Appeal to Tradition - Avatar

 

Man, I used to love this show. This particular clip is interesting, especially to us Aggies who love tradition so much. This man is refusing to let the female water bender learn how to hone her water bending skills to learn how to fight because it is against their tribes traditions. This is very similar, again, to the gay marriage debate. Many say marriage is between a man and a woman, a tradition that has been around for 100's of years. But just because that is what the definition has been doesn't mean it is right and should continue. This is the same hardship that this female water bender is experiencing. The older male states that she should only be allowed to heal other and train her water bending in this way because it is the way it has been done. Now think of Aggieland, everything we do is rooted in tradition. We do it because it has been done for so long. We often make the joke that if it's done twice, it is a tradition. However, we can learn that just because that is how it's been done doesn't mean we should continue that. Times change and what was once okay to do may not be now, that's how you can get in trouble with appeal to tradition.

Now That's a Slippery Slope

 

Oh slippery slope. The assumption that because you let one thing happen that it will cause the end of the world. Slippery slope fallacies have been made quite often over the debate of marriage equality. Many people make the statement that if we legalize same-sex marriage then how long will it be before we legalize bestiality or pedophilia. The main difference between these is that same-sex marriage is a marriage between CONSENTING adults whereas the other two are unable to consent. Its a slippery slope.  The meme above shows just that in a very comical way. So is gay marriage is to happen, then people will be able to marry their pets. Geez, thanks gay marriage and thanks slippery slope fallacy.  

 

 

Are You Racist?

 

So this is an interesting clip. In this clip this Latin woman accuses the Caucasian male of being a racist because he wants to protect his borders from illegal immigrants when he doesn't think to question the African American male. The black male then comes to his defense and turns the question on her in which she finds ridiculous. She uses the same reasoning that Bahar Mustafa uses to defend her racism, that because she is a minority she cannot be racist due to the system in which racism was created. This redefinition or racism from that Webster's dictionary states is the idea of moving the goal post or the special pleading fallacy. Basically, these women are making exceptions to exempt themselves. Below is the video of Bahar Mustafa as reference.

Part-to-Whole Fallacy

 

This cartoon is a comical way of showing the composition fallacy. This fallacy states that you assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts. In this comic, the little boy makes the statement that something so simple and basic and often through away and not cared for cannot be possible of making something beautiful. Though, even in the real world, we know this to be far from the truth. We see trash made into art on a daily basis. There isn't the phrase "one man's trash is another man's treasure" for no reason. This can be applied to argumentation as well. This is the same as stating, "each brick in the building weighs less than a pound, so the building weighs less than a pound." Ridiculous, right?

That's What You Get for Stating a False Cause

Katy Perry, another one of my favorite female artist. Though I love her and her music deeply, it doesn't mean that I cannot recognize a fallacy in her songs when I see one. In her song Waking Up in Vegas, Katy uses the phrase "that's what you get for waking up in Vegas" trying to say all of the bad luck that occurs in the song and is seen in the music video attached is because you went to Vegas. This isn't the cause. They were irresponsible and didn't know when to cash out when they had the chance. They instead used that money to party more. Instead, she should say "that's what you get for PARTYING in Vegas." However, it does not match the rhyme scheme as well and I don't feel the song would have done as well. Below are the lyrics in case you don't know the song.

You gotta help me out
It's all a blur last night
We need a taxi 'cause you're hung-over and I'm broke
I lost my fake id but you lost the motel key
Spare me your freakin' dirty looks
Now don't blame me
You roll the cash out
And get the hell out of town
Don't be a baby
Remember what you told me
Shut up and put your money where your mouth is
That's what you get for waking up in Vegas
Get up and shake the glitter off your clothes, now
That's what you get for waking up in Vegas
Why are these lights so bright
Oh, did we get hitched last night, dressed up like Elvis,
Why, am I wearing your class ring?
Don't call your mother
Cause now we're partners in crime
Don't be a baby
Remember what you told me
Shut up and put your money where your mouth is
That's what you get for waking up in Vegas
Get up and shake the glitter off your clothes, now
That's what you get for waking up in Vegas
You got me into this
Information overload, situation lost control
Send out an S.O.S.
And get some cash out
We're gonna tear up the town
Don't be a baby
Remember what you told me
Remember what you told me
Remember what you told me
Told me, you told me, you told me
Shut up and put your money where your mouth is
That's what you get for waking up in Vegas
Get up and shake the glitter off your clothes, now
That's what you get for waking up in Vegas
That's what you get baby, shake the glitter, shake, shake, shake the glitter
Give me some cash out, baby
Give me some cash out, baby

That's Not What's Causing That...

 

Now this is an interesting spin on things. Here we have another classic example of false cause, where correlation does not mean causation. If this is proof of global warming, I would fear to see where underwear and other clothing line would turn to at this point. What we see here is just the evolution of fashion in women's underwear. Just because it is exposing more does not mean it is proof of global warming. This has to do, like I said, I part with the changing of fashion, and could be, in part the reclaiming of the women's body in her own expressive nature. Whatever it may be, this is not proof of global warming, rather proof of a logical fallacy, the fallacy of false cause.

It's Bound to Work This Time!!

 

The gambler's fallacy, or the assumption that the past frequency of performance will affect future outcomes. Basically, because it has failed so many times, it is bound to work this time. This sounds like something else very similar, something like doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What is that again? Oh yeah, it is the definition of insanity as quoted by Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds this world has ever known. They are basically one in the same it seems, so no doubt makes for a weak argument, especially if you are trying to defend your research to  you grant committee when it keeps failing. The blue guy in the comic also looks a little insane in the second comic strip.

If I Were a Boy, I'd Make Logical Fallacies

 

If I were a boy, even just for a day, you would realize the statement highlighted in yellow is a fallacy of confusing cause and effect. Beyoncé states in the song "you don't care how it hurts until you lose the one you wanted 'cause you're taking her for granted" in which she assumes the statement in parenthesis is caused by this same statement. She assumes that the guy does not care about how much he is hurting the girl throughout the relationship until it is too late. Another statement, the one highlighted in red, is a sweeping generalization. She assumes that every guy acts in a similar manner in the relationship as this guy does in this highlighted section. This is done throughout the song. In an analysis on this song, one blogger writes "she also finds that most guys do not care whether or not their significant others are suffering because of their actions." This is yet another sweeping generalization as well as a harsh generalization.  Beyoncé is able to get this point across through the use of pathos, especially with the aid of her music video where you see images of the pain she and the guy are going through when they switch shoes. She also uses it through phrases of "I'd listen to her, because I know how it hurts." Here she relates to her audience understanding the pain they feeling and creating a bond. Beyoncé is able to create a very good argument with empowerment, even through her logical fallacies.

If I were a boy even just for a day
I'd roll out of bed in the morning
And throw on what I wanted and go
Drink beer with the guys
And chase after girls
I'd kick it with who I wanted
And I'd never get confronted for it
'Cause they stick up for me

If I were a boy
I think I could understand
How it feels to love a girl
I swear I'd be a better man
I'd listen to her
'Cause I know how it hurts
When you lose the one you wanted
'Cause he's taking you for granted
And everything you had got destroyed

If I were a boy
I would turn off my phone
Tell everyone it's broken
So they'd think that I was sleeping alone
I'd put myself first
And make the rules as I go
'Cause I know that she'd be faithful
Waiting for me to come home
To come home...

If I were a boy
I think I could understand
How it feels to love a girl
I swear I'd be a better man
I'd listen to her
'Cause I know how it hurts
When you lose the one you wanted (wanted)
'Cause he's taking you for granted (granted)
And everything you had got destroyed

It's a little too late for you to come back
Say it's just a mistake
Think I'd forgive you like that
If you thought I would wait for you
You thought wrong

But you're just a boy
You don't understand
Yeah you don't understand, oh
How it feels to love a girl
Someday you wish you were a better man
You don't listen to her
You don't care how it hurts
Until you lose the one you wanted
Cause you're taking her for granted
And everything you had got destroyed
But you're just a boy!

But...Everybody Else is Doing it!

"But moooooooom, everybody else is doing it!" We have all heard this as a stereotypical answer of a teenager to their mother to let them do everything else and be with the in crowd. Zits is showing a good example of the bandwagon fallacy or the appeal to popularity. A lot of time this is accompanied by the phrase "Well if everybody else was jumping off of a cliff, would you do it too?" Another bandwagon fallacy statement. Even the friend in the comic acknowledges that the son needs better foundations for his argument, especially if you want to try to convince a mom to let you do or have something.

Old Spice, Old Fallacies

 

So, a direct quote from the video link is "We're not saying this body wash will make your man smell like a romantic millionaire jet fighter pilot, but we are insinuating it." Basically they are saying that this will cause that. If you buy this, then this and this and this will happen. Its both a false cause fallacy as well as post hoc ergo propter hoc. If all of what they said in this commercial was true, I feel like everyone in the world would be buying this product, but sadly it is not.

Helpful Persuasion Techniques

This is very similar to the red paperclip experiment we did earlier this year. It shows how you can start with something small to help then gain something bigger. The foot in the door is very simple technique that anyone can put into practice everyday. If you start with something small first, it is then easier to ask for something larger later or use what you asked for to trade for something larger like in the red paper clip experiment.

Loaded Question

We often hear people bring up loaded questions, or questions where there really is no right answer and you get hurt either way you answer it. I think the dinosaurs above put it best. Often times we will see these in political debates to catch the opponent in a trap where no matter what they say they are screwed. This also leads to things such s "no comment" to try to protect oneself which can, in turn, criminalize them like the T-Rex in the comment. It makes it seem as though they are hiding something. A loaded question just sets them up for failure and makes them prove your point no matter how they answer.

My "Almost" Anecdotal Fallacy

 

With regards to our past debate, I almost put myself in a tight hole with regards to being able to be called out on a fallacy with regards to data that I found. My opponent brought up a bunch of facts regarding to how the legalization of prostitution actually increased rape culture as well as increasing the rates of STD's among women. I had found data from the US when the legislatures of Rhode Island had, by accident, legalized prostitution by actually erasing it from their constitution when they were trying to amend it. They did not catch this for five years and during that time both rape and gonorrhea among women decreased by over 30 percent. When I found this data it seemed too good to be true and seemed to be more false cause and that there was no correlation between the two. This set of data is an isolated example that I used to prove my point. It's still interesting to see if this was just a set of data that happened to fit or an actual correlation.

Mean Girls Make Sweeping Generalizations

 

Mean Girls, A movie littered with stereotypes and generalizations. In this specific scene in the movie Cadie is introduced to the class by the principal welcoming her to America from Africa. Well, Tina Fey, the teacher has never met this student and assumed that the African American student was the new student from Africa rather than the red-headed white girl. This is a good case of a sweeping generalization. This also takes place later on in the movie when one of the plastics makes the statement "Wait, if you're from Africa, then why are you white?" Another sweeping generation. Just because she's white doesn't mean that she cannot be from Africa. This is just one example of a fallacy that occurs in Mean Girls.

FRIENDS Fallacies

First off, FRIENDS is one of my all time favorite shows and re-finding this episode and seeing it riddled with fallacies is just great. Quick synopsis of the episode, Joey breaks his fridge and is trying to pass blame to others so that they will pay for a replacement fridge. Throughout this episode he uses various fallacies to place blame. The first of which occurs with Rachel between 0:40 and 0:45 he states that he has had the fridge for a very long time with no troubles and then Rachel shows up and it is broken. This is the false cause fallacy in which Joey is presuming that their is a relationship between Rachel moving in and the fridge breaking, well, a perceived relationship. He just doesn't want to pay for it. This continues throughout the episode. Joey then makes a false analogy when Chandler comes in the apartment. He makes the analogy that if they were a divorced couple (since Chandler is moved out he makes the comparison that they are now like divorced parents) and one had custody and the kid died (hopefully just hurt) that the other would have to help pay, so why isn't this the same for replacing the fridge. Basically Joey tries every edge to get that 400 dollars until Phoebe says yes but only if Joey pays her for the 600 dollars worth of good vibes she sent him during his auditions. He then gave up. As you can see, fallacies are very bad at convincing others to help you or do something because a lot of the time they are just ridiculous.

Where's the Beef?

The old woman may not be able to see the beef, but surely one could see the fallacies present in this add. One such fallacy present in this ad is the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy occurs when someone substitutes a a person's actual position with a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version. Within this commercial they pretend that some restaurants give out burgers and or sandwiches with nearly no beef and attack them while the burger in this ad is a distorted version of their competitors. I doubt there is a sandwich that looks like that and if so that is very sad...:(

Arms of an Argument Using Pathos

You see this image and I bet you can already hear the song "Angel" running through your head. The ASPCA is quite good at appealing to our emotional side, or using pathos. They do this through the incorporation of a sad song and heart wrenching images of adorable dogs and cats. Many of us are pet lovers and I know that I for one am that person who is sadder when a dog or another animal dies in a movie and truly cant watch the screen than when a person dies in a movie. Or, many of us have animals at home and when we see this commercial of these abused animals we just want to go home and hug them. They appeal to our emotions, our love of our pets and the idea that we can help stop what we see from happening from donating. This commercial and others like it often use phrases like "for just pennies a day" appealing to logic in stating that this really is almost no cost to you to help, or the use of logos. Another use of pathos in the ad could be that often times when you donate, they send a picture of an animal that you are helping. It brings a direct tie to what you are sending and who you are "helping," because we honestly don't know if that is a dog there or not (not trying to scrutinize them, just being honest). But seeing that image gives an emotional tie to the situation. Another use of logos is the testimonial by Sarah MacLachlan and incorporation of her song "Angel." She brings credibility and this appeal to authority that if they are doing it, this celebrity and if they believe in this cause, so should I. Now, in case you wanted a good cry today, the commercial is added below (I am also sorry for this because it may also ruin your whole day...)

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) is based on the notion that because one thing happens after another that that first event was the cause of the second event. This episode of the Big Bang Theory does a good job at showing this. Sheldon states that just because his mother's church prayed for their safety on the trip and that they actually did return safety, that it was not because of the prayers that this actually occurred. Something even more interesting though is in the comments where there was another case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Back in 1999, West Wing aired an episode on season two titled "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" (of which I do not know what happened in that episode). However, the funny thing that people are saying that this appeared on the Big Bang Theory because that episode of West Wing occurred or that Sheldon watches West Wing. After this therefore because of this, or post hoc ergo propter hoc.

100% Natural, 100% Logos

Logos, logical or fact based appeal, or persuading by the use of reasoning. You may ask, how does this 7Up ad us logos. Logos is also guilty of the use of buzz words, or words that mean nothing but sound factual. By 7Up using the words "100% Natural" we assume it to be a healthy or healthier drink when in fact that it is something manmade, not from nature and Natural does not always mean good, technically cancer is natural. Not only that but it also includes a comparison of their product to others stating "it's been stripped of the artificial stuff found in most other soft drinks." It makes people think that 7Up is a better drink for you due to this comparison though they never stated what this "stuff" was. Logos is also often guilty of using -er words (ie cleaner, longer, faster, etc) and in this case is using better. It's not technically the best, but it's better. It makes people think that it is something they want because it is improved from where it was. This ad is quite good, as are most food and drink ads, at appealing to reason and making you think something though it may not be fully true and in turn, want to buy it!

True Meaning of Debate vs What the Internet Believes

These memes (above and below) were very interesting to come across and put it very simply, one, what the difference is between an argument and a debate. And two, it has also shown me that we, in this day and age, have a hard time differentiating the two due to the advancement in technology and how easy it is to access different articles and see differing viewpoints that are taken as "facts" to many people. Morpheus puts it quite well, debate is not about who wins but the exchange of information and knowledge and the expansion of one's viewpoint. Dictionary.com defines debate as "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints." Nowhere in there is there anything about winning like our society believes is involved in a debate and what we see from so many candidates in political debates. It is supposed to be a discussion. not a yell fest to see who can talk louder or who can through more facts in the face of the other to prove a point. An argument can be a discussion, but we no longer see that. We see it as some sort of disagreement or opposition and often on the internet, we see these "debates" (but really arguments) as these, like I said before, yell fests or times in which people belittle the other person rather than talk about the argument at had. We need to learn the art of debate and holding a discussion. We need to learn how to coexist with others of differing viewpoints and try to have an exchange in knowledge in our discussion rather than just trying to "win". It's not supposed to be who can talk louder or spit more fact out, and it can't be this anymore.

Got Logos/Ethos?

Over the years, the Got Milk? campaign has been a growing commodity in trying to increase healthy habits and increase  those drinking milk. We have come to recognize the classic milk mustache. Most of their ads include a celebrity as a testimonial. This not only is using ethos through the persuasion via credibility of that celebrity but also an appeal to authority. People tend to listen to those who they respect or idolize. Not only that, but the ad includes the phrase "Goal by Beckham body by milk" which makes people think that if they drink milk, they will look like David Beckham. I mean, who wouldn't want to look like this guy. But it makes it seem that just drinking milk will do this for you when of course it takes so much more such as exercise and a healthy diet. Not only is this ad an ethical appeal but it also includes logos with the use of various facts as to how incorporating milk into our diet can help lead to a healthier lifestyle. The Got Milk? ads have been very successful over their years and it probably has been due to their own credibility as well as the use of testimonials and appeal to authority.

Reification Fallacy

We often hear the expression "the evidence speaks for itself” as part of an argument. One, evidence cannot "speak" for itself, it's an inanimate object most of the time and two, it's the name we gave to a body of facts that we believe to be consistent with a point of view; most times the point of view we agree with. It is also a logical fallacy, the fallacy of reification. We draw conclusions from evidence to explain our thoughts, but as I said before, most of the time evidence is inanimate and cannot verbalize thoughts. Basically, something to make someone laugh out loud when they here this phrase. 

So What? It's just an Ad Hominem...

Myself, I am a big P!nk fan (yes you can hate if you want). So many songs by artist contain lyrics bashing their exes and P!nk is another examples. Many times they use their songs to attack the person rather than their actions. If you look at the lyrics below as reference you will see the highlighted section talking of her ex as a tool which is an ad hominem. She attacks his person and not necessarily his actions.

Na na na na na na, na na na na na na
Na na na na na na, na na na na na na

I guess I just lost my husband
I don't know where he went
So I'm gonna drink my money
I'm not gonna pay his rent (nope)
I got a brand new attitude
And I'm gonna wear it tonight
I wanna get in trouble
I wanna start a fight

Na na na na na na na, I wanna start a fight
Na na na na na na na, I wanna start a fight

So, so what?
I'm still a rock star
I got my rock moves
And I don't need you
And guess what
I'm having more fun
And now that we're done
I'm gonna show you tonight
I'm alright, I'm just fine
And you're a tool
So, so what?
I am a rock star
I got my rock moves
And I don't want you tonight

Uh, check my flow, uh

The waiter just took my table
And gave to Jessica Simp- (shit!)
I guess I'll go sit with tomboy
At least he'll know how to hit
What if this song's on the radio
Then somebody's gonna die
I'm gonna get in trouble
My ex will start a fight

Na na na na na na na, he's gonna start a fight
Na na na na na na na, we're all gonna get in a fight!

So, so what?
I'm still a rock star
I got my rock moves
And I don't need you
And guess what
I'm having more fun
And now that we're done
I'm gonna show you tonight
I'm alright, I'm just fine
And you're a tool
So, so what?
I am a rock star
I got my rock moves
And I don't want you tonight

You weren't there
You never were
You want it all
But that's not fair
I gave you love
I gave my all
You weren't there
You let me fall

No, no,
No, no
I don't want you tonight
You weren't there
I'm gonna show you tonight
I'm alright, I'm just fine
And you're a tool
So, so what?
I am a rock star
I got my rock moves
And I don't want you tonight

Ba da da da da da

Memes For The Win - Ad Hominem Style

One, this made me laugh out loud when I saw it because of how true it is. Also, I now realized just how often this happens in everyday life, especially in heated conversations over text where people can misconstrue what you say. So, next time someone starts attacking you via text because of something you said (like the one below), send them this meme to desist. 

                                     

Subway Fallacy

Often times everyday commercials are loaded with fallacies and we don't even notice it. Take this simple Subway commercial with Michael Phelps. It contains three logical fallacies a lone in a mere thirty second commercial. Can you find them? Well, if not they are: false cause (between 7 and 9 seconds - assuming to be like Phelps you have to eat Subway), appeal to emotion (between 11 and 14 - assuming you are only a good mother if you buy your family Subway), and bandwagon (between 28 and 30 seconds - by saying "and athletes everywhere" it is using that as a point of validation and appealing to popularity). These are all over everyday commercials, how many can you find?

Having Trouble Understanding Fallacies?

This was extremely interesting to come across. It has exposed fallacies from all over the media; from advertisements, to political campaigns, even in children s shows. It shows just how common they are. Not only that, but it allows the viewer a better understanding of the fallacy. It was a really interesting watch!

Blog Post 10 - Final Statement

Argument is a key point in our society. It serves as a test of relationships, it allows people to see different viewpoints, as well as a way to explain yourself. It has been interesting to learn the strategies to help one change another's mind. Mind's must be changed through fact and logic. They need to have cold hard facts that sway others. Not only do facts and data help sway but personal stories that have experienced the point you are trying to convey. Or the use of puppies, a cute sad puppy always helps! Each type of argument has its own place. You have to know your audience in order to know each to their ability. Some people appeal to emotion, others need cold hard facts. If you don't first appeal to your audience, your argument will automatically fail.

Words are powerful, but a picture's worth a thousand words. We cannot forget how effective a visual aid can be. We saw just this with our visual aid debate. We saw how many emotions were brought about from the images shown. They made us cry, mad, angry, upset and so many more. This type of debate brings about peoples emotion and empowers them to take a stand and voice their opinion. Not only, many people are very visual and truly understand something when its put into a picture or via visual graphs. However, with the use of photoshop, the use of images has gone too far at times. They misconstrue the truth to get their point across. We saw these with many debates that we saw these year. We saw the manipulation of the male and female body in ads to appeal to sex and how sex sells in the industry. Pictures are powerful because they are a visual representation of the facts and make people see just what you are trying to convey. They are powerful but can go too far.

Social media is littered with arguments over major real world issues as well as these pointless facts. However, due to Facebook and texting peoples word are misconstrued because we are unable to see the inflexion behind it. Inflexion means a lot when trying to convey a simple point. We have all been victims of this. Think of the last time on Facebook you tried to convey a point and someone got hung up on a single word that you said and took it way out of context. People begin attacking the person rather than analyzing their argument. Friendships are often lost over this simple miscommunications. Facebook and texting has really diminished the art of argument and debate due to people getting hung up on the little things and being unable to hear the inflexion behind what everyone is saying.

Argumentation and debate is a struggle for me. It is has been a difficult art to master, which I am far from. For me, I have found I am very un-opinionated so it makes it very difficult to wager and argument but this class has helped push me forward to learn various tactics to help further my skills in debate. I have often struggled in my refutations but have learned to anticipate what my opposition is going t bring up and prepare for that. Not only that, luckily for me, my un-opinionated nature has allowed me to see both sides without getting to attached to one side or the other and get too caught up in the argument.

Ill leave with this quote:

No matter where we began, what matters is the growth and learning along the way.

Cultural Differences

This picture truly speaks volumes when it comes to perspective. This is very true in debate as well. If you were to cover up the thought bubble of one but not the other and re-evaluate the picture, you would most likely agree with what they are saying. Go ahead, try for yourself.  This opens our eyes on how important perspective is and to try to broaden your own perspective. This is crucial in debate to be successful and to understand the other side and have a successful argument. Try to broaden your mind and not just see your own perspective, but look at how someone else may see something to better understand.

Scapegoat Society

In today's society we always try to put the blame on another for our own short comings or try to deter our attention from our own miserable lives to that of something else as to forget. According to Dictionary.com a scapegoat is "a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place." Right now we are going to focus on the second half of this definition, "...to suffer in their place." This has been happening all through out history. Remember all those human or animal sacrifices you heard about in Mayan culture, or gladiators fighting to the death, these are all examples of a scapegoat. Nowadays we will use the movie The Hunger Games. It is a prime example. Two teenagers from each district is selected to participate in the games as a way to keep the districts together under Panam. Essentially, each teenager is a scapegoat for each district, they are suffering so that their peers do not have to. This is both in the physical and emotional sense. They serve as a distraction to the district. The games is a form of entertainment to take them away from their suffering in the higher districts, even just for a little bit. The government uses these individuals as a way to say that their sacrifice is minor in comparison into what could be. They are a scapegoat.