Keepitsimple Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 If Muslims want acceptance in the Western countries that they have chosen to live in - and have graciously accepted them......then every Mosque and every Imam and Cleric should be shouting the following from every lectern - and Western governments should include these as "personal assurances" before admitting immigrants. 1) Modern Islam does not condone killing those who want to leave the religion 2) Modern Islam does not condone killing those who commit blasphemy 3) Modern Islam rejects the idea that non-Muslims are infidels. Islam accepts the concept of Freedom of Religion - that people are free to choose their own path to God. Until this happens - publicly and continually, a good portion of the population will rightly be suspect of Islam - and by extension, have an element of suspicion towards Muslims in general. While it's a suspicion that has tarred millions of peace-loving Muslims, it's a suspicion that has been well-earned by the archaic actions of more than a few. Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 If Muslims want acceptance in the Western countries that they have chosen to live in - and have graciously accepted them......then every Mosque and every Imam and Cleric should be shouting the following from every lectern - and Western governments should include these as "personal assurances" before admitting immigrants. There have been denouncements and so on but the popular impression is different anyway. We have some kind of oath to Canadian values too... Until this happens - publicly and continually, a good portion of the population will rightly be suspect of Islam Not "rightly". They don't have good information anyway so how is it "rightly" ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 If Muslims want acceptance in the Western countries that they have chosen to live in - and have graciously accepted them...... How condescendingly arrogant and disgusting. You don't speak for me. . Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 How condescendingly arrogant and disgusting. You don't speak for me. . That's obvious, my emotional friend! Quote Back to Basics
Keepitsimple Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) There have been denouncements and so on but the popular impression is different anyway. We have some kind of oath to Canadian values too... Not "rightly". They don't have good information anyway so how is it "rightly" ? Well - if they don't have good information, then it's "right" that they would be suspicious. I see no evidence that the Muslim communities at large are treating this issue as the most important one that their faith is faced with. Indeed there have been isolated announcements that denounce killings but I have to ask why there have not been any reports on the fact that the vast majority of Mosques go out of their way to preach these things? Muslims know the reality - or should know - the microscope that their faith is under in the Western world because all the murderous rampages around the world in the name of Islam. Why has the Muslim community at large not kept their disgust - and total rejection with these occurrences at the forefront of their teachings? One explanation is fear of reprisal. But I stand by my comments. Muslims have to boldly come out and embrace similar tenets to the ones that I put forward - and we have to stand with them - side by side. Edited January 18, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Well - if they don't have good information, then it's "right" that they would be suspicious. I see no evidence that the Muslim communities at large are treating this issue as the most important one that their faith is faced with. As I said, it doesn't matter because people will never be satisfied. I had a thread on this very issue over a decade ago, when I asked "what would it take for you to be satisfied with the Muslim reponse ?". I then took his response, and showed how his criteria had already been demanded. But it's never enough. Indeed there have been isolated announcements that denounce killings but I have to ask why there have not been any reports on the fact that the vast majority of Mosques go out of their way to preach these things? You're now blaming Muslims for North American reporting. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Big Guy Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 There are obviously many on this board who have a low opinion of those of the Islamic faith. Their excuses seem to be that either there is something genetically or inherently wrong with them or that Islam is a religion of violence that encourages Muslims to react violently in defence of their religion. Both those conditions have been proven wrong but posters still continue to blame the unrest around the world to them. Most of those "terrorists" who have been allowed to speak before dying have declared that their actions are based on Western incursions into the Middle East and the treatment of other Muslims in the same areas. The two killers in Ottawa would now both be in the Middle East somewhere if we would not refused to let them leave Canada. Many other terrorists blame their actions on revenging the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians by Western forces who write of these casualties as "collateral damage". One of the other arguments that I hear from the anti-Islamics is that these terrorists are jealous of our freedoms yet thousands of recruits stream into ISIS from countries that have freedom. Well, everyone is entitled to their views. I was watching the Sunday news and that expert on American foreign policy and unsuccessful presidential candidate John McCain has recommended a very large increase in troops into the Middle East to "solve" the problem. I guess he figures that to kill "them" all is the solution. So for those who believe that Islam, the religion of about 1.5 billion people is the cause of this violence then what are their solutions? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 The two killers in Ottawa would now both be in the Middle East somewhere if we would not refused to let them leave Canada. This is weird to me. You seem to have said that we should let these people leave rather than arresting them, the implication being that Canadians going abroad to commit terrorism is not our concern. Many other terrorists blame their actions on revenging the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians by Western forces who write of these casualties as "collateral damage". If we're not going to listen to terrorists when they say that they represent Islam, why are we going to listen to something they say when we agree with the point ? One of the other arguments that I hear from the anti-Islamics is that these terrorists are jealous of our freedoms yet thousands of recruits stream into ISIS from countries that have freedom. The ones from Canada likely hate our sanity. I guess he figures that to kill "them" all is the solution. The political support for these wars is dying, 15 years or so on. That's not surprising but what would happen if another big attack happened on these shores ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 There are obviously many on this board who have a low opinion of those of the Islamic faith. Their excuses seem to be that either there is something genetically or inherently wrong with them or that Islam is a religion of violence that encourages Muslims to react violently in defence of their religion. That and the viciously mysogenistic aspects of Islam which consider women to be worth 1/4 as much as a man, and free to be beaten any time the husband wants. Not to mention prohibitions on music, dancing, and showing anyone's face in pictures. You can throw in execution for gays and a desire among so many Muslims for Sharia law too. In other words, I see them, I judge them. Most of us don't consider the complete inability to render any kind of judgement to be a good character trait, btw. Both those conditions have been proven wrong Nonsense stated as fact seems to be your forte. Most of those "terrorists" who have been allowed to speak before dying have declared that their actions are based on Western incursions into the Middle East and the treatment of other Muslims in the same areas. And yet, they treat other Muslims, and Christians and Jews and other minorities far, far worse. And our "incursions" are mainly designed to counter their brutality and violence. The two killers in Ottawa would now both be in the Middle East somewhere if we would not refused to let them leave Canada. And there trained in the use of firearms and explosives, and sent back here to kill Canadians. You must be a wonder at chess. Even seeing one move ahead seems to be too difficult for you. Many other terrorists blame their actions on revenging the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians by Western forces Western forces don't engage in indiscriminate killing. ISIS does. Boko Harem does. You were whining about them just the other day. Muslim terrorists slaughter an awful lot of completely innocent Muslims. One of the other arguments that I hear from the anti-Islamics is that these terrorists are jealous of our freedoms No, you don't hear that. You invent that. The phrase is "hate our freedoms" which they do, indisputably. They hate that homos can walk around on the streets without being shot. They hate that girls can walk around and show their faces without being beaten. They hate that we can sing and dance and draw silly pictures of their alleged prophet. They hate lots of the stuff we do. So for those who believe that Islam, the religion of about 1.5 billion people is the cause of this violence then what are their solutions? Put pressure on them to change their barbaric practices and beliefs. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 You continue to reply in a rude and adolescent manner and you wonder why I cannot take anything you post seriously. I await intelligent, mature and thoughtful answers to my questions about attitudes towards Islam. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 You continue to reply in a rude and adolescent manner and you wonder why I cannot take anything you post seriously. I await intelligent, mature and thoughtful answers to my questions about attitudes towards Islam. You continue to read my posts and make simpering 'anonymous' accusations despite having proclaimed that you are putting me on your ignore list. Why is that, exactly? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Rue Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Argus was you are quite aware, Bug Guy uses that tactic of response is a defensive posture when he disagrees with you or I or anyone else but does not know how to respond further. I commend the briefness in your responses. Right to the point ..and as you can see whether the responses are long (moi) or brief (thou) he has no idea how to respond further. The opinions he "heard", that is another interesting tactic you can see being used on the Zionism is anti Semitism thread. Allegations are presented with no specifics. Yep we are at the point now where certain posters now suppose things with zero references to those suppositions. Yes sir, we just suppose then assume the suppose must be. You clearly are a heretic for questioning the essence of divinity. Either that or you engage in Zionist acrobatics. I mean take your pick either way you are a non believer. Edited January 19, 2015 by Rue Quote
GostHacked Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 You continue to reply in a rude and adolescent manner and you wonder why I cannot take anything you post seriously. I await intelligent, mature and thoughtful answers to my questions about attitudes towards Islam. By the last couple responses, I think you are going to be waiting a while longer. Imagine that, a civil question met by uncivil responses and yet the blame is on you, claiming it is a tactic to shut people up. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 Either that or you engage in Zionist acrobatics. I mean take your pick either way you are a non believer. Anything wrong with being an unbeliever? Quote
raqqoon Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Yes TERRORISTS!!!!! Not Criminals, Not mentally ill people that have been excluded from society. This was an act of Islamic Terrorism. And against journalists to boot. I've heard reports that the men asked for the people they wanted to kill by name. This was a cold calculated act of horrific violence in the name of Fundamentalist Islam. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/deadly-shooting-at-french-satirical-newspaper-report/article22329480/ How will the media respond? will they publish the cartoons that caused this or will they shrink away like with the Danish cartoon that got Ezra Levant sent to a Human Right Tribunal. Okay back to the topic... Well I will go counter-current a bit on that one, that WITHOUT SUPPORTING the terrorist action commited on that day and say: they asked for it. Do you people know what is Charlie Hebdo? Or you like the thousands of those ignorant 'We are Charlies' type who doesn't even know what they actually are supporting? Lets face it, Charlie is a satirical paper but of the very defamatory kind. If you are a Muslim even of the little to moderate kind, you can't go on and not feel a little insulted. So imagine what its like to an Islamic zealot. In all I'm for free-speech and protecting it but not for free-defamatory and insults. So I guess Charlie reaped what they sowed, its just sad that people are losing lives over this mess. Edited January 19, 2015 by raqqoon Quote
Big Guy Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) To GostHacked - Some people reply to rudeness and insults with rudeness and insult. I believe that a reply to another poster is not mandatory but a courtesy. Courtesies are extended to those who are courteous themselves. I do not understand why some posters think rudeness, insults and name calling somehow strengthen a position. Any experience poster understands that the credibility of any opinion is influenced by the method of presentation. Adolescent language and attitude frames an opinion in an immature and shallow light. I assume that the only posters who are "shut up" by my approach are those who are unable to converse civilly. I do not find that to be a loss. Edited January 19, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
-1=e^ipi Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 In all I'm for free-speech and protecting it but not for free-defamatory and insults. So I guess Charlie reaped what they sowed, its just sad that people are losing lives over this mess. Cognitive dissonance? So you aren't actually for free-speech... much like numerous westerners who take it for granted or the pope, who thinks that religion should be above criticism if people's feelings are hurt (not to mention claimed that violence and assault should be the expected response if someone's religion gets insulted). Quote
Argus Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 By the last couple responses, I think you are going to be waiting a while longer. Imagine that, a civil question met by uncivil responses and yet the blame is on you, I've found you get what you give around here. If your statement is civil and uninsulting you tend to not be insulted in return. Some people have never learned that, and get outraged when their insults draw the same in response. Tough. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Well I will go counter-current a bit on that one, that WITHOUT SUPPORTING the terrorist action commited on that day and say: they asked for it. That IS supporting it. Charlie is a satirical paper but of the very defamatory kind. Then sue them. There are defamation laws in France. If you are a Muslim even of the little to moderate kind, you can't go on and not feel a little insulted. So imagine what its like to an Islamic zealot. I don't want to imagine being a heathen from the sixth century. Nor do I want to imagine a society in which we all tiptoe around certain subjects because the sixth century heathens might take out their spears and go berserk. In all I'm for free-speech and protecting it but not for free-defamatory and insults. So you're all for free speech except when someone else doesn't like what's being said. Guess what, if the only free speech you get is what doesn't offend others, then you got no free speech. So you actually DON'T support free speech. Edited January 19, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WIP Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Interesting how you label criticism as 'hostility'. Interesting that you think you can convert or deconvert by disrespecting people for their beliefs, and acting superior to them. The reason religion is on the decline in the West is because of freedom of speech and the right to criticize ridiculous belief systems. Many religious apologists want to create 'restrictions' on free speech when it comes to religion because these criticisms 'hurt their feelings' due to their entire belief system being based on emotion and not reason or evidence. Is this what they're teaching now in new atheist fantasyland? Think for a second, how many people change their opinions about anything because some know-it-all tells them they're wrong? And there is a big problem for anyone claiming that their ideas are based on reason and evidence: everyone....no exceptions does most of their decision-making at an unconscious level. And a feeling of certainty about correctness is a secondary emotion, not a result of pure, conscious reasoning! What separates those who are truly more open to new evidence from those who will continue to reject change, is how much emotional attachment they feel with core beliefs. And this is a very fundamental aspect of personality that does not change during adulthood. It is a product of genetics and the epigenetic effects of brain development during early childhood. If you truly are basing even your core beliefs...like what sort of universe we live in, on reason and evidence, you will be likely to change and alter your beliefs throughout your life....and that pisses a lot of people off, not just religious fundamentalists, but atheist fundamentalists also, who create their own pejoratives for those who have fallen away from true non-faith, like "faitheist" or "accommodationalist," when they can't win the debate with reason and evidence. The main reason why organized religion is on the decline in some (not all) western nations, is because the state has filled an increasing number of social roles that previously had only been provided by churches. At one time, if you didn't belong to the church, you had nowhere to turn in times of need. And that is still the case in many nations.....like the United States! Since when has this been a 'core tenant' of 'atheist-humanism'? Find me any prominent atheist advocate writer, blogger, podcaster etc. who strays outside of standard modern humanist teaching that is not only pro-science, but also unquestioningly pro-technology, and in fact has faith that future tech will fix all of our present messes, even those largely caused by the technologies developed so far, and will save us from self-destruction no matter how bad the situation looks...if we're using latest evidence on the environment as a yardstick? I haven't come across any high profile atheists of late who haven't adopted a humanist version of redemption. Except that instead of relying on a supernatural intercessor, the humanist faith is that human invention will save our world from extinction and set us on course for an increasingly brighter 'heaven-like' future, that will include the standard tropes of leaving Earth and conquering the solar system...then the galaxy etc., and virtual immortality through conquering death by new technological innovations. Looks much like religion to me, whatever you want to call it! And some of the strongest advocates qualify as much as fundamentalists as the fanatics of any religion based on supernatural forces. International law is not absolute and Law != Freedom. Violations of international law are only prosecuted when they are committed by states that have become the focus of regime change by the U.S. Otherwise, it's meaningless....which was my point. The only law that is truly international, is corporate governance through trade and banking regulating bodies like the WTO. There is no international law with teeth that will ever be able to enforce environmental standards, but when it comes to important things like controlling money, that's different. So you think there should be a freedom to know all of the government's classified information? Look, I'm all for more government transparency, but to go as far as to say that knowing government information should be comparable to freedom of speech is ridiculous. And who is the government? They are supposed to be answerable to the people, but that's only the sham representative governments which have less and less authority over important issues. The important stuff is done by the deep state of government, and they work in secret, and intend to keep it that way! They shouldn't exist in the first place. They have created reams of propaganda through entertainment culture...some of it accurately termed - Militainment, that pretends they are only interested in protecting us from foreign and domestic threats....and not serving their true purpose - running an empire. Yes, just like the islamaphobia card is played if one criticisms islamism, or the sexism card is played if one advocates for men's rights, the racism card is played if one opposes affirmative action and thinks everyone should be treated equally under the law, or the colonialism card is played if one opposes the reserve system. Welcome to the politically-correct west where people call you names to try to silence you rather engage your ideas directly! One at a time: in most western nations, Muslims are first and 2nd generation immigrants...typically visible minorities, and more likely than not to be near the bottom of the economic hierarchy....so, crap like Hebdo, which doesn't acknowledge these inconvenient facts in their own society, is racist and anti-immigrant in much of their crap where they will claim they are only criticizing religious beliefs. There is no reason for a "men's rights" movement to exist in the first place in any nation I am aware of, let alone here in Canada! These seem to be mostly a motley collection of misogynists and hardluck internet clowns who got rejected and want revenge on feminists etc. Obviously it strays off topic, but there were obvious reasons why feminist movements had to start to address inequalities in our patriarchal societies...and they haven't changed in recent decades as much as some guys want to believe. A man who has grievances in our society does not have a legitimate reason to be forming a similar gender-based organization to advance his aims, any more than David Duke does trying to create a national association for the advancement of white people...or whatever the crap he is calling it now. If you're a white man in Canada or the U.S., you need to look at other issues besides race and gender to figure out the reasons why. Edited January 19, 2015 by WIP Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
msj Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 One at a time: in most western nations, Muslims are first and 2nd generation immigrants...typically visible minorities, and more likely than not to be near the bottom of the economic hierarchy....so, crap like Hebdo, which doesn't acknowledge these inconvenient facts in their own society, is racist and anti-immigrant in much of their crap where they will claim they are only criticizing religious beliefs. Out of curiosity, how many issues of Charlie Hebdo have you read to come to such a conclusion? Can you link to any site that would provide proof for your claim? Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
WIP Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 Out of curiosity, how many issues of Charlie Hebdo have you read to come to such a conclusion? Can you link to any site that would provide proof for your claim? Very little...just like most Hebdo supporters, I take most of what I've learned since the last time they were in the news from 2nd hand sources. But, what's telling to me, is that the supporters who try to present them as unqualified defenders of free speech have not adequately explained away this cartoon in particular in my opinion: Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
msj Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) So, in other words, you do not understand satire. Go here and read about that specific cartoon: http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#boko-haram In France, as in many other countries, some political activists complain that some citizens abuse their state benefits. For example citizens might do this by (fraudulently) claiming to be disabled (a common theme in the UK media). In France, each new child born increases the child-support allocated to their mother/family. Because of this, a common theme in right-wing rhetoric in France is the concept of “welfare queens” (mothers having many children for the sole purpose of claiming more benefits). The cartoon combines the two news stories and shows the pregnant kidnapped girls voicing their support for child benefits. One of the ways the cartoon can be understood is as a satirical window into the psyche of an Front National (French far-right nationalistic partyront National) voter, who conflates many issues (Islamist activities abroad, and benefits policies at home). One can picture a Front National voter watching a television broadcast about the Boko Haram kidnapping: he is already worrying about the benefits fraud these young women might commit when they are accepted as refugees in France! It's important to note that the proposed change in distribution of child benefits (which were approved by the Assemblée Nationale two days after this issue was published) would in any case not affect low-income immigrant families. Indeed the demographic most affected would be high-income families with many children: a common situation of many conservative Catholic familes. The proposed change was met with opposition from both ends of the political spectrum, mostly based on the idea that child benefits shouldn't become yet another wealth redistribution mechanism. The most vocal opponents, however, were right-wing conservatives. This is what makes the cartoon all the more absurd: the Boko Haram sex-slaves are protesting to cuts that would not even affect them. Depicting the Boko Haram sex-slaves complaining about the problems of the well-off makes the cartoon an incarnation of the first world problems meme: while rich French families are complaining about losing money, young girls are being raped and enslaved in Nigeria. Oh, and once again, just because you disagree with their politics (or think you do) does not justify shooting a real live human being for drawing a cartoon. Edited January 20, 2015 by msj Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Rue Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 Anything wrong with being an unbeliever? As you know, I don't phrase issues or provide responses using the words "right" or "wrong". I do not claim to be an authority on morality/ I have repeatedly challenged those referring to parties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one being right and the other wrong, you know that. To answer your question, for me I have a problem with ANYONE of any belief system who believes it is acceptable to engage violence or terrorist acts. If you are asking me whether I have problems with the Muslims I might have problems with how they interpret their religion if they express certinl conservative or fundamentalist interpretations the same way I have problems with Christians, Muslims or anyone else with such interpretations. So for example, I have a problem with ANYONE who believes their religion tells them people of another faith are infidel. Yah I have a big problem with that. I don't like being referred to as dhimmi, khafir, infidel, or many other such designations in the Koran simply because I am a Jew. Don't like it at all. I am no one's inferior or infidel. I also have problems that tell me my thoughts are cancerous because I believe I have the right to express my identity through a state collective. I also have a problem when someone makes allegations but won't provide specifics of those allegations or makes conclusions but won't provide the basis for their conclusons. Clear enough? Quote
Hudson Jones Posted January 20, 2015 Report Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I do not claim to be an authority on morality/ I have repeatedly challenged those referring to parties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one being right and the other wrong, you know that. It's wrong to kill innocent people by dropping bombs on them, shooting rockets at them or blowing yourself up amongst them. Whatever your motivation or justification may be, it shouldn't be up for debate whether it's wrong or right or justifiable. This is in par with, not only international law, but also the morality of those whose morality has not been corrupted. Edited January 20, 2015 by Hudson Jones Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.