|
On August 15 2017 05:05 IgnE wrote:
no i was quite serious when i said that warlords don't have constitutions but then i don't think a constitution is merely a piece of paper like you
you are exactly the person wittgenstein was thinking about, who, when asked to enumerate the series of even numbers goes 2, 4, 6 . . . and then, 1000, 1004, 1008. when everyone else stops and says no, no, we meant add two, you say "but thats precisely what im doing. add 2 up to 1000, then add 4 up to 2000, then add 6 . . ."
I never said the constitution was just a piece of paper. I said that I thought you'd require proof that they had a constitution; which you apparently don't. What would that conversation look like even?
Igne: You're obviously a warlord, you do ____ and you don't have a constitution.
Warlord: But I do have a constitution.
Igne: You obviously don't, warlords don't have it.
Warlord: But I do....
As opposed to
Warlord: But I do have a constitution.
Igne: Show me.
------
How does my asking you for details account for that? My asking you to extrapolate what you meant and why you meant what you have stated in order to learn more about the topic is the opposite of that.
|
On August 15 2017 03:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Simply put, I don't care that people dislike me for discussing ideas.
oh man you actually think thats why people dislike you?
I think it has more to do with your need to respond to absolutely everything as the devils advocate, but instead of the devil its more like an insecure child who ate a thesaurus and shit it onto his keyboard and tries to rub everyones face in it.
|
On August 15 2017 05:14 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 03:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Simply put, I don't care that people dislike me for discussing ideas. oh man you actually think thats why people dislike you? I think it has more to do with your need to respond to absolutely everything as the devils advocate, but instead of the devil its more like an insecure child who ate a thesaurus and shit it onto his keyboard and tries to rub everyones face in it.
I literally said I don't care. People getting upset is fairly meaningless in an online forum.
|
On August 15 2017 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:14 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 03:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Simply put, I don't care that people dislike me for discussing ideas. oh man you actually think thats why people dislike you? I think it has more to do with your need to respond to absolutely everything as the devils advocate, but instead of the devil its more like an insecure child who ate a thesaurus and shit it onto his keyboard and tries to rub everyones face in it. I literally said I don't care. People getting upset is fairly meaningless in an online forum.
Unlike the noble pursuit of... wait what are you trying to accomplish with the hours and paragraphs you spend arguing on a video game forum?
|
On August 15 2017 05:20 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:14 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 03:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Simply put, I don't care that people dislike me for discussing ideas. oh man you actually think thats why people dislike you? I think it has more to do with your need to respond to absolutely everything as the devils advocate, but instead of the devil its more like an insecure child who ate a thesaurus and shit it onto his keyboard and tries to rub everyones face in it. I literally said I don't care. People getting upset is fairly meaningless in an online forum. Unlike the noble pursuit of... wait what are you trying to accomplish with the hours and paragraphs you spend arguing on a video game forum?
Discussion of course. New ways to see things, old ways to see things, different ways to see things. Have perspectives from belligerent, xenophobic, academic, simplistic, American, non-American, everyone. To discuss is it's own catharsis, and to find new ways to think of the same subjects is its own pleasure.
Why do you guys post here?
|
On August 15 2017 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:05 IgnE wrote:
no i was quite serious when i said that warlords don't have constitutions but then i don't think a constitution is merely a piece of paper like you
you are exactly the person wittgenstein was thinking about, who, when asked to enumerate the series of even numbers goes 2, 4, 6 . . . and then, 1000, 1004, 1008. when everyone else stops and says no, no, we meant add two, you say "but thats precisely what im doing. add 2 up to 1000, then add 4 up to 2000, then add 6 . . ." I never said the constitution was just a piece of paper. I said that I thought you'd require proof that they had a constitution; which you apparently don't. What would that conversation look like even? Igne: You're obviously a warlord, you do ____ and you don't have a constitution. Warlord: But I do have a constitution.
Igne: You obviously don't, warlords don't have it.Warlord: But I do.... As opposed to Warlord: But I do have a constitution. Igne: Show me. ------ How does my asking you for details account for that? My asking you to extrapolate what you meant and why you meant what you have stated in order to learn more about the topic is the opposite of that.
i don't remember begging the question. in fact i am quite sure i did no such thing.
i didn't even talk about "proof" of a constitution, which, as an inherently public object, i wouldn't have to ask a warlord for anyway
i said this would require effort on your part. you need to think seriously about what a constitution is
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:05 IgnE wrote:
no i was quite serious when i said that warlords don't have constitutions but then i don't think a constitution is merely a piece of paper like you
you are exactly the person wittgenstein was thinking about, who, when asked to enumerate the series of even numbers goes 2, 4, 6 . . . and then, 1000, 1004, 1008. when everyone else stops and says no, no, we meant add two, you say "but thats precisely what im doing. add 2 up to 1000, then add 4 up to 2000, then add 6 . . ." I never said the constitution was just a piece of paper. I said that I thought you'd require proof that they had a constitution; which you apparently don't. What would that conversation look like even? Igne: You're obviously a warlord, you do ____ and you don't have a constitution. Warlord: But I do have a constitution.
Igne: You obviously don't, warlords don't have it.Warlord: But I do.... As opposed to Warlord: But I do have a constitution. Igne: Show me. ------ How does my asking you for details account for that? My asking you to extrapolate what you meant and why you meant what you have stated in order to learn more about the topic is the opposite of that. i don't remember begging the question. in fact i am quite sure i did no such thing. i didn't even talk about "proof" of a constitution, which, as an inherently public object, i wouldn't have to ask a warlord for anyway i said this would require effort on your part. you need to think seriously about what a constitution is
Your literal opening argument is "they don't have a constitution for one" as if that is a meaningful metric for discussing the actions of a person, or the side effects of his actions. I am not a good person because I am an American citizen and the US has a constitution. What defines me as a person is irrelevant to what those documents do or state. Someone becoming a warlord is as much disassociated from what boundaries or limitations their loyalty to such a thing would be.
And if you are willing to define people based on that, it's a fairly meaningless stance. How public or private their constitution is does not get dictated by you. How authentic it is does not get dictated by you.
|
On August 15 2017 05:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:20 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:14 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 03:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Simply put, I don't care that people dislike me for discussing ideas. oh man you actually think thats why people dislike you? I think it has more to do with your need to respond to absolutely everything as the devils advocate, but instead of the devil its more like an insecure child who ate a thesaurus and shit it onto his keyboard and tries to rub everyones face in it. I literally said I don't care. People getting upset is fairly meaningless in an online forum. Unlike the noble pursuit of... wait what are you trying to accomplish with the hours and paragraphs you spend arguing on a video game forum? Discussion of course. New ways to see things, old ways to see things, different ways to see things. Have perspectives from belligerent, xenophobic, academic, simplistic, American, non-American, everyone. To discuss is it's own catharsis, and to find new ways to think of the same subjects is its own pleasure. Why do you guys post here? If you are looking at new ways to see things why do you always think you are right no matter how ridiculous whatever you have written is? As for getting upset being meaningless, then why are always so angry at me. Trolling magpie is like a onion so many layers, all make you wanna cry xD
There isn't anger JimmiC. Don't take commentary on your posting style as anger. It's just observation. If you feel it sounds angry, just get your friends to come over and laugh at it; I'm sure that will make you feel better.
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 05:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:20 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:14 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 03:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Simply put, I don't care that people dislike me for discussing ideas. oh man you actually think thats why people dislike you? I think it has more to do with your need to respond to absolutely everything as the devils advocate, but instead of the devil its more like an insecure child who ate a thesaurus and shit it onto his keyboard and tries to rub everyones face in it. I literally said I don't care. People getting upset is fairly meaningless in an online forum. Unlike the noble pursuit of... wait what are you trying to accomplish with the hours and paragraphs you spend arguing on a video game forum? Discussion of course. New ways to see things, old ways to see things, different ways to see things. Have perspectives from belligerent, xenophobic, academic, simplistic, American, non-American, everyone. To discuss is it's own catharsis, and to find new ways to think of the same subjects is its own pleasure. Why do you guys post here? If you are looking at new ways to see things why do you always think you are right no matter how ridiculous whatever you have written is? As for getting upset being meaningless, then why are always so angry at me. Trolling magpie is like a onion so many layers, all make you wanna cry xD There isn't anger JimmiC. Don't take commentary on your posting style as anger. It's just observation. If you feel it sounds angry, just get your friends to come over and laugh at it; I'm sure that will make you feel better. Rolf, I'm pretty sure when end your posts calling me names you are angry. I know you have trouble relating to others, but think of it like this. How you feel when you read my posts is how everyone else feels reading yours! Also, I'm not sure that all these people commenting back to you are my friends, but we are all laughing at you and I feel great. Thanks for asking!
I'm not making fun of you. You've been saying you do this since you disagreed with my statement that lack of consent is rape. If you feel that this stance is disparaging to you, why did you state it so often in the past?
|
On August 15 2017 05:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2017 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:05 IgnE wrote:
no i was quite serious when i said that warlords don't have constitutions but then i don't think a constitution is merely a piece of paper like you
you are exactly the person wittgenstein was thinking about, who, when asked to enumerate the series of even numbers goes 2, 4, 6 . . . and then, 1000, 1004, 1008. when everyone else stops and says no, no, we meant add two, you say "but thats precisely what im doing. add 2 up to 1000, then add 4 up to 2000, then add 6 . . ." I never said the constitution was just a piece of paper. I said that I thought you'd require proof that they had a constitution; which you apparently don't. What would that conversation look like even? Igne: You're obviously a warlord, you do ____ and you don't have a constitution. Warlord: But I do have a constitution.
Igne: You obviously don't, warlords don't have it.Warlord: But I do.... As opposed to Warlord: But I do have a constitution. Igne: Show me. ------ How does my asking you for details account for that? My asking you to extrapolate what you meant and why you meant what you have stated in order to learn more about the topic is the opposite of that. i don't remember begging the question. in fact i am quite sure i did no such thing. i didn't even talk about "proof" of a constitution, which, as an inherently public object, i wouldn't have to ask a warlord for anyway i said this would require effort on your part. you need to think seriously about what a constitution is Your literal opening argument is "they don't have a constitution for one" as if that is a meaningful metric for discussing the actions of a person, or the side effects of his actions. I am not a good person because I am an American citizen and the US has a constitution. What defines me as a person is irrelevant to what those documents do or state. Someone becoming a warlord is as much disassociated from what boundaries or limitations their loyalty to such a thing would be. And if you are willing to define people based on that, it's a fairly meaningless stance. How public or private their constitution is does not get dictated by you. How authentic it is does not get dictated by you.
whoa whoa whoa who said anything about a warlord being "good" or "bad?" we are talking about classification here
im pretty much done with this because you clearly dont care about thinking about constitutions, legitimation, sovereignty, territories, or peoples
On August 15 2017 05:05 IgnE wrote:
you are exactly the person wittgenstein was thinking about, who, when asked to enumerate the series of even numbers goes 2, 4, 6 . . . and then, 1000, 1004, 1008. when everyone else stops and says no, no, we meant add two, you say "but thats precisely what im doing. add 2 up to 1000, then add 4 up to 2000, then add 6 . . ."
next i expect you to ask what something like legitimacy or sovereignty has to do with a "piece of paper"
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 05:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2017 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:05 IgnE wrote:
no i was quite serious when i said that warlords don't have constitutions but then i don't think a constitution is merely a piece of paper like you
you are exactly the person wittgenstein was thinking about, who, when asked to enumerate the series of even numbers goes 2, 4, 6 . . . and then, 1000, 1004, 1008. when everyone else stops and says no, no, we meant add two, you say "but thats precisely what im doing. add 2 up to 1000, then add 4 up to 2000, then add 6 . . ." I never said the constitution was just a piece of paper. I said that I thought you'd require proof that they had a constitution; which you apparently don't. What would that conversation look like even? Igne: You're obviously a warlord, you do ____ and you don't have a constitution. Warlord: But I do have a constitution.
Igne: You obviously don't, warlords don't have it.Warlord: But I do.... As opposed to Warlord: But I do have a constitution. Igne: Show me. ------ How does my asking you for details account for that? My asking you to extrapolate what you meant and why you meant what you have stated in order to learn more about the topic is the opposite of that. i don't remember begging the question. in fact i am quite sure i did no such thing. i didn't even talk about "proof" of a constitution, which, as an inherently public object, i wouldn't have to ask a warlord for anyway i said this would require effort on your part. you need to think seriously about what a constitution is Your literal opening argument is "they don't have a constitution for one" as if that is a meaningful metric for discussing the actions of a person, or the side effects of his actions. I am not a good person because I am an American citizen and the US has a constitution. What defines me as a person is irrelevant to what those documents do or state. Someone becoming a warlord is as much disassociated from what boundaries or limitations their loyalty to such a thing would be. And if you are willing to define people based on that, it's a fairly meaningless stance. How public or private their constitution is does not get dictated by you. How authentic it is does not get dictated by you. whoa whoa whoa who said anything about a warlord being "good" or "bad?" we are talking about classification here im pretty much done with this because you clearly dont care about thinking about constitutions, legitimation, sovereingty, territories, or peoples
No one is saying warlords are good or bad. I am simply showing that characteristics of personhood "am I or ami not a warlord" are not defined by constitutions, sovereignty, territories, or peoples. The concept of a warlord changes with the times. Just even look at the Wikipedia article on it, it goes to great lengths differentiating "modern" versus "feudal" vs "state." It starts by beginning the definition of warlord as being intrinsically subnation in scale, but also states that feudal lords in the EU were also warlords; despite them being people who are both strongly defined in their roles both as state sovereigns and in their roles in on the national stage. It goes in depth about states run by warlords (such as rent based economies), as well as thriving warlords within states that have no goal to gain statewide control such large scale gang warfare.
The reasons the wiki stretches widely in its definitions is that different ideas, concepts, and specificities of what a warlord is changes as the viewer's own perspective of them changes.
Would the militarized drug cartels in Mexico with their mass killings count as warlordid? Depends on who you ask. Do they stop being warlords if it's understood that they have strong ties to the State and that there is a political balancing act between the state and them? Depends on who you ask.
Getting caught in the details--such as requiring a constitution, or level of sovereignty, or even level of geographic scale quickly muddles things because, unlike numbers which are axioms, warlords are observations of the real world with complexities that change depending on the context of not the viewer and observed person being defined as a warlord.
As I said before, it's much more like pornography. Lots of different leaders uses violent war-machines to get what they want done; be it economic pricing, control of territories, or forcing countries to sweat fealty to you or risk nuclear annhilation. Some of those people we feel comfortable defining as warlords, others we only feel comfortable defining as the status quo. The moment specifics gets involved the seemingly obvious observations devolve into arguing over the definition of what a constitution is. In the end, it is meaningless.
|
On August 15 2017 06:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 05:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:52 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:20 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:14 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 03:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Simply put, I don't care that people dislike me for discussing ideas. oh man you actually think thats why people dislike you? I think it has more to do with your need to respond to absolutely everything as the devils advocate, but instead of the devil its more like an insecure child who ate a thesaurus and shit it onto his keyboard and tries to rub everyones face in it. I literally said I don't care. People getting upset is fairly meaningless in an online forum. Unlike the noble pursuit of... wait what are you trying to accomplish with the hours and paragraphs you spend arguing on a video game forum? Discussion of course. New ways to see things, old ways to see things, different ways to see things. Have perspectives from belligerent, xenophobic, academic, simplistic, American, non-American, everyone. To discuss is it's own catharsis, and to find new ways to think of the same subjects is its own pleasure. Why do you guys post here? If you are looking at new ways to see things why do you always think you are right no matter how ridiculous whatever you have written is? As for getting upset being meaningless, then why are always so angry at me. Trolling magpie is like a onion so many layers, all make you wanna cry xD There isn't anger JimmiC. Don't take commentary on your posting style as anger. It's just observation. If you feel it sounds angry, just get your friends to come over and laugh at it; I'm sure that will make you feel better. Rolf, I'm pretty sure when end your posts calling me names you are angry. I know you have trouble relating to others, but think of it like this. How you feel when you read my posts is how everyone else feels reading yours! Also, I'm not sure that all these people commenting back to you are my friends, but we are all laughing at you and I feel great. Thanks for asking! I'm not making fun of you. You've been saying you do this since you disagreed with my statement that lack of consent is rape. If you feel that this stance is disparaging to you, why did you state it so often in the past? No, you said that once someone had a drink they could no longer give consent, I said what if both drank was it a double rape and so on and so forth. You have since called me a sexist, rapist, xenophobe, moron, racist and so on. Because poisoning a well is your go too. It is super funny how as many have pointed out, u back yourself into a corner with a stupid statement, follow it up with strawman, move the goal posts then when this is exhausted you head straight to poisoning the well. You spatter in some other fallacies from time to time, but these are your goto's. I'm just surprised you feel so high in mighty with the morale high ground when the only reason your not in jail on child porn charges was a technicality.
Why are you changing the subject? Let's finish the discussion of your past comments towards me and then we can move forward. You started by saying the only reason men would argue that consent is needed is because those men only want to have sex. You then argued that your wife laughs at my posts and that was why you believed drunk girls could give consent. You then argued that your wife and friends read your posts, and that was why you were certain drunk girls could give consent. You then continued that argument against me over multiple topics and never once going back to making a claim of your own within those topics. So yes, I often would rather you go to your conclusions than pretend that you are making any claims about anything. It just speeds up the process.
Now, for your other topics that you brought up with your post.
Not that it's important to the discussion--but neither side can provide consent if both are drunk. The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. You seem to believe that just because a practice is done, that practice is automatically correct. I happen to believe that just because things are done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is automatically the correct way.
I don't recall the child porn accusation--can you be more specific? A quote maybe? I'm assuming you aren't just making up the accusation but I will need help with specifics.
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent.
what?
the west dislikes consent? yeah rape culture is still a thing but damn I dunno if you can characterize half the planet like that.
You think all people drink to try and rape people?
|
On August 15 2017 06:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:02 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:52 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:20 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I literally said I don't care. People getting upset is fairly meaningless in an online forum. Unlike the noble pursuit of... wait what are you trying to accomplish with the hours and paragraphs you spend arguing on a video game forum? Discussion of course. New ways to see things, old ways to see things, different ways to see things. Have perspectives from belligerent, xenophobic, academic, simplistic, American, non-American, everyone. To discuss is it's own catharsis, and to find new ways to think of the same subjects is its own pleasure. Why do you guys post here? If you are looking at new ways to see things why do you always think you are right no matter how ridiculous whatever you have written is? As for getting upset being meaningless, then why are always so angry at me. Trolling magpie is like a onion so many layers, all make you wanna cry xD There isn't anger JimmiC. Don't take commentary on your posting style as anger. It's just observation. If you feel it sounds angry, just get your friends to come over and laugh at it; I'm sure that will make you feel better. Rolf, I'm pretty sure when end your posts calling me names you are angry. I know you have trouble relating to others, but think of it like this. How you feel when you read my posts is how everyone else feels reading yours! Also, I'm not sure that all these people commenting back to you are my friends, but we are all laughing at you and I feel great. Thanks for asking! I'm not making fun of you. You've been saying you do this since you disagreed with my statement that lack of consent is rape. If you feel that this stance is disparaging to you, why did you state it so often in the past? No, you said that once someone had a drink they could no longer give consent, I said what if both drank was it a double rape and so on and so forth. You have since called me a sexist, rapist, xenophobe, moron, racist and so on. Because poisoning a well is your go too. It is super funny how as many have pointed out, u back yourself into a corner with a stupid statement, follow it up with strawman, move the goal posts then when this is exhausted you head straight to poisoning the well. You spatter in some other fallacies from time to time, but these are your goto's. I'm just surprised you feel so high in mighty with the morale high ground when the only reason your not in jail on child porn charges was a technicality. Why are you changing the subject? Let's finish the discussion of your past comments towards me and then we can move forward. You started by saying the only reason men would argue that consent is needed is because those men only want to have sex. You then argued that your wife laughs at my posts and that was why you believed drunk girls could give consent. You then argued that your wife and friends read your posts, and that was why you were certain drunk girls could give consent. You then continued that argument against me over multiple topics and never once going back to making a claim of your own within those topics. So yes, I often would rather you go to your conclusions than pretend that you are making any claims about anything. It just speeds up the process. Now, for your other topics that you brought up with your post. Not that it's important to the discussion--but neither side can provide consent if both are drunk. The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. You seem to believe that just because a practice is done, that practice is automatically correct. I happen to believe that just because things are done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is automatically the correct way. I don't recall the child porn accusation--can you be more specific? A quote maybe? I'm assuming you aren't just making up the accusation but I will need help with specifics. I believe it was the police that brought up the child porn accusation on you. The whole rest of your post is nonsense, but I'll be happy to discuss it (AGAIN) if you PM. I mean come on Trolling Magpie it was a day ago you gave me this advice and yet you can't take it. Tsk Tsk.
Apologies, I thought you had brought up the topic to discuss it. I didn't realize you were just saying it to be disparaging; it's often hard to differentiate which one you're trying to do.
|
On August 15 2017 06:29 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. what? the west dislikes consent? yeah rape culture is still a thing but damn I dunno if you can characterize half the planet like that. You think all people drink to try and rape people?
The west includes women (FYI)
The west fetishizes many things--consent and lack thereof among them. As such, people often act or play with the idea of not giving consent before sex (such as getting drunk and then having sex) because of how much it is fetishized by the west as titilating. Hence also why confusion occurs where people fuck others and assume the lack of consent was implied consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
