Rick Horton

I admire that about him. He's intellectually thourough even if it means he cannot answer the question about what to do. I mean, that is a whole other story, and as a philosopher I've come to the closest possible remedies in my life through constant studies, but as far as a global or societal fix I'm not even close, and Anarchy doesn't exist, so I try to work within whatever system the people that rule over me have so that I can maximize my welfare and minimize their abuse. It's a very somber reality, but apart from paying the most attention to how to keep my family and friends whom are most valuable to me happy there doesn't appear to be a widespread answer at all. Not one that after centuries of debate has surfaced. The beginnings of the United States was an amazing experiment from which everybody can learn lessons about freedom, capitalism, fascism, and everything else that it tried to either promote or supress. It set up a system that in theory would minimize the States effect on individuals within a very large populous. But we see that no matter what the rules and regulations demand it takes a very short period of time for the natural state of human competition and authoritarian traits to just do what they do regardless of whatever system is "proclaimed" to exist. The longer a structure rules over an area the more corrupt it will get, and that is the nature of humanity. It just doesn't matter in the long run what sounds nice. So revolutions occur, people demand new laws, tyrrants are eventually overthrown and replaced with the next group of rulers that either start out corrupt or are on their way to corruption down the road. This cycle is so natural to humanity that it seems to me to be the very cleansing agent of our species. At least we do revolt after periods of tyrrany and start over, BUT it always reverts. It's a cycle that has never been broken. EVER. So, he doesn't have the answer, but he has the truth. What would you rather have? A false answer, or the truth, no matter how much it sucks? So from here we diligently search for methods that will minimize terror, and prolong the inevitable corruption, which will undoubtably happen at some point in the future. The best we can hope for is a long run and a few generations of relatively happy members of a relatively predictable and somewhat easy to manuever in, State. Nothing lives forever, and that seems to be a true reflection of all States. They die off when they get too fat, and from the inside they become too sick to survive. My argument is that there is no permanent answer to be examined at this point. Maybe never. But we do recognize that we live amongst others, and nobody will always agree. Disputes ARE inevitable. Violence is inevitable. Rulers are inevitable (as there are always rulers at every given moment, and never a vacuum) As a collective people do try and minimize pain as much as possible so that our own most valued people that are in "our own" lives are happy. This leads to both success, and failure in a world in which by the law of evolution there is never a moment (ever, ever, ever, not in a second, minute, day, week, month, year, decade, century,) where competition seizes and equality manifests.

I disagree. I think that instead of proposing a fix, he is recognizing that there isn't a fix. He recognizes the failings of Capitalism somehow leading to freedom. Capitalism is still going to be a State.

If I (as an anarchist sitting in an ivory tower) were to rephrase your argument with 'less rosy' language, this would be my attempt: The State (a coercive government) is good and neccessary for a well functioning society. Is there evidence contrary? Now, that is going to the extreme. It depends on the resolution of the dispute and how it gets worked out. Sometimes it can be more brutal than other times, and sometimes things can go relatively smooth for the majority of people in the society. It's not about how dare, it's about it's not possible, it hasn't been seen in society or in any other lifeform on the planet in scientific history. Competition is the biologic method of evolution. There are winners and losers, even to the point of extinction. Anarchy has never been seen or substantiated to even exist outside of a mere concept that has failed to be enacted in any way in any society on earth since the beginning of time, and unless competition somehow stops, there will always be rulers. Anarachy's definition is a society without rulers, right Stef? So believing there can be a society without rulers is a lot like believing Jesus is God's son, rose from the dead, and there is a Heaven where all good children go. It's a concept. A real concept. Not a real possibility or a truth. There's no evidence for the claim, so it is religious, NOT scientific. NO MATTER HOW HARD and anarchist tries to introduce reality into his concept, IT DOESN'T EXIST. The rest of the arguments are clever word plays to make it seem believable, and those same clever word games and repetitious mantras are used to support all of the other faith based idiologies that break down under scientific scrutiny. Then the whining and vitriol ensues by those who WILL NOT concede their broken philosophy.

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP. There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic): 1) Is spanking good, or bad? 2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop). Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a child any different? If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point. Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications. As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced. It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general. So many times in Stefs videos he gives statistics. But rarely does he reference where they come from.

And I'm not derailing the thread. This applies to the entire PREMISE of the OP's question, which becomes moot, considering.

it doesn't matter if coorporations could exist without a State, because there has always been a State. There has never been a time in documented history of either human or biological science that has seen equal behavior, accepting and honorable, intellectually compatible and respectful in ANY life form for any large group. Even at the smallest levels, between 2 to 3 people there inevitably becomes a power struggle and a winner, or more powerful of the group ends up controlling certain aspects of the dealings. By nature people are more, and less pursuasive, driven, intelligent, influencial, etc, so rulers ALWAYS surface and it cannot be stopped by those that lack the very power that got the rulers where they are. That is the dilemna for better or worse. SO, coorporations may not be able to exist without a State, but neither do humans. Remember it doesn't take uniforms, costumes, books with signatures, and people who are willing to call a State a State to make States what they are. It takes groups of people, or even 1 very powerful person to become a State, and there have always been rulers over people. And size has no application in verifying the existence of a State. It is not documented anywhere that a State has to be some kind of FORMAL thing that we point to and therefore call a State, other than that it has power over people. And some people have power over others. So the people with the most power in ANY area are the State. The USA is the world STATE. There have always been STATES even without nations, cities, etc... Stefan has gone so far as to even say that "parents" are the State in families.

I don't like making incorrect arguments. You keep telling me I'm making incorrect arguments. I want you to help me make correct arguments, but you reject everything I present as wrong. I don't understand why you are being so obstinate. You're here, posting. I assume you want to communicate. So help me communicate with you. Okay. I'll try that. Don't use my writings and change key words in my writings and then return my writings to me packaged to make some point that doesn't make sense anymore once you plagerize and at the same time distort my writings. For one, the point is moot outside of a parent and child and you are not my parent, nor my child. Secondly the point makes no sense in a voluntary relationship. We have a voluntary relationship. 3rd. Parents cannot have a voluntary relationship with their child AS I have pointed out. If you disagree then say why, but do it with your own words and make the point.

Insulting comment. This is why I sense you and I will not converse in the future.

My line is my line. I mean, this is a philosophically personal question. That's the whole point. And it's a good point. See, the parent has a real duty to be the best they can be, and just saying spankings is abuse is fraudulent. You cannot blindly call spankings abuse, and not know what a spanking really is. The question you asked illustrates the dillemna. If a parent hits a child and it leaves black and blue marks, draws blood, breaks bones, leaves a child in pain for more than a minute, and things like that there are probably some major health concerns to the child, but if the spanking is slight but strong enough to prevent the child from performing a dangerous act the next time, then it is a good spanking technique. Of course this is not all that hard to figure out for the parent if they love their child. And spanking really doesn't do anything healthy for a child after they are old enough to rationalize danger. At that point the technique is probably no use anymore. Also if your child doesn't respond to spankings at a safe level, it's a good idea to stop spanking because you could end up pushing the spanking too rough to try and get a response and it could hurt the child. Not all children respond to spankings, but a lot do respond to a well used spank. They shouldn't cause real pain, for more than a minute tops before the sensation is gone and no marks are left. Before a certain age, and while children are too young to process danger, yet are walking around and touching everything they can REALLY put themselves in danger and lectures don't help. A quick and non angry spanking can save a childs life, or prevent scarring physical harm that far far far excedes the short lived shock of a little spanking that a lot of times keeps the child from doing that dangerous thing the next time.

This cannot be a serious argument. I've blown it out of the water, and yet you ignore it, and expect me to repeat my arguments over and over....

http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html ???????

I don't believe I called it a rebuttal. I clearly don't understand your argument well enough to rebut. In fact, I've come to see that I don't understand most of your arguments. Maybe you've noticed, we don't use language in the same way. You correct statements I make about things you've written, terms I apply to things you've written, and definitions of words you've written almost every time we talk. I have a genuine concern that our methods of communicating may be incompatible. You'll recall this all started with "choice". I've been trying to write to you using as many of your own words as possible, to reduce errors in the back-and-forth. My thinking is that your own arguments are more effective responses to themselves than anything I could ever generate. At a minimum, I can't misstate what you've said if I reuse your words. I just want you to see your argument the way I understand it. Not necessarily to rebut, just so I know I understand what you've said. To accomplish this I make a universal rule, from a special case you propose, and apply it to our relationship. Doing this allows me to take the principle you've proposed from one context to another. In this way, the familiar (your argument) becomes the alien (my argument), and it should be possible to look at the reflection objectively. You produced a special case involving "the family". I generalized to "relationships between people", and applied the rule to our conversation. The results were bizarre but comparable. You feel I've distorted your writing. Again, we arrive at this point of you correcting me about something you've written. I admit, I am experiencing mild frustration. Please explain to me, in what way is my writing a distortion of what you've written? I wish to understand what I don't understand. You're right. You aren't understanding me and I'm not understanding you, so why keep replying to me? You change words in my writing and don't call it distortion. That's really fucked up, man.

The question that a parent needs to ask themselves when assessing their need for spanking. Have they used enough foresight prior to the incidence in which the child needed a sudden scolding. Take a hot stove or running into the road. What are the calculated risks that a child of a certain age may make a poor decision and either tip a pan of boiling water over themselves or run into a passing car on the road. Has the parent taken enough reasonable steps to avoid these dangerous situations? I understand that you can never avoid risk entirely. My own brother lost his 3 year old son last year to a rickety iron fence that fell on him. He'd opened that gate a number of times previously without any problem, so on the surface it had seemed quite safe. However, whilst people can argue my brother could have done more and maybe he might have discovered the hinge was broken I can certainly understand that risk assessment can sometimes be an emergency situation which may require a sudden yanking or pushing of a child as a means to averting them from more danger. However, Hot stoves are in kitchen’s with doors that can be blocked or locked. The risk is very obvious and real. Likewise with the road, we hold a child’s hand to in order that they don't just dart sideways into open traffic. These are preventative measures a parent can take to avoid any potential calamity. It's somewhat unjust that a child gets hit for not understanding the brevity of a situation they have been allowed into by their own parent. This would be what makes spanking about parental laziness. You don't need much scientific research to understand that prevention is the best way of averting danger. Children will probably experiment with hot water at some stage and recognise it as painful. They then don't require further pain in the form of a slap to work that out. But your point was that you believe that you somehow deserved your spanking because you were deliberately annoying your parents. That they deserved more appreciation because they had brought life to you and taken care of you as a child. This is a whole different area to your argument regarding hot stoves and open traffic, which I think was a distraction on your part, because I think you understand the argument I have made above. I say good for you if your parents were wonderful loving and kind people, that is a marvellous thing indeed. Parents like that are indeed worth cherishing. I disagree with their slapping, because I believe it's unnecessary and potentially harmful. But if you truly believe the wrist slapping you got was reasonable and rare enough that it didn't take much away from them as loving parents overall then I'm not going to argue with that. Unfortunately many of us received quite harsh beatings as children which were unjust and not born out of love. But I understand that the parent child relationship is often complex. That it is for each individual adult child to process and assess for themselves. However, there is good evidence as Stefan has brought to bear many times on this board, that spanking lowers IQ, can leave the adult child at the risk of addictions and unhealthy behaviour. Examine the data yourself and you'll discover virtually no competent paediatrician agrees that spanking or even wrist slapping benefits the child. This doesn't mean that parents who have engaged in this sort of thing are stone cold evil. It just means that they were ignorant at best and some were lazy in their approach to prevention. I'd like to hope that parents confronted with this data might now change their minds and apologise for their previous infractions with their children. Especially if the overall parental experience had been a net postive for the child. There admission and apology could only improve and strengthen that relationship. I've already stated my views on all of what you're saying. Spanking is not abuse. Hand slapping is not abuse. If you have evidence with links, footnotes, etc..., and not just an incomplete fact video by Stef, then why not make your case that it's abuse. The onus is on you, not me. This whole, spankings = abuse thing is the "new" concept. (which is rubbish)

No. If an adult is senile to the point that they don't remember and cant retain information that they collected over 70 plus years, spanking isn't going to help teach them now. They're obviously just beyond that kind of training method. They already know what's dangerous. They've had the concepts taught, and they've lived a LONG time. If they have Alzheimers then why would you use spankings as a technique to help somebody who'll just forget in the next minute? Now, a little bit of senility doesn't take away an old persons right to be risky if they want.

Here are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term “bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et cetera, et cetera. The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless. (And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent. And now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being trolled (by you). Please. If you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the negative. I started out with simple inquiries, no judgement. Simple questions, that inquire as to the specifics of your post. I don't purport intellectualism, nor do I take any statistic on faith. I find it far simpler and more direct to rely on logic and universality. So, yet again, can you just give me a simple response as to whether children are suitable subjects for behavior modification by spanking? There are no statistics or IQ tests required for this answer, it's black and white. Either spanking is an acceptable method of behavior modification or it isn't. If it is, does it only apply to children? If so, why? No statistics required. Is this what you call trolling? There are a few comments in this thread being levied at those who accept information uncritically, yet when questions are posed to those presenting new information, it is referred to as trolling. If the possibility of those with various levels of pigmentation in their skin being biologically/neurologically challenged in some way should be considered, as mentioned, I think it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide some evidence, or perhaps even some data (preferably incontestable), lest the claimant be considered irresponsible. Or such claims could be justified as commiseration and ignored, but that may violate the high standards of intellectual integrity to which those advancing arguments on philosophical forums ought to be held. I think the order of things matters. OP raised an issue with some of the research in one of Stef's videos. You ignored that, didn't address it, and skipped to asking him about other things. The problem isn't that you aren't allowed to ask questions back, but that when you do so in a way that changes the subject while avoiding the question at hand already, that's evasive. OP's personal views are really not even relevant to the point he raised, which was questioning a particular piece of research in Stef's video. It's ad hominem to suggest his views are even relevant. I agree that if he wants to put forth other assertions of his own he has the onus to back those up with solid data, as well. But first and foremost, in this thread, the data in Stef's video that he raised should be addressed. Stef himself was reasonable enough not to question OP's motives or views or anything else. He simply saw the questions about his research and agreed to look into it. It's sad others don't have the same straightforward reaction to it that he did. Once we agree on the importance of verifying the research OP questioned, then it makes sense to move on to other issues. But until then, it's a distraction mechanism. I agree

I think its a combination of laziness and being taught by their family that this sort of violence is the right way to do things. If somebody here introduced these ideas to a spanking parent they would get frustrated and lash out, because we'd be telling them they are not in the moral high ground that they were convinced they were in. When it comes to something this big in somebody's life, losing the moral high ground is not something most people can handle rationally. Especially people who have convinced themselves that hitting people is a very very bad way to solve problems except when they are still small, young, and defenseless. Do you have any evidence to back up this assesment? It's strange that you say lazy people are violent by nature, and that human beings teach each other abuse for no other reason than laziness. I'd like to see science behind that claim. Of course, to me spankings aren't abuse, and I don't find any reason to think that spankings are done only by lazy people. And I also think spankings work in some situations better than a lecture, where a child's safety is concerned and they don't want to listen, or cant, to reason, and abstract ideas that one can only gain through years of experience.

What is your goal by distorting what I wrote and calling it a rebutall?

Stefan and Arius were gentle in their rebuttals. I have no such compunction. I suggest that you endeavor upon an indefinite course of study. Start with concepts. Then move to causality. And don't forget an extra healthy dose of fallacies. If you wish to be taken seriously, try to know what it is you speak upon. Jumbling together a bunch of words does not make an effective argument. Language can be abused, as you have shown, but its proper use is to convey meaning. What do you mean? If you, simply, wish to read your own words in print, then say so (Woohoo, see what I posted!!!). Trying to camoflauge irrational rants with "10 dollar words" fools only the foolish. (Might want to invest in a spelling/grammar checker, as that's a dead giveaway.) I'm sorry. I didn't find a rebuttal there.

Still trying to derail the thread? Does asking for clarification constitute derailing? The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection. So far so good, better to be accurate with the data. But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate. Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking. My question was and still is: "Why?" Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area? Why the evasive answer about derailing? Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned? I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions. Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking? If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them? Are you kidding me? If a religious person came in here and threw out some nonsense statistic supporting their position and you refuted it and their response was "But why are you refuting it? Let's not talk about the statistic in question, what matters is your motive in refuting it?" you'd find them evasive. But when the fact in question has to do with something you believe in, then you do the same thing and try to focus on the questioner's motive instead of the fact at hand? If a fact is misrepresented, it should be called out and checked on. It doesn't matter what the motive of the person who caught the error is. In fact, even if you completely disagree with their overall position, if you value truth, as people here claim to, you should be eager to check that fact out in an unbiased way. Is the highest value here truth or is it some particular agenda? I agree SO much, with this, and I'm hoping those like you and I can press these issues to the front enough times to make this the respectable philosophy forum that it claims to be instead of the forum philosophers on the outside consider a cult. I don't think that it's too late to save this forum, but I do see a lot of weird, almost religious denial going on with certain topics and elements that blows my mind. I'm a "pure" thinker. I never conform to dogmatic expectations, or friendly rhythms.

+1 You aren't very grateful for the years of care they gave you, are you? I guess other people offered to raise you and you were prevented by your parents? Either that or they raised you and you aren't grateful to be alive. Did they rape you? Did they beat you up? Did they keep you in the basement? I guess they never showed any care and love for you. No birthday parties, Xmas, sports, outings, clothing, food, etc... I'm serious. If they beat you up all the time you have every right to feel so shitty about them, but if you just can't recognize any good that they've done for you, including you being alive, then you really have a problem with gratitude.

+1 You aren't very grateful for the years of care they gave you, are you? I guess other people offered to raise you and you were prevented by your parents? Either that or they raised you and you aren't grateful to be alive. Did they rape you? Did they beat you up? Did they keep you in the basement? I guess they never showed any care and love for you. No birthday parties, Xmas, sports, outings, clothing, food, etc... I'm serious. If they beat you up all the time you have every right to feel so shitty about them, but if you just can't recognize any good that they've done for you, including you being alive, then you really have a problem with gratitude.

+1 You aren't very grateful for the years of care they gave you, are you? I guess other people offered to raise you and you were prevented by your parents? Either that or they raised you and you aren't grateful to be alive. Did they rape you? Did they beat you up? Did they keep you in the basement? I guess they never showed any care and love for you. No birthday parties, Xmas, sports, outings, clothing, food, etc... I'm serious. If they beat you up all the time you have every right to feel so shitty about them, but if you just can't recognize any good that they've done for you, including you being alive, then you really have a problem with gratitude.

So an anarchist society can't exist. That confirms it, unless all kids are taken from their families by force, or their families are forced to raise them a certain way, because if not, there will, as he points out be a State until all families adopt the NAP with parenting, which won't happen naturally. The family cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit. As it is and has been since the beginning of time, parents have children and raise them. Their is no choice for the child, nor should their be, in who is the authority figure. The parents carry the responsibility for the childs very life, health, education, shelter, clothing, etc... and the child can't do that for himself. The parent can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can the child. This bond is the very essence of dependency that the child has with the parent, and since neither parent nor child can just abandon the other without terrible outcome, the child has to obey the parent. The parent has to, in one way or another, force the child to accept the parent's rules, and the child doesn't bare any further responsibility in life besides being taught, playing, thinking, etc... The parents carry the heavy burdon, and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it. A parent cannot do that when their child is disrespectful, difficult, willful, and noncompliant. In short, the family "must" embody certain statist principles or else the family unit would dissolve. However that will not happen because parents inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing his child and shaping that child in his image. Without legal interruption in this natural cycle no family can be forced to act in any certain way. With this freedom and responsibility comes variation. With this variation comes disagreement. With this disagreement comes ethics. With ethics comes intervention. With intervention comes law. With law comes punishment. With punishment comes the State. So that's it, really, for voluntaryism as a possible societal structure of some kind. It cant happen. Pure fantasy. There are many reasons aside from the family as STATE angle that makes Anarchy fatally flawed, but this one interests me because the concept was brought about by Stefan, whom may not have realized that he single handedly cornered the Anarchy movement into a position to face such a fatal flaw. Oh well. It sucks, but again we are not merely Anarchists, but are philosophers "first".

How is the argument that being the parent of the victim reverses morality when it comes to hitting children any different from the argument that putting on a blue costume reverses morality when it comes to kidnapping and assaulting innocent people? Also why is it more ok for somebody whom you love and trust implicitly to hit you - somebody you would expect to be even more kind to you than most people - than somebody who you barely know? Let me ask you a question, since I've been fielding all of the questions so far. Why do you think parents ever started spanking their children in the first place?

I return your definitions. Parents (noun): 1. People who buy you clothes, feed you, put a roof over your head, throw you parties, transport you, provide you medical care, buy you ice cream, and use violence as a means of placing you at the bottom of an authoritarian power structure. 2. People against whom you cannot physically defend yourself. 3. Administrators of a welfare state Family (noun): 1. An organization with rules and procedures which supersede all other authority. 2. A welfare state I won't pretend to find the sense in whatever this was supposed to mean.