split personality of some forumers at EH?
-
happens without force? hmmm....I think it happens because there is sin in this world....
"homosexuality is like any natural disaster you can think of, not that homosexuality is bad, but it can come to anyone naturally"
which is why we need Christ, to run to the cross to avert this disaster.....
high class...i agree...the high class Romans were decadent and a lot of them are gays....probably bisexuals....Originally posted by coffeeortea:this issue about homosexuality, and it being not natural.
how can you say that something is not natural when it happens without force?
the communities and majority of the people are heterosexual, and thats the normal to them.
for homosexuals, they feel more attracted to the same sex, and that is natural to them. how can you say that is not natural? it is only the minority.
homosexuality has been evident even thousands of years ago. in fact, in certain european countries, homosexuality is seen as a class and very high level of social status.
homosexuality is like any natural disaster you can think of, not that homosexuality is bad, but it can come to anyone naturally, just like how earthquakes can happen in california, or anywhere else. yet, earthquakes are considered natural, but they are not very normal, right? -
Originally posted by HENG@:
I sought to differ whether their role plays in maintaining balance and controlling population. I think many of them will still become fathers, as what u have said many are closet gays. So how do this control pollution?
[b]
The ability of nature to naturally control the population of any species(barring any intervention or disruption by cosmic forces) to ensure sustainable survival.
The existance of homosexuality within other species on earth, and the role it plays in maintaining balance with their environment.
The alternate reality if there were no homosexuals at all amongst humans, and extrapolating that alternate reality into the future. My hint for this would be that if u think that having your ability to love and breed freely and/or your ability to reproduce, all restricted and controlled by higher authority is natural, then by all means continue to despise nature's own workings.
b]
Now u paint gays as saviours of mankind.....i think u are a bit......off??? -
in my post, i clearly stated that i used natural disasters as a measure of being natural, and not disastrous, which i presume you have mistaken. i suppose then, you condone homosexuality?Originally posted by laoda99:happens without force? hmmm....I think it happens because there is sin in this world....
"homosexuality is like any natural disaster you can think of, not that homosexuality is bad, but it can come to anyone naturally"
which is why we need Christ, to run to the cross to avert this disaster.....
high class...i agree...the high class Romans were decadent and a lot of them are gays....probably bisexuals....
i dont encourage homosexuality, neither do i hate homosexuality, i for one, know that i will not succumb to homosexuality. -
We were talking about good evidence; evidence derived through the principles of the scientific method and you asked about "freedom." So I am pointing out to you that "freedom" is a "concept." Are you saying that "God" is merely a concept? A product of human thought?
Indeed this you have pointed out. And if a lot of the things are right, then God may very well be nothing more then a concept created by human minds with no appeal to the scientific method. He may very well not exist for real.
But before we go too far on this assumption, one needs to see if we are ready to apply this principles towards so many of our actions. So now my question is this: If freedom is nothing more then a concept that had no more rational basis then something created by human brains, then it's claim to the world as it being a human right should be worth as much as the claim that God exists... which is apparently very little in your opinion.
Because as a concept the claims that human freedom makes cannot be verified scientifically, and are in fact even contradicted by it. What the weight of scientific evidence suggests is that men are no more then just another kind of animal, and what reason is there to suggest that he needs any kind of freedom if all his thoughts are nothing more then naturalistic processes. This thing called freedom is an illusion, and we don't need to consider it any more important or having any far-reaching consquences if we could avoid them.
Very well then, if I was a slave-trader exploiting the weak and the poor, and I do this because I absolutely believe that I am not subject to anybody's personal beliefs on this rubbish called freedom. What I have is the support of the scientific evidence that it is nature's way for the strong to rule over the weak, and that men are never truly free, choice being an illusion invented between those who have power and those who have not.
If I was the sort of person who could escape any kind of punishment for my deeds in the place I am, what is to stop me from going on from doing what I am doing? Illusionary notions of wrong and right that I don't need to listen to or consider true because all I need to be is concerned with the physical evidence?
This is naturalistic science taken to it's logical conclusion, and perhaps you might agree with it since you argue so hard for it being the ultimate logical choice of human actions. We should form our beliefs and opinions based on scientific evidence... so now it tells us we are just animals slaved to very complex instincts with no hope of meaning beyond the illusions in our mind... what will men do with this?
There is of course a paradox raised up by such pure naturalistic-evidence thinking, but I am surprised that you haven't brought it up.Originally posted by casino_king:
I afraid this confusion may be mostly your own.
See? you are totally condused. You now seemrd to admit that "God" "Heaven" "Hell" are merely children of the human brain... since you choose to link it with the other child of the human brain "freedom."
You seem to be assuming that I am trying to prove God in each and every one of my points. This I am not trying to do at all. In fact I have not even delved into many of the topics that heavily consider Theism before being bogged down by you trying to prove why my arguments can't link up with Theism, which of course was never my intention to do in the first place.
For your sake, I have decided to avoid arguing precisely from a Theistic point of view, because I know that is an area which you can't seem to get your mind around the impossibility of. This I accept, and in fact refrain from any Theistic reference. What I am trying to do instead, is point out that there are plenty of Atheistic reasons to reject the scientific method as being the whole show and final judge of reality.
If you haven't noticed, there is a good reason why the modernist era (which you hail from) has passed and now we are in a very messy and post-modern kind of world. And I can assure you it's not simply because of religion.
You apparently seem this think this is science versus religion, I suspect it's more of a case of true science verus fashion science, true intellectualism versus pseudo intellectualism. -
We were talking about good evidence; evidence derived through the principles of the scientific method and you asked about "freedom." So I am pointing out to you that "freedom" is a "concept." Are you saying that "God" is merely a concept? A product of human thought?
Indeed this you have pointed out. And if a lot of the things are right, then God may very well be nothing more then a concept created by human minds with no appeal to the scientific method. He may very well not exist for real.
But before we go too far on this assumption, one needs to see if we are ready to apply this principles towards so many of our actions. So now my question is this: If freedom is nothing more then a concept that had no more rational basis then something created by human brains, then it's claim to the world as it being a human right should be worth as much as the claim that God exists... which is apparently very little in your opinion.
Because as a concept the claims that human freedom makes cannot be verified scientifically, and are in fact even contradicted by it. What the weight of scientific evidence suggests is that men are no more then just another kind of animal, and what reason is there to suggest that he needs any kind of freedom if all his thoughts are nothing more then naturalistic processes. This thing called freedom is an illusion, and we don't need to consider it any more important or having any far-reaching consquences if we could avoid them.
Very well then, if I was a slave-trader exploiting the weak and the poor, and I do this because I absolutely believe that I am not subject to anybody's personal beliefs on this rubbish called freedom. What I have is the support of the scientific evidence that it is nature's way for the strong to rule over the weak, and that men are never truly free, choice being an illusion invented between those who have power and those who have not.
If I was the sort of person who could escape any kind of punishment for my deeds in the place I am, what is to stop me from going on from doing what I am doing? Illusionary notions of wrong and right that I don't need to listen to or consider true because all I need to be is concerned with the physical evidence?
This is naturalistic science taken to it's logical conclusion, and perhaps you might agree with it since you argue so hard for it being the ultimate logical choice of human actions. We should form our beliefs and opinions based on scientific evidence... so now it tells us we are just animals slaved to very complex instincts with no hope of meaning beyond the illusions in our mind... what will men do with this?
There is of course a paradox raised up by such pure naturalistic-evidence thinking, but I am surprised that you haven't brought it up.Originally posted by casino_king:
I afraid this confusion may be mostly your own.
See? you are totally condused. You now seemrd to admit that "God" "Heaven" "Hell" are merely children of the human brain... since you choose to link it with the other child of the human brain "freedom."
You seem to be assuming that I am trying to prove God in each and every one of my points. This I am not trying to do at all. In fact I have not even delved into many of the topics that heavily consider Theism before being bogged down by you trying to prove why my arguments can't link up with Theism, which of course was never my intention to do in the first place.
For your sake, I have decided to avoid arguing precisely from a Theistic point of view, because I know that is an area which you can't seem to get your mind around the impossibility of. This I accept, and in fact refrain from any Theistic reference. What I am trying to do instead, is point out that there are plenty of Atheistic reasons to reject the scientific method as being the whole show and final judge of reality.
If you haven't noticed, there is a good reason why the modernist era (which you hail from) has passed and now we are in a very messy and post-modern kind of world. And I can assure you it's not simply because of religion.
You apparently seem this think this is science versus religion, I suspect it's more of a case of true science verus fashion science, true intellectualism versus pseudo intellectualism. -
I am not against homosexuality, I have some gay and transvestite friends too. Think it is a sin which need to be addressed, just like many other sins in life.Originally posted by coffeeortea:in my post, i clearly stated that i used natural disasters as a measure of being natural, and not disastrous, which i presume you have mistaken. i suppose then, you condone homosexuality?
i dont encourage homosexuality, neither do i hate homosexuality, i for one, know that i will not succumb to homosexuality. -
Hello? It is Faith that counts remember? The law is only a mirror? Please don't backslide.Originally posted by laoda99:I am not against homosexuality, I have some gay and transvestite friends too. Think it is a sin which need to be addressed, just like many other sins in life. -
Folks...
lets define this clearly
Homosexuals .... People who have a sexual orientation that is blended towards people of the same sex, there is a possibility that this is due to genetic makeups.
Homosexuality .... This is refering to someone having sexual relationship with another of the same sex, this is not natural, this is a life style choice.
yes, everyone of us have this thing called a free choice, even homosexuals. A free choice to do what the flesh desire or not to do it.
Homosexuality like drugs addiction, gambling addiction ...etc is a choice made, by giving the false impression that there is no hope for them to change and get out, we denial them of the truth that they can excerise their freedom to breakfree from the 'alternative' lifestyle that is holding them hostage. -
I apologize for the double post, my computer was having some troubles with sgforums...Originally posted by casino_king:Hello? It is Faith that counts remember? The law is only a mirror? Please don't backslide.
Hmm... you are making a statement on Christian theology from within itself. Would you like to back up that statement? Before we go into detail with that from material I suspect you might nto be familiar with, but yet choose to make big statements on?
Frankly I think it would be good for the hustling and heckling to stop. I would serious doubt the intellectual intergity of a person whose sole justifiation for being an intellectual comes from how strongly he holds to a certain, curious way of viewing the world.
I am not sure whose head is in the sand here. Is this truly thinking... or could it be pedantry? Which is intellectual rigour applied to no particular end except perhaps self-importance? -
My view is, even it is from genetic makeups...it does not show that homosexuality is god's intended plan for us, but rather, a result of sin when men fall from grace.Originally posted by vince69:Folks...
lets define this clearly
Homosexuals .... People who have a sexual orientation that is blended towards people of the same sex, there is a possibility that this is due to genetic makeups.
Homosexuality .... This is refering to someone having sexual relationship with another of the same sex, this is not natural, this is a life style choice.
yes, everyone of us have this thing called a free choice, even homosexuals. A free choice to do what the flesh desire or not to do it.
Homosexuality like drugs addiction, gambling addiction ...etc is a choice made, by giving the false impression that there is no hope for them to change and get out, we denial them of the truth that they can excerise their freedom to breakfree from the 'alternative' lifestyle that is holding them hostage.
I agree with u more that it is a life style choice. -
this is why I said there is a possibility it could be a genetic issue, as no one can fully proof it is, so far all those arguments on this tropic had display flaw in many fronts (such as sampling techniques ...etc).Originally posted by laoda99:My view is, even it is from genetic makeups...it does not show that homosexuality is god's intended plan for us, but rather, a result of sin when men fall from grace.
I agree with u more that it is a life style choice.
Anyway, whether to live this alternative lifestyle is still boils down to a personal decision.
-
please tell me how homosexual and homosexuality are not related.Originally posted by vince69:Folks...
lets define this clearly
Homosexuals .... People who have a sexual orientation that is blended towards people of the same sex, there is a possibility that this is due to genetic makeups.
Homosexuality .... This is refering to someone having sexual relationship with another of the same sex, this is not natural, this is a life style choice.
yes, everyone of us have this thing called a free choice, even homosexuals. A free choice to do what the flesh desire or not to do it.
Homosexuality like drugs addiction, gambling addiction ...etc is a choice made, by giving the false impression that there is no hope for them to change and get out, we denial them of the truth that they can excerise their freedom to breakfree from the 'alternative' lifestyle that is holding them hostage.
wow, so you're telling me that the people who are gay are forcing themselves to be gay? they're not doing it because they prefer the same sex over the opposite?
it is natural for them to prefer the same sex over the opposite, just like how it is natural for heterosexuals to prefer the opposite sex as a partner. -
So I gather from this post you finally understood what I was getting at when I said you were confused in comparing concepts like "freedom" and "entities like God" when discussing "The Scientific Method."Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I apologize for the double post, my computer was having some troubles with sgforums...
Hmm... you are making a statement on Christian theology from within itself. Would you like to back up that statement? Before we go into detail with that from material I suspect you might nto be familiar with, but yet choose to make big statements on?
Frankly I think it would be good for the hustling and heckling to stop. I would serious doubt the intellectual intergity of a person whose sole justifiation for being an intellectual comes from how strongly he holds to a certain, curious way of viewing the world.
I am not sure whose head is in the sand here. Is this truly thinking... or could it be pedantry? Which is intellectual rigour applied to no particular end except perhaps self-importance?
Similarly you are confused here.. the answer is "No" to your question: could it be pedantry? Which is intellectual rigour applied to no particular end except perhaps self-importance?
The correct answer is: this is a forum... go and get it clear in your mind what a forum is for.
As for the statement: Law is a mirror and not a Tool.... let's quote Jesus.Taken from the bible:
What was Jesus teaching here? A way to heaven? Heaven as in a physical location? Meeting "God" in "Heaven?"
"In my Father's house are many homes. If it weren't so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a place for you." and "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me."Taken from the bible:"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.... Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
In my perception or "theory" as one kind soul here puts it, what Jesus says is not to be taken literally. In fact the whole Bible is not to be taken literally.
"Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
The Bible would then sit comfortably with the Scientific Journals.
As far as I am concerned; "going to heaven" and "born again" are the same thing. When you are born again, you are in "heaven," you are in the "Kingdom of God."Taken from the bible:" He said, "How will we liken the Kingdom of God? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? It's like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, though it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth, yet when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow."
See? The Kingdom of God is right here on earth. If the Kingdom of God is on earth, then God is on earth and heaven is on earth.
If you do not agree with what I have just said, then it is pointless to go on... the rest of what I have to say is built on these concepts. -
its taken as a criminal and crime analogy. a criminal may not desire to commit a crime.Originally posted by coffeeortea:please tell me how homosexual and homosexuality are not related.
wow, so you're telling me that the people who are gay are forcing themselves to be gay? they're not doing it because they prefer the same sex over the opposite?
it is natural for them to prefer the same sex over the opposite, just like how it is natural for heterosexuals to prefer the opposite sex as a partner. -
How do u noe it's natural? Even if it is "natural", it does not mean it's god's intended plan....becoz it may be a result of man's sin and fall from grace.Originally posted by coffeeortea:please tell me how homosexual and homosexuality are not related.
wow, so you're telling me that the people who are gay are forcing themselves to be gay? they're not doing it because they prefer the same sex over the opposite?
it is natural for them to prefer the same sex over the opposite, just like how it is natural for heterosexuals to prefer the opposite sex as a partner.
But heck...this topic been around many times liao....should end here.....no results one.... -
ur post reminds me of something:Originally posted by casino_king:See? The Kingdom of God is right here on earth. If the Kingdom of God is on earth, then God is on earth and heaven is on earth.
If you do not agree with what I have just said, then it is pointless to go on... the rest of what I have to say is built on these concepts.
when the blacks are being oppressed, they were singing:" This is not my world....my father's is not this world..."
now that pple are rich, they sing:"This is my father's world"....
Back to the topic, if i am not wrong, revelation in the bible says that an earthly kingdom will be established on earth...but that does not exclude the idea of a heavenly kingdom... -
The Kingdom of Heaven is on earth NOW and refers to a "spiritual and virtual kingdom...." This is the only way that it will all make sense, given the development of human thought and understanding aince 2000 years ago. Nothing to do with "an earthly kingdom will be established on earth."Originally posted by laoda99:Back to the topic, if i am not wrong, revelation in the bible says that an earthly kingdom will be established on earth...but that does not exclude the idea of a heavenly kingdom... -
If the kingdom of heaven is on earth now, why do the bible have references that "the God of this world [is satan]"?Originally posted by casino_king:The Kingdom of Heaven is on earth NOW and refers to a "spiritual and virtual kingdom...." This is the only way that it will all make sense, given the development of human thought and understanding aince 2000 years ago. Nothing to do with "an earthly kingdom will be established on earth."
For me, if a true kingdom of god is established here on earth, the world won't be like that now. -
Hi, if you had read my post just before yours,Originally posted by coffeeortea:please tell me how homosexual and homosexuality are not related.
wow, so you're telling me that the people who are gay are forcing themselves to be gay? they're not doing it because they prefer the same sex over the opposite?
it is natural for them to prefer the same sex over the opposite, just like how it is natural for heterosexuals to prefer the opposite sex as a partner.
I mention that there is a Possibility of it being Genetics, cause its still in open debate and no concrete evidence had been produced yet, all alot of flaws had surfaced on those produced such as targeted sampling issues ...etc.
1) For people to blame their actions/decision on genetic makeup is liken to one who refuses to take personal responsibility on their own action hence all these 'blame father/mother' things saying its their fault that I am born this way. Fair to their parents ...etc?
2) To blame personal actions on Genetics basically reduced that person to a mindless entity unable to make personal decision to choose their own lifestyle and with no freewill of their own. Insulting to him/her?
3) To hold on to the idea of 'because one is born this way, this person have no choice' is to take away his/her freedom of choice, denial this person of his/her free will to choose, and also denial this person of all hope to change even if he/she wants, its also to force this person to resign to his/her 'fate', fair for this person? -
well said!Originally posted by vince69:Hi, if you had read my post just before yours,
I mention that there is a Possibility of it being Genetics, cause its still in open debate and no concrete evidence had been produced yet, all alot of flaws had surfaced on those produced such as targeted sampling issues ...etc.
1) For people to blame their actions/decision on genetic makeup is liken to one who refuses to take personal responsibility on their own action hence all these 'blame father/mother' things saying its their fault that I am born this way. Fair to their parents ...etc?
2) To blame personal actions on Genetics basically reduced that person to a mindless entity unable to make personal decision to choose their own lifestyle and with no freewill of their own. Insulting to him/her?
3) To hold on to the idea of 'because one is born this way, this person have no choice' is to take away his/her freedom of choice, denial this person of his/her free will to choose, and also denial this person of all hope to change even if he/she wants, its also to force this person to resign to his/her 'fate', fair for this person? -
You must not think in terms of physical location. Physical Location: "Earth" and "Heaven" You must not think in terms of a Physical Kingdom..... once you do that, you come up against the reality demanded by science.Originally posted by laoda99:If the kingdom of heaven is on earth now, why do the bible have references that "the God of this world [is satan]"?
For me, if a true kingdom of god is established here on earth, the world won't be like that now. -
so wat's your idea of heaven? Heaven is a place on earth? (by belinda carlise)Originally posted by casino_king:You must not think in terms of physical location. Physical Location: "Earth" and "Heaven" You must not think in terms of a Physical Kingdom..... once you do that, you come up against the reality demanded by science.
-
Let me put it this was; Since you cannot accept my understanding of Jesus words, can you tell us where heaven is without sounding ridiculous and in compliance with the universally accepted principles of the scientific method?Originally posted by laoda99:so wat's your idea of heaven? Heaven is a place on earth? (by belinda carlise) -
I don't want to sound partisan or pot-shotish...Originally posted by casino_king:Let me put it this was; Since you cannot accept my understanding of Jesus words, can you tell us where heaven is without sounding ridiculous and in compliance with the universally accepted principles of the scientific method?
But since when has the scientific method been universally accepted? One might be almost justified in making such a statment in the 19th to early 20th century, when modernism was the way to go. But if you did study a little bit of intellectual history that notion became flacid after the fall of communism.
If anything, this age is one of great pseudoscience, and never have been so many of our seccular principles made on notions that are vaporous at best, by the scientific method.
So no, I would have to debate your point that the scientific method is universally accepted. I suspect it is something you might like to think, but the evidence appears to point the other way. If what you say is true, then one might see a kind of world in which most nonreligious people saw reason and logicity as a kind of virtue.
And of course, take a poll with some serious questions and you will find that this is anything but the case. -
So I gather from this post you finally understood what I was getting at when I said you were confused in comparing concepts like "freedom" and "entities like God" when discussing "The Scientific Method."
I am afraid you have realized your own mistake, but yet tried to see it as mine. No to begin with I was quite distinct in my own mind of the concepts of 'God' and 'freedom', as quite separate things the moment I made my first argument. It seems to me that the confusion is your own.
Firstly it seems it is you who are adamant on trying to drag God into the picture of freedom when I have at first already said that we'll have it your way. I have assumed for your sake that all this notions of God is proven nonsense, and hence let's look at freedom instead.
Do we dare apply the same logic we did to God with freedom? What is the answer we will get? And would we accept such an answer?
And also I wish that we would refrain from guessing each other's frame of mind, firstly it's actually distracting from the real debate, where it seems that you are more preoccupied with apparent 'confusion', 'fantasies', and the state of the debaters' mind. Secondly it seems to keep us going on for post onto post without ending of 'you're confused-no you really are- no you are the one who is really confused-' without even scraching the topic.
Which is it you are more interesting in doing? Gaining some satisfaction from trying to prove your counterpart's unsound state or mind or actually getting on with some logical discourse? I am not certain from your persistent behaviour.
Now for one thing let's make this clear, this then is my prose:
1) God does not exist physically because he is unverifiable by the scientific method, very well then let's accept that.
2) The scientific method is the only way of determining the meaning of physical reality
3) People demand that human freedom is an inalienable human quality that should affect all physical areas and aspects of human life.
4) What does the scientific method have to say about that?
5) What is the hypothesis that the evidence we have from human biology, naturalism, psychoanalysis, physics and all the other related sciences suggest instead?
6) In the light of this, what do we have to say about human freedom being an unalienable human dignity and right?Similarly you are confused here.. the answer is "No" to your question: could it be pedantry? Which is intellectual rigour applied to no particular end except perhaps self-importance?
I suspect that is an correct inadequate answer. It's like answering to some complicated mathematical sum 'the answer is a number'. I can't imagine how being in a forum for a moment suspends certain basic laws of intellectual honesty, and basic respect and due consideration for opposing points of view.
The correct answer is: this is a forum... go and get it clear in your mind what a forum is for.
A forum is for speaking a point of view and interacting via views, just as a mouth is for eating. But I suspect the real question is if this speaking or eating is actually appropriate or fruitful in any way.
I have yet to see any hard justification for eating any amount of any kind of material on the sheer virtue of having a mouth, I doubt a forum is excluded from the same logic.
Very well that one can state your personal beliefs and points, but do it in a unfruitful, intellectually suspect and pseudoscientific way leaves much to be desired. And is the demand for a higher quality of debate unjustified?As for the statement: Law is a mirror and not a Tool.... let's quote Jesus.
Whatever happened to context? One of the higher scientific virtues?
Dare we debate the context and merits of the statement as you try to suggest it in? I suspect it might lead to many ontological and metaphysical questions that I have yet to see much display of skill in your particular style and method of reasoning.
Sigh, I do truly wish that you would choose a style of argument that actually tries to consider the claims of Christianity from within itself, and perhaps think for a moment 'what if it is true?'
Especially when I have given so much space to your own point, going as far as to think from as atheistic frame of mind. Returning the favour would be much appreciated.In my perception or "theory" as one kind soul here puts it, what Jesus says is not to be taken literally. In fact the whole Bible is not to be taken literally.
Certainly not all of the Bible is to be taken literally (unless you are a literalist)Â… because it is also a work of art. But yet I find the claim that it should entirely be allegory suspect, but yet again it's a point that is too chim to discuss on a tail end of a post.
The Bible would then sit comfortably with the Scientific Journals.
As far as I am concerned; "going to heaven" and "born again" are the same thing. When you are born again, you are in "heaven," you are in the "Kingdom of God."
I might suspect there are several scientific principles that one can be tempted to take too literallyÂ… care you think how that might be possible?