care home, I hope to have strong, healthy people caring for me, whose mental functioning has not been impaired by multigenerational malnourishment. I'm happy to keep paying taxes for a Government that is trying to enact the social justice I believe in, even if the fuckers won't give tax credits to people under 26.
  6. Roman_K New Member

    Grace, it's the way the program is implemented that bothers me. Building up the next generation should be an important aspect of any government social plan in my view, but this plan ignores basic human nature with its cash-based grants, and will also throw a hefty sum away by not using socio-economic criteria for deciding on who is entitled to receive this money. People who can already afford healthy food shouldn't be targeted here at all.
  7. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    What about those who can afford healthy food but won't spend money on it because they don't understand the reason why?
  8. Roman_K New Member

    Back to the PETA for a bit here, the campaign they did is called "Holocaust on Your Plate". It started as a US-wide campaign, then spread to any place in the world where the PETA had a large enough membership. I believe that Germany banned it, though.
  9. Maljonic Administrator

    I think maybe vouchers would be a better idea if these are real concerns, so they just can't spend them on anything that is no good.
  10. Roman_K New Member

    A good question, Grace. With that part of the public, I believe that an investment in better school curriculum on health matters should suffice. Other health awareness (TV ads, even) can be used. If that doesn't help, nothing will.

    It's better to maximize potential gain with such programs (improving the lives of a large group of poor, uneducated populace), than to gamble at trying to improve the lot of well-off families with a welfare program. There are different ways to address different parts of the public, as the inherent issues, while similar, are different nontheless.
  11. Maljonic Administrator

    The only problem with better education is that it's too late for those who've already finished their school curriculum. It would also mean talking about how to take care of yourself when you're pregnant, when you're still in school, when you're not legally allowed to be pregnant - though a vast number of the people concerned are either under age, or only just old enough to be legally having a baby, it would mean having to face up to it in a more head-on fashion than waving a few vouchers around allows.
  12. Hsing Moderator

    It can be illegal to be pregnant? I mean, I know that there is a legal age for sex, so it may be... kind of logical. But to what consequence?

    That put aside, I think that education can continue after school, and I am not talking about university here. Fifty years ago, smoking was not deemed as unhealthy, today most of us know. Or take a look at environmental issues. The same sort of campaign, or change of collective attitude can happen with other things, and partly has, compared to earlier decades, only not yet enough.
  13. Maljonic Administrator

    No, it's not illegal to be pregnant exactly. But underage sex is illegal, which is what you would have to be more open about in schools to deal with this properly for the teens who are pregnant.

    Another problem with a lot of teenagers, the ones who are getting pregnant (but not all of them of course), is that they aren't really interested in learning about what's good for them. I saw a girl today who must have been no older than twelve smoking a cigarette. She knew it was wrong, even tried to hide it from me when she saw that I noticed her smoking in case I was going to tell her off, but she's smoking anyway regardless.
  14. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    I think that a mass advertising campaign would probably be effective. The Government has had great success in raising the profile of issues like smoking, drink-driving and speeding using such methods.

    I don't think making further changes to our already over-meddled-with school curriculums would help. We already get taught about health and nutrition in school, and clearly the message never made it to these people, or they simply forgot since it wasn't relevant at that point. Plus, I imagine there is some correlation between those who were regularly truant from school and those who are not eating well in pregnancy later.
  15. Pixel New Member

  16. Roman_K New Member

    Pixel? Libertarianism sucks. A society built on moral relativism *will* fall apart, because a society built solely on a individualist framework isn't a society even. I detest moral relativism. I detest any social framework that would allow one person to cut away pieces of another, for fun, should they sign a binding agreement between two individuals prior to said cutting. I detest any social framework that would allow drug addicts to spiral away into self-destruction simply because they are individuals with a choice.

    Grace, I agree with you that an advertising program is better than getting involved with the school curriculum.
  17. Hsing Moderator

    Well, supposing Mal guessed her age right - being a child means living in a world were other people have more than a word in your decisions. You still expect grown ups to have some power over your life, be it so or not, and rightfully or not, and it isn't even unrealistic of a kid to perceive it that way. And all that is not necessarily evil. There is a reason mostly not the kids are held responsible for their own well beings, but parents are. And Mal telling her off - well, it might have been her parent's place rather than his, but he wouldn't exactly have been a representant of the nanny state here.
  18. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Wrong by scienific fact. Smoking is unhealthy there is no denying it.

    Also, it's clearly CLEARLY non-sense to say that people of any age should be free to make there own deicision. Timmy, age 7 "Mommy I don't want to go to school." "Mommy, I don't want to clean my teeth" etc.

    So you might as well revise that statement right now.
  19. Roman_K New Member

    I just realized that even the Libertarian model applies only to adults. Pixel! Stop being more Libertarian than the Libertarians!
  20. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    pixel, i can't tell you how much i've missed having you around.
  21. Maljonic Administrator

    Pixel, I wasn't suggesting that I have any right whatsoever to tell her off, I wouldn't even dream of doing such a thing. I mean that she was so young that she thought that I, as an adult, would want to tell her off for smoking. Had she been a little older, a teenager, she probably wouldn't give a shit what I think. All I actually thought in the fleeting two seconds as I drove past was, "God, that's disgusting." I hate to think of all that smoke poisoning those tiny lungs.
  22. Marcia Executive Onion

    Really? I learn something new about Britain every day.

    I understand that it's illegal for an adult to have sex with someone below the age of consent.

    But if two fourteen-year-olds go at it with each other, are they actually breaking the law? Oh dear.

    edit:Erm, wait a minute. If they aren't legally old enough to consent to an act, then they can't be held responsible for the act, so they can't have committed a crime. Right?
  23. Ba Lord of the Pies

    If they could never be held accountable for their actions by the courts, there wouldn't be juvenile detention centers.

    Certainly, they're not judged in the same way an adult would be. But they can still be punished. Still, the bulk of the punishment will typically rest on the parent, who is generally responsible for the child's behavior.
  24. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Right. It's illegal for people under age to have sex, just as it's illegal for them to drink alcohol (except for in specific circumstances) - but the legal fault lies with the adult who allows it to happen.
  25. Pixel New Member

    Clay - On this matter I think I am about to have a lot of the SH-one-T dropped on me from your direction among others - some people have already started - but I still believe in individual freedom - I hate the arrogance of all the people who decide that they have the right to make other people's decisions for them - and I am not talking only about young people here - I spent some time working as an orderly in a geriatric hospital, and saw many cases of "OK, let's put Grandma in a home" - even when Grandma was perfectly capable of looking after herself.
  26. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    I'm pretty sure that remark was meant genuinely. :smile:
  27. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    *nod* It was!

    These discussions are often a bit more surreal for your input, but your often times extremist views really bring a new level to the debates.

    Plus, having you around helps make Roman seem almost normal by comparison.
  28. Katcal I Aten't French !

    Dude, I know you're trying to be nice, but don't push it, some things just sound wrong.
  29. Roman_K New Member

  30. Pixel New Member

    Roman - we may be in competition here - I have often been described as slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun (or more recently Maggie Thatcher!) but in this case we seem to be holding opposite views - this could get interesting :) *

    And Garner/Clay (I'm never sure whether I'm being presumptious using your real name) - it's nice to know that my sometimes extremist views are adding to the interest of the board!

    *According to a news item I have just read, the original "Smiley" ( :) ) is 25 years old today - but no doubt someone will come up with an earlier sighting!
  31. Katcal I Aten't French !

    Err... Garner IS hi real name (too)...
  32. Pixel New Member

    Yes, I know that - maybe I should have asked whether I was being presumptuous addressing him by his first name/Christian name/given name (Nowadays one is not sure what the politically correct term is)
  33. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    online i prefer Garner, but from friends i'm fine with Clay.

    Pixel qualifies as a friend for naming purposes.
  34. Marcia Executive Onion

    Juvenile detention centers are for children who commit acts that are legally defined as crimes, such as burglary, assault, etc. Sex per se is not a crime. The crime is making someone have sex without their (legal) consent. Having sex when you are under age is not a crime. The crime is having sex with someone else who is under age.

    Whether or not (or how) a parent chooses to guide a child's behaviour has nothing to do with what is legal or not, although hopefully a parent won't encourage a child to break the law.
  35. Ba Lord of the Pies

    Ba was simply addressing the possibility of children being held responsible for their actions.
  36. Pixel New Member

    Which sounds like a very good idea - train them young to understand that what they do may have unpleasant results for someone else (or themselves!) and that this is not a good thing may well get them to grow up with a proper attitude to civilized living - it should certainly work better than the current feeling that nothing must be done to bruise their poor little egos!
    I may be old-fashioned (well actually I am, but at 58 years old I think I'm entitled to be) but I don't think that the occasional bit of physical punishment ever harmed me - I knew I had done wrong, and didn't do that particular thing again - whatever other mischief I found to get up to! :)

    There might have been differences of opinion on what constituted "bad behaviour", but I suggest that splattering the ceiling of a classroom with half-chewed raw jelly - English jelly, for the American speakers amongst us - I think you call it Jello, so I'm not talking about jam - (which got several of us bending over the headmaster's desk while he administered the slipper to our tender backsides) is not as serious a crime (if you can still remember the first part of this paragraph) as breaking into cars/homes/whatever which gets excused because "they're only kids"

    There is an old proverb "As the twig is bent, so the tree will grow" - this needs to be brought back into circulation.
  37. Pixel New Member

    Thank you, Clay - we haven't physically met yet but I am looking forward to it when we can both make the same Con - which could be quite interesting - people to argue with can be quite entertaining - and in person can sometimes be more fun than on the Internet - just one question - do I also qualify to address Buzzfloyd as Grace?

    Thanks - Alan
  38. Katcal I Aten't French !

    Geez, get a room you guys, you're misting up my screen from the inside ! :biggrin:
  39. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    I think pretty much everyone here calls me Grace, so feel free to join in, Pixel.

    I believe the main purpose of corporal punishment is for adults to reduce their frustration and to maintain a sense of control. I think, in the longterm, all it does to kids is teach them fear. You can teach children how to behave fairly, courteously and appropriately without ever using violence against them.
  40. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    never even taught me to fear. just taught me to resent and despise.
  41. Pixel New Member

    I have always taken the view that pain is Nature's training mechanism - if it hurts, it is probably a good idea not to do it again. Whether this is applied to cases like the immediate result of such things as "Put your hand in the fire and you will get burnt - and it will hurt!" or the longer term aspect of "If you do this, someone will hurt you" - if the mechanism is there, why not use it? It seems to have worked for a good many years - why change a winning game?
  42. chrisjordan New Member

    Because sometimes it shouldn't be winning. What if parents decided to go by the old Victorian saying of 'children should be seen and not heard', and the kid gets a beating every time they open their mouth? Is pain, or the threat of it, really a good indicator of what is right and wrong there? I, personally, think not.
  43. Hsing Moderator

    Where exactly was that game winning?
    I know it was always a reflex to look at the world and say, sheesh, the young people today, the misbehaviour. I bet its becaus their parents are too soft with them. (I'm still waiting for proof, by the way.)

    Sorry, but my grandfather's generation was all for these methods, and one thing that goes with the authority-by-cane package is obedience, and unasking obedience and belief in authority made his age cohort neither winning, nor better behaved people.

    My father now, he was also raised that way in several institutions and made the experience that more than anything else it is about power, and it only taught him, well, despise against those people. (Like Garner.) A lose-lose-situation, if you ask me. It made him only more rebellious, and rightly so.

    Another thing: If you invite violence back into child raising, you can't draw the line. As CJ pointed out, you can't go around and control if parents use it at whim, or as a last consequence. There may have been parents who have done so, and their children don't begrudge them. There have always -always!- been parents and teachers who believed in non-violent child raising. But most parents who beat, and most parents -and teachers, and personel at orphanages- did what Grace said, misused their power about a dependent and weaker human being and took out rage and frustration on them when the occasion presented itself.
    Beating someone always remains a violent act. I don't think it is coincedence that all persons I know, without expections, who have been beaten at all by their parents also report acts against them that are unbelievably cruel: a father putting his eight year old daughter's hand on the hot stovetop so her skin melts off (for a mediocre grade, if you want to know); a priest beating a child in his care with a cane on the fingertips so hard the blood spurts out from under the nails, another child being kicked around the floor when she refused to cry properly after a "regular" beating until she lost consciousness (regularly so, actually) - in short, scars and deep felt hatred all over the place, and not a trace of respect towards those elders.

    It is also strange that I repeatedly stumble about people who wouldn't mind reintroduce the cane into child raising when even when the majority of people would thankfully object against treating animals the same way.

    It is indeed possible to raise children into productive human beings without a single slap -I'd actually feel failing just that if I'd revert to it. It is only, for some people, harder work to draw lines without it.
  44. Maljonic Administrator

    I don't know if it's the same for girls, but I know a lot of boys who have been "raised by hand", as Dickens puts it, often harbour thoughts of one day being big enough to beat the shit out of their dad. I know I felt this way about my stepdad, and still do have dream from time to time where I'm beating him up.

    If I'm ever lucky enough to have children I don't want them to be dreaming of beating the shit out of me because I was a dick head slapping them around as they grew up.
  45. Katcal I Aten't French !

    I would say that if you're smart enough to realise this, then you're probably smart enough not to beat you're kids in the first place.

    Now without taking extreme examples (and I too know quite a few people who have been through amazingly cruel stuff as kids) I can remember getting the odd smack on the bum as a kid, but that was it, A smack, not a spanking, or a slap in the face, or getting beaten up, just a smack and being sent to my room and it didn't happen more than 10 times in my life that I can remember. I can remember that but I can't remember what I had done to deserve it, but I don't resent or despise my parents for it because knowing them I probably had done something really bad. All the same, what I remember is the punishment, not the crime, so yeah, it may have taught me stuff, but I don't remember the lessons themselves as such.

    Maybe they have just made their way into my internal "right and wrong dictionary" and I can't tell them apart from the rest, but still, I think there is something in that that says that if physical punishment ends up being necessary (i.e. if nothing else works) it should not be too harsh and preferably related to what was done wrong and explained by the parent, and therefore used as a means of education rather than just a way for the parent to relieve their frustration. Anything more than that is just wrong.
    I think, looking back on it and knowing my parents, that the smacks I got were more to make sure they had my full attention so they could tell me off rather than as a punishment on their own.
  46. Roman_K New Member

    Beating a child may get him to listen and obey, but not to understand. It doesn't work as a teaching aid, only as a "snap out of it" tool when your child refuses to listen under any other circumstance. A way to get the kid's attention, as Katcal mentioned. I know that was the case with me in several occasions.
  47. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    So you're saying that if someone gets badly hurt and is scarred for the rest of their life, that is good because it taught them that doing what they did hurts. I can see why we disagree.

    I believe that if you develop a relationship with a child in which you can always be held accountable for your actions and you are prepared to give reasons, the child learns to trust your advice, requests and demands (for want of a better word), knowing that you have good reasons for what you ask of them. Then, if you tell them that something is bad, they don't need pain to believe you.

    My mother used occasionally to get to the end of her tether and spank us. Like Kat, I don't remember what she spanked me for, only that she spanked me and I hated her. I remember desperately wishing as a child that I could fly, so that if my mother tried to spank me, I could just fly away to where she couldn't hurt me. Please understand that my mother rarely spanked me and almost always used only words in teaching me how to behave. She rarely had to tell me off at all. The spankings were the occasions when her disciplining me didn't work - they didn't teach me anything except resentment.
  48. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Garner's step-dad used to tickle him to achieve the same goal. I'm not sure how much better that is.
  49. Marcia Executive Onion

    I had a similar experience to Maljonic. One day, I just decided that if my father ever hit me again, I would hit him back. Interestingly enough, once I made that decision, even though I never said anything out loud, my dad never again used physical punishment, or the threat of physical punishment to discipline me. I suppose he somehow sensed that the "balance of power" had changed.
  50. Pepster New Member

    This thread has grown long and twisted, so I'll be general and address three points; 1) Financial gain from children 2) Pixel and Responsiblity and 3) PETA and how animals are better than people but I am still happy to eat meat.

    1) Financial gain from children
    It is not actual financial gain per say, more cash now without realising that there will be large costs associated with the child in the future. Ignorance.

    It is just the same as when a highschool student quits school to work at McDonalds for what would seem like a lot of money at the time with no regard to the glass ceiling they make for themselves by giving up their education.

    Essentially the choice comes to; money now or more money later if I make a sacrifice now. It is a choice many stumble at.

    This actually leads into my second point, responsibility.

    2) Pixel and Responsiblity
    Sure fine, everyone wins, everyone is happy. Until that is reponsiblity comes into the picture.

    With the freedom of choice so to comes the consequence of reponsibility (gods I sound like a American quoting a bill of rights or possibly Spidermans uncle).

    It would not work, people are weak and they blame others for the consequences of there own decisions. Now that was a bit totalarian but it is this is social commentary.

    Also another point, ignorance and maturity; does that smoking girl truly know the consequences of her actions? really? she knows it is wrong but does she know why? You can only have freedom of choice if it is a informed choice.

    But enough on this, I've said freedom too much.

    3) I hate PETA and how animals are better than people but I am still happy to eat meat.

    Now understand first that I am a realist. PETA really annoys me.

    Without human intervention species go extinct all the time, often they are types of beetles.

    Groups like PETA annoy me because thing are only really interested in saving the cute animals. What about the beetles? who is thinking of the beetles?

    One aspect of the environment that is now well scientifically understood is that all different species compete against each other for resources. It is one big web.

    Groups like PETA separate humans from nature, it is all connected after all. We are afterall just another species. Our responsblity is to our own preservation (note that I did not say "moral responsibility") and the other species that will enable this.

    It really is a cruel world. Although animals typically are not cruel to other animals, that is a human thing*.

    Now that that is said, we should not go and unnessisarily kill off other species. It is after all once big web and by killing off one species my have far reaching and unexpected results.

    I will miss the Panda's and Tiger's but species do go extinct without humans interfereing.

    This was a long post, rant, whatever. Good night all.

    *This is why I reckon animals are better than humans.

    Edit: fixed a quote tag and bad wording.
  51. Katcal I Aten't French !

    You have actually seen a cat before, have you ? in real life, I mean, not on a cute-cats-inna-basket postcard ? Not that cats are the only animals I can think of that are cruel, but they're the ones you are most likely to have seen.

    Although I more or less agree with the rest of point 3), this bit kind of reminds me of an argument I had with a guy who went ranting on about how "homosexuality is evil and against nature because animals are not homosexual and nature is always right"... Ah, fun times. The rest of your rant was fine, shame to spoil it by not thinking little things through :wink:
  52. Hsing Moderator

    What did you remind of that argument exactly? I couldn't follow that quite.
    And how did that friend of yours react when he's been pointed out that actually, all in all almost species coming in genders, there are also all kinds of sexual combinations? I mean, when he really believes nature cannont be wrong... (I'm putting it that vague because it varies so much from species to species, from steady, conservative homosexual couples in the bird world who hatch orphaned eggs together, to, well, the bonobo approach.)
  53. Katcal I Aten't French !

    it was the "nature is kind, only humans are cruel" bit, as in "nature is straight, only humans are gay"... It wasn't a friend, it was some guy on a message board, and the whole thing went downhill from then on, he wouldn't believe that animals could have homosexul intercourse, we were making it up, we were sent by the martians to wash his brains, and were probably all nazis anyw... oops, lost that one ! :biggrin: The same board had PETA people on it too, who would state that humans should actually be all killed off so animals could stay on the earth and be nice to each other as they always are when humans don't interfere... :rolleyes: I honestly can't remember why I left that board.
  54. Hsing Moderator

    Beats me, too. I mean, the internet is for arguments, isn't it? Or was it something else...

    Yes, those people who won't have facts come in the way of their views.

    Although I don't think the cruelty bit is quite comparable, because it is more a philosophical question as how you define "cruelty" than a question of getting your facts right. You can point at lions eating their predecessor's cubs, or at chimps starting wars on another chimp family and kill them off, or at a well fed cat playing with a mouse, and say those animals are cruel. Or, by definition, they are not, because they only follow their instinct, and to be cruel, you need a free will and responsibility for your actions when you hurt someone.

    Although I remember a discussion where a lion was tearing apart a calf in a video, as lions occasionally do, and some users would actually call that cruelty against animals. Wether they meant what the lion did, or the fact that it was filmed, they really didn't know themselves.
  55. Roman_K New Member

    Katcal, I do hope you advised those nice PETA people (who I suspect were also ELF people) that to improve the world, one has to start with one's own self? Joining the Great Cycle of Nature isn't all that difficult, either, as there are plenty of hungry sharks out there.

    Feed the planet! Every person counts!
  56. Pepster New Member

    Are you talking wild cats? or domestic pets? I would probably exclude domestic cats from being typical wild animals.
  57. Katcal I Aten't French !

    Both. Apart from purring and living with humans, pet cats' behaviour isn't all that different.
  58. Ba Lord of the Pies

    The only real difference with domestic cats is that they retain some kittenish traits into adulthood (but only if they're kept domesticated; feral cats are no different from wild cats). Their basic behavior hasn't been altered to anything like the degree of domestic dogs. This is because their natural behavior is useful to humans with very little alteration. Their tendency to play with their food is present in wild cats just as much as domestic cats.

    Dolphins and chimpanzees are other "cruel" animals.
  59. Katcal I Aten't French !

    I should have known that Ba would be along soon to offer his expertise on cruelty :biggrin:
  60. Maljonic Administrator

    I think some animals, apart from humans, do feel guilt sometimes when they kill another animal or cause hurt. I think they also make themselves feel really stupid sometimes when they make mistakes. I know some animals also get very depressed, so it stands to reason that they should feel other "human" emotions too beyond what we call mere instinct.

    What I mean is, other animals can be evil bastards too, and enjoy it/feel guilty about it if they like.

Share This Page