|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 28 2015 17:46 SoSexy wrote:
I have a question. Why aren't we seeing white people riot after a black guy killed two white reporters? What would have happened if a white guy shot two black reporters? Just interested in how Americans feel about this
Why don't you riot when an Italian is shot? I hope you're not trying to imply that black people are inherently more violent than whites, but are earnest in your question. In that case, why do you think a minority group that has faced repressive measures would have a more vehement reaction to what they consider yet another repressive action, than a majority group who considers such an action the act of a crazy guy.
Are "white americans" outraged by this act of senseless violence? Sure. But it's not considered a symptom of a repressive regime/culture that sparks them to take to the streets.
|
I think I speak on behalf of the entire BLM movement when I say the only way to resolve racial inequity is by silencing the man responsible for its proliferation.
Bernie Sanders must be stopped.
|
On August 28 2015 22:32 always_winter wrote:
I think I speak on behalf of the entire BLM movement when I say the only way to resolve racial inequity is by silencing the man responsible for its proliferation.
Bernie Sanders must be stopped.
lol 
I'm sure you're being sarcastic and referencing their interruption at Sanders's rally; I think those two women were discounted as a fringe group. Although didn't Sanders end up using it as ammunition to talk more about institutionalized racism and the problems that blacks face? It ended up working out well for him, and I'm sure most (all?) of the Republican candidates wouldn't even blink or consider using the interruption as a positive experience.
|
On August 28 2015 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 22:32 always_winter wrote:
I think I speak on behalf of the entire BLM movement when I say the only way to resolve racial inequity is by silencing the man responsible for its proliferation.
Bernie Sanders must be stopped. lol I'm sure you're being sarcastic and referencing their interruption at Sanders's rally; I think those two women were discounted as a fringe group. Although didn't Sanders end up using it as ammunition to talk more about institutionalized racism and the problems that blacks face? It ended up working out well for him, and I'm sure most (all?) of the Republican candidates wouldn't even blink or consider using the interruption as a positive experience.
I mean, they were teenage girls and its not like anything horrible happened. Weirdly all the people I see freaking out about it are white. Just like when the President went on a Podcast and dropped the N-Bomb. Fox news spent 2 days on that one.
|
On August 28 2015 15:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:I want to know what polls Donald trump is looking at. although he could be talking about just the republican primary. I'd guess he's not leading in that either. and he certainly doesn't have tremendous support. as for the philosphy debate feel free to have whatever moral debates you want but just know that your moral philosophy is not an objective fact. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/donald-trump-african-american-polls/index.htmlShow nested quote +Washington (CNN)Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Thursday that his plans to improve the economy for black Americans is why he is leading in the polls with black voters, though at least one recent poll disputes Trump's claim.
"I lead with almost every group, including with the African-American groups," Trump told reporters at an event in Greenville, South Carolina. "I have tremendous support."
Quinnipiac University released a national poll Thursday showing that while Trump is leading the Republican Party nationally, he is polling poorly with black Americans in the general election.
The poll found:
When asked "Would you say that Donald Trump cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?" 92% of black people said no.
52% of black people said Trump does not have strong leadership qualities.
73% of black people said Trump is not strong or trustworthy.
79% of black people said they have an unfavorable view of Trump.
When asked "If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?" 3% percent said they'd vote for Trump.
There's pretty much no reason to believe a single "fact" Trump says unless he directly cites a source (which he does on occasion). Last PPP poll on the 19th of North Carolina had him with the highest unfavorability of any Republican candidate polled amongst African Americans, and only two-three percentage points ahead of Carson/Christie/Rubio in favorability amongst that demographic.
They didn't actually include race in their main first choice selection poll, only favorability, so maybe he's winning that demo in some random poll, but 62% unfavorability doesn't go away in a week.
Edit: In fact, from watching his interviews, unless Donald Trump says "look it up" he's completely making things up knowing that he might be able to justify them later or, failing that, that he'll get media coverage from the false statement.
|
On August 28 2015 22:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2015 22:32 always_winter wrote:
I think I speak on behalf of the entire BLM movement when I say the only way to resolve racial inequity is by silencing the man responsible for its proliferation.
Bernie Sanders must be stopped. lol I'm sure you're being sarcastic and referencing their interruption at Sanders's rally; I think those two women were discounted as a fringe group. Although didn't Sanders end up using it as ammunition to talk more about institutionalized racism and the problems that blacks face? It ended up working out well for him, and I'm sure most (all?) of the Republican candidates wouldn't even blink or consider using the interruption as a positive experience. I mean, they were teenage girls and its not like anything horrible happened. Weirdly all the people I see freaking out about it are white. Just like when the President went on a Podcast and dropped the N-Bomb. Fox news spent 2 days on that one.
Yeah well...
|
Ouch.
Hillary Clinton took a new tack this week when answering questions about her use of a private email account as secretary of state: She took responsibility and admitted she was at fault.
“It clearly wasn’t the best choice,” Clinton said flatly on Wednesday, as she campaigned in Iowa.
On Thursday, the reason for the change in tone came into sharper focus with a stunning new poll illustrating the extent to which voters don’t trust Clinton to tell the truth.
While Republicans have been test-driving attacks against Clinton for a year and a half, no other line of attack has broken through to this degree. The numbers in a new Quinnipiac University poll are striking: More than 3-in-5 voters, 61 percent, think Clinton isn’t honest and trustworthy. Overall, Clinton’s favorability ratings slipped to 39 percent — her lowest rating since Quinnipiac began polling on Clinton after she and her husband left the White House.
When voters were asked the first word that came to their mind about Clinton, the top three replies were indictments of her trustworthiness. The No. 1response was “liar,” followed by “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.” Overall, more than a third of poll respondents said their first thought about Clinton was some version of: She’s a liar.
In an era of declining confidence in government, it’s not unusual that voters would find a politician less than honest. But the striking reality is that, for Clinton, a lack of trust is the first thing many think of.
www.politico.com
|
Caught some MSM TV this morning, and it's Trump as usual. The quick summary at the bottom is: Trump dismisses critics, denies toupee at SC event. The comedy hits continue, and I hardly want them to end.
|
United States43480 Posts
On August 28 2015 17:46 SoSexy wrote:
I have a question. Why aren't we seeing white people riot after a black guy killed two white reporters? What would have happened if a white guy shot two black reporters? Just interested in how Americans feel about this
People who ask this question are missing the issue. This incident was universally condemned. The nation can come together and agree that a black guy killing two white reporters is fucked up and then mourn it. There is no division here.
However in the case of the police, a branch of the state, being violent and overly quick to resort to deadly force there is no such division. There are large parts of the population which deny that institutional police racism exists, or that the police treat black people differently than white people, or even that the police shouldn't immediately resort to deadly force in situations that could be resolved without deadly force. Rioting isn't how the black community says "we express our deepest condolences to the victims of this tragedy". Rioting is how they say "this shit, this shit right here, this is what we've been complaining about for fucking decades and it's a real problem and now you can all see on youtube that it's a real problem and half y'all are still fucking saying that there is no racism in the police".
Obviously if rioting were how blacks express sympathy at a funeral then yes, it would be hypocritical if they rioted for some killings and not others. But it's not.
|
On August 28 2015 15:08 oneofthem wrote:
this is getitng silly. you realize using the language of rights by convenience or popularity etc does not mean the issue is exclusively analyzable in terms of sovereign rights. pure sophistry
In the argument on abortion there is an implicit (and often an explicit) hierarchy of "rights" assigned which the respective sides use to justify their claims. Therefore in the context in which we are speaking, you do have to justify your attachment to certain needs of human nature, as well as justify their precedence over others. The thrills of participating in collective propaganda and opinion herding is not such a justification. That is why the analysis of "rights" (although very little analysis here, mind) is necessarily exclusive. Everyone wishes that in debating the issue, you can issue a circular syllogism using the blank assertion of certain absolute rights and call it a day, but let us pretend that we are having a deeper and more probing discussion for a moment.
After all, we are not politicians here.
|
On August 28 2015 09:27 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:16 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2015 09:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:53 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.
Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking. The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once. In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb. Now that's obtuse.  Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live. I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force. You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved. The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed. You're assuming that an abortion has to be an active measure and that babies just passively happen if you don't change your prepregancy routine. Firstly, that's not how it works. Secondly, the counterexample of a woman who abuses her body routinely to the point of an induced miscarriage. No, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm using the correct terms. An abortion is an active measure by definition - it is a deliberate termination of pregnancy. A miscarriage is an entirely different thing - it is defined by being unplanned. Your post needs some clarification before I can actually respond. The abuse of body (i.e. heroin addict) is not a parallel to an abortion and thus does not hold any moral relevancy to the current discussion. If you point is that a women could purposefully starve herself to the point of miscarriage because she couldn't get an actual abortion that is equivalent to the anorexic who we currently happily force-feed if we must. I'm really not the ideal person to represent the pro-life side as I don't really agree with it (I have referred multiple women as well as actually carried out multiple abortions through my prior positions). But at least use the correct arguments to highlight the issues with the position. Most women would miscarry before dying of hunger. It is hard to construe not eating as an active measure. In such a situation, not carrying the baby to term would have absolutely no active component, yet still be a deliberate choice by the prospective mother. Making the distinction between active and passive not so easy. I will agree that going to a clinic to have your uterus vacuumed is an active measure, but the concept of abortion does not require such a measure. EDIT: sorry, forgot to address the point that force feeding her would be a solution to the practical problem, but not to the philosophical one you are attempting to address. I agree completely: most women would have a miscarriage before they would die by going on hungerstrike. However, before they would have their miscarriage they would be force-fed. We have as a society already decided that that is morally sound (we do it with anorectics). The women was before being pregnant not allowed to starve herself to the point necessary to induce miscarriage and her pregnancy didn't change that - it was thus more than merely a practical solution. Sure the fetus would suffer and the child would likely face many healthconcerns, but she would be force-fed before miscarriage, thus the parallel as proposed by KwarK does not stand. EDIT: This entire debate is stupid really. None of us are actually pro-life. EDIT2: Uhh I meant having the debate between me and the other pro-choice people was dumb. I know we have people in this thread who are pro-life.
You still missed the point. Your initial argument to show the false analogy between abortion and the fat man argument:
On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.
Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking. The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once. In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb. Now that's obtuse. Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live. I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force. You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved. The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed. EDIT: Of course I'm talking laymans terms, this is a video-game forum...
I generally agree with you that violinist issue is a better parallel, due to it being far closer to the problem at hand. However if, as seemed to be the case, you took issue with the fact that abortion is an active measure (pushing the fat man onto the tracks), then that is not necessarily the case at all, as our subsequent discussion showed: through inaction we can simply let the abortion happen.
If we keep on with the violinist issue: is it moral to unplug yourself? I would say it is, following Judith Jarvis Thomson's own reasoning. However, if you take issue with this "action", you can easily achieve a similar effect (the violinist dying) through inaction (starving yourself, or if that is considerd an "act" of starvation, how about dragging him along as you perform your normal daily routine including any number of activities where he might get killed in his vulnerable state). It might not be quite as surefire a way of killing him, but it is definitely more likely that he will die than if you do as the doctors say (in the violinist's case: stay in bed with him connected).
|
|
|
British Court's taking the hardest issues head on. Damn.
|
United States43480 Posts
Come for the world class medical treatment. Stay for the ethics.
|
The Brits don't like the judicial doctrine of avoidance like we do
|
On August 29 2015 01:59 farvacola wrote:The Brits don't like the judicial doctrine of avoidance like we do
They also don't have the idiotic "American Rule" where everyone pays for their own legal fees, regardless of the outcome. With the rise of pro-se filings and online "legal pleadings" the courts are dealing with now, that might change.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On August 28 2015 23:56 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 15:08 oneofthem wrote:
this is getitng silly. you realize using the language of rights by convenience or popularity etc does not mean the issue is exclusively analyzable in terms of sovereign rights. pure sophistry In the argument on abortion there is an implicit (and often an explicit) hierarchy of "rights" assigned which the respective sides use to justify their claims. Therefore in the context in which we are speaking, you do have to justify your attachment to certain needs of human nature, as well as justify their precedence over others. The thrills of participating in collective propaganda and opinion herding is not such a justification. That is why the analysis of "rights" (although very little analysis here, mind) is necessarily exclusive. Everyone wishes that in debating the issue, you can issue a circular syllogism using the blank assertion of certain absolute rights and call it a day, but let us pretend that we are having a deeper and more probing discussion for a moment. After all, we are not politicians here.
the basic point i made need not invoke rights at all, it is about information. to put simply, some anti-abortion advocates ignore the impact on the lives of women. this is not a rights argument, but was merely expressed in terms familiar to the audience.
now i dno't really have patience for whatever archaic bullshit you try to dress up with communitarian gloss so i'll just stop here.
|
Appeals court reverses ruling that found NSA program illegal. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/appeals-court-reverses-ruling-found-nsa-program-illegal/
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled in favor of the Obama administration in a dispute over the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone data on hundreds of millions of Americans.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed a lower court ruling that said the program likely violates the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches.
But the impact of the appeals court’s ruling is uncertain because Congress has passed legislation designed to replace the program over the next few months. The appeals court sent the case back for a judge to determine what further details about the program the government must provide.
The ruling is the latest in a succession of decisions in federal courts in Washington and New York that at various points threatened the constitutionality of the NSA’s surveillance program, but have so far upheld the amassing of records from U.S. domestic phone customers.
The appeals court ruled that challengers to the program have not shown “a substantial likelihood” that they will win their case on the merits.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown said it was possible the government would refuse to provide information that could help the challengers win their case. In a separate opinion, Judge Stephen Williams said the challengers would need to show they actually were targeted by the surveillance program.
Judge David Sentelle dissented in part, saying he would have thrown the case out entirely because the plaintiffs offered no proof they were ever harmed.
All three judges were appointees of Republican presidents.
apparenly if it you can't prove harm you you can's sue
|
On August 28 2015 15:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 11:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2015 11:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2015 10:07 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2015 09:36 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 09:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2015 09:14 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 09:03 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.
We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society. I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless. Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS. However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44912This is what started this run in the thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44920Then you made a direct comparison between ISIS and the republican party. But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more. It is about controlling a womans body. The only way you can make a woman who doesn't want to have a child have the child is by force. That is the very definition of controlling her body. She's being required by law to give up dominion of her body to meet the wishes of other people/the law. Most people aren't pro-life to keep uppity bitches in their place. They're not trying to control women in that regard. But forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is controlling her, end of story. Yes but the issue is that one side thinks that killing a potential life is worse then controlling women and the other side thinking that controlling women is worse then the killing of a potential life. But the point is being pro-life involves "Controlling womens bodies", so its not just spin. Now it might not fit both definitions of 'control' (a: forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to. b: subjugating her because you want to keep her down as the lesser of the sexes), but it certainly fits definition A. You can make the case that definition B is overblown by a lot of pro-choice people and I'd agree with that generally speaking, but not all the time. Personally I fall on the only defensible position IMO, especially as a man. If I were to knock a woman up I'd never ask her to get an abortion, I'd never beg her to keep it if she didn't want to. While I'd never have use for an abortion clinic personally I don't see why I need to force that on anyone else, I have people close to me that have aborted, and it was the right choice for them. So while personally I'd fall in the "pro-life" for me camp I'm militantly pro-choice. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. But full disclosure I never want any hell spawn anyway This attitude feels like the exact opposite extreme. There's a stark difference between "forcing" someone to do something and being heavily involved in a decision that effects your relationship. At the end of the day my desires don't really matter since I'm not the one carrying the kid. What she chooses is what she chooses. So whether you want to think of it as a 49/51% decision with her getting the deciding vote or 1/99% doesn't really matter. If its a split decision its in her favor, end of discussion. I can give her my feelings for what its worth, but she can completely ignore them, as is her right. But if I do have a kid its going to be a total fucking accident anyway. I can give my input if she wants it, she can take it or leave it. Its a matter of freedom. Just because I'd never opt to have an abortion doesn't mean the freedom to make the choice shouldn't exist. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. Don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. Don't want to smoke pot, don't smoke it. A lot of people think that just because they don't want something that means no one else should be able to. I don't like sticking my nose in other people's business when it doesn't concern me. By the same token I don't want other people sticking their nose in my shit when its none of their business. Seems reasonable to me, but what do I know. ...other people's business...? I mean, if you're in a committed relationship with a woman and she gets pregnant, then it is your business. At the end of the day the decision is going to be hers, but the whole point of being in a relationship is the mutual understanding that things such as this are going to be shared in one form or another. There are couples that will break up because one doesn't want a child and one does. There are also women that would probably consider you callous if your response to "I'm pregnant" is "that's nice dear, do what you want with it". Can't imagine many relationships where a man could come home and say "I had a vasectomy" out of the blue either.
If I'm in a committed relationship then my stance is already known. People talk about their stances and ideas on things. She'll know where I stand on religion, politics, marriage, potential pregnancy, sea food, etc long before the fact. I'm not going to sit there and hound her and try to change her mind, thats super gross trying to pressure someone into keeping or aborting.
If it breaks up the relationship then too bad. Legally the choice is entirely hers to make. My wishes don't matter at all and they never ever ever should. There is no argument to be made otherwise. She carries the child, not me. I can't force her to keep or abort, it's her body. That's the price of doing business at the end of the day, if you can't handle it than you shouldn't be sexually active. Where the rubber meets the road there's only 1 voting member on this issue and its the person who is pregnant.
|
That is some amazing logic right there. The Plaintiff can't prove harm was done because the program is secret. And violation of the constitution itself is normally considered harmful, as it violates basic rights. Its like saying the NSA could open my mail without consent, but I would need to prove that harmed me in some way before I could bring a claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
