Thursday, May 29, 2014

Embracing true honest naturalism: Marriage is about children

Here's a copy of a forum exchange, regarding a post I found from the group Seculars Against Same Sex "Marriage:"

My post:
Marriage is about children. I agree with that... Also children may well need a mommy & a daddy. Sounds good to me. 13.8 billion years. So far so good. Compared to ~20 years of denialism and knocking on the sperm bank door.

Quotes from where I found the link:

----quotes begin

Paddy Manning, who is same-sex attracted and against same-sex “marriage,” debates and explains why he opposes it:


*5:30-8:01 “Marriage is a uniquely child-centered institution. It is the only place in our society where children can be created, reared, and socialized; and the institution exists for that. If we move to a status where we have a one-size fits all marriage (institution), we part the idea of children and having children from marriage. After that the state gets to decide what your relationship is with the child. Natural parents never require that decision.


*Let’s be clear, nobody is blanket opposing same-sex adoption. What we want is the recognition that a child has a right PRIMARILY to a mother and father...Do u want to enshrine in law the accidental?


*You don’t like the idea that children might have a right to a mother and father; which they do. PRIMARILY the law should recognize that. Everything else comes after that.


*In response to the elderly couples who get married past child-bearing age: “It doesn’t affect the institution."

----end of quote

In response to posting the above I received the following response:
But this only works if every single person has the goal of making sure that life goes on in the same way it has for 13.8 billion years, as you say. "...that a child has a right PRIMARILY to a mother and father..." is a statement that just goes along with that same theory. All Children have the right to proper nutrition as well, but plenty of kids have died from malnutrition for 13.8 billion years. Only recently has the world tried to stop that. But maybe we are messing with something that was working just for for billions of years. Should we let the kids be? All I am saying is that change is okay, even if that changes the course. We have no inherent responsibility to stay the course.

And here is my reply to the above paragraph:


You wrote:

>if every single person

Humans have built in traits which come from nature, evolution by natural selection, genetics and memetics.

The traits babies are born with fall onto a bell curve graph.

Outlier traits are less common. More common traits tend to increase genetic/memetic frequency.

Humans are animals, just as much animals as are salmon that swim up stream, birds that sing, and we share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. Humans are not bonobos, nor are we chimps, but our nature appears to like both in between and beyond.

>has the goal

The goals of humans come from a combination of genetics & memetics.

>of making sure that life

Most humans within the larger set of more common traits tends to value the continuance of life. If this were not the case, humans would go extinct.

>13.8 billion years

It took ~13.8 billion years for you and I to be here today. The so-called big-bang. Stars living, then exploding. The exploded star matter reforming into new stars & solar systems & galaxies.

A very long process indeed.

>a child has a right

Children generally have several key rights. A right to life is one. I argue that it's fully reasonable, and naturalistic, and human, to just assume, by default, that children need a mommy and a daddy. Plus my own observation of outlier-groups who wish to claim the right to raise children, my observations have yielded direct evidence which I'm generally satisfied with, which show to me that outlier-trait-human-culture, such as it is, is not a particularly healthy environment for children. Also, there are the basic needs of a child, who, more commonly, would be born with the more common trait of being straight. Within that context, a child's "straightness" would be most valued within a house who's parents also fall within the general more-common-trait set. Also, the basic healthy brain & psychological development of human children may well require, ideally, the presence of a male & female in a house - both sexes, not just one or the other, ideally.

So there's several needs & issues at play. What do children have a right to. What does the human animal, in the form of growing children, really need.

When it comes to the current situation, there is incredible pressure to not be honest on these points - not in the secular community.

The so-called secular community is so very angry at being lied to about the presence of a god, and about the bad aspects of religion, they have come to incorrectly include that all allowable answers must oppose what religious people may advocate for.

So, regarding physics, cosmology, and basic biology, yes on those topics your average scientists has no issues with being more objective. However, when it comes to social issues, the left-leaning scientists will introduce confirmation bias, and denialism, into his or her interpretations of evidence, what questions to ask, what studies to do, what conclusions to draw, and so on.

For many years the so-called "right" denied human nature, or connection to other animals, and so on.

Now, today, the left also denies human nature, the fact that religion is a natural phenomenon cuts both ways - in that fully natural human morality, morality which can otherwise protect us from dangerous outlier behavior, is fully rooted within middle & right religion.

Confirmation bias can also be seen in the study of anthropology. Yes, the 60s era hippie scientists/anthropologists go to visit tribes who happen to agree with their hippie views on life. But what about the "aboriginal tribes" who created the Bible? What about the "aboriginal tribes" who live in rural China - people who've had zero contact with the Bible or the Torah? What do they advocate for? What do they think?

Honesty about why people do the things they do. That's what we need more of.

The religious may well have their religion because it helps them better survive. Some lies, and a lot of truths, all mixed together - helping humanity survive.

Rip out one part, tear a person away from their religion, and they can go right off the cliff! Yes, this is quite true.

I've personally gone on an Alice in Wonderland Style Journey. Gathering data over several years. Seeing what different groups do. Nudists. Polys. Sex party people. Gay house parties & bars (via my gay nephew). Making note of what happened with an uncle who grew up in Manti, but who fell prey to what happens when you jump to the extreme opposite side.

In the case of Atheists of Utah, they celibate the fact that they were nominated by Q Salt Lake to be the best religion, and a runner up for the best social group. Parties centered around raffling off wheelbarrows full of booze. They see themselves as the key answer to Mormonism!

Where does such a generalized status leave humans born into the more-common less-of-an-outlier set of naturally I-want-to-reproduce set? The set that helps keep humanity alive?

Saying "there's plenty of other people who breed, why do I need to?" is an incredibly crass & nihilistic & abusive way of looking at the world, and at your own life. People who say this are frankly victims of a slow-motion-suicide destructive meme set on the left.

So there's several issues at play here.

Societies can become ill, sick, defective. Honesty is one way to fix problems. And for me, listening to people like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, plus also listening to what the middle & right say - really listening & trying to understand why they say the things they do, plus also having a direct connection to Chinese-aboriginal-culture which states that non-outlier naturally-reproductive human culture & activity is more valuable than forcibly embracing outlier activity like the left does in America & Europe.

So, tearing someone away from their religion can screw up their life, or even kill them. It can cause them to lead a petty dead end life. And I say this fully realizing that religions also can destroy & grind down people. What's the cure? More honesty on all sides. The type of honesty that realizes that yes, very damn good parts of human morality & nature, the parts which help us avoid destructive behaviors & protect us from outliers, do fully & naturally reside within religions. The type of honesty that recognizes abuse where it's present, on all sides. Honesty about there being no god, the fact of evolution, and the lack of divinity of scripture. But also honesty that fully natural & useful human nature came up with some pretty damn good rules to help protect us.

Humans, writing things down, for very human reasons. Some of the things they wrote down do help people survive & thrive. Embrace those things. And try to reject the more destructive things.

>plenty of kids have died from malnutrition

What is the most common desire of parents in this regard? To help their children live. What does a healthy society advocate in this regard? To ensure that all children get enough food. What do other animals advocate for in this regard? The same.

>Only recently has the world tried to stop that.


See above.

>maybe we are messing

Yes, we are "messing." Denying our history. Denying our nature. Denying what may well be the most-healthy nature of our kids. Denying what kids may well need. Denying the abuse that happens, very commonly, today in outlier sets. Denying our place on the great mandala - the tapestry of life that we can either choose to be a part of, or not. I advocate that we choose life.

>Should we let the kids be?

"Letting them 'be'" would mean letting them grow up in a traditional long standing history most natural most common household, for their own good (for many reasons, including their own needs, plus the more common directly observed problems with outlier 'culture').

Fucking with them, would mean forcing them to grow up in a two mommy household where one mommy had to knock on a sperm bank door, and having no father in the house. Plus not helping a straight child growing up in a house which values & honors & promotes straightness (eg: the most common productive, more-healthy, set).

>We have no inherent responsibility to stay the course.

Responsibility comes from several sources. Being true to ourselves. Getting along in a community. Helping ensure that other people don't go off a cliff.

Sex, in the more common set, is wisely selfish. Even an Randian objectivist could appreciate that (even though Ayn Rand was a complete know-nothing idiot). If we AREN'T sucked in, by nature, to reproduction, we may well, and can easily, lead a petty & dead end life.

So, why are Catholics concerned about birth control?

Why does sperm bank use by single women & lesbians cause people to be concerned?

Why do people get concerned about homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia, and other outlier-traits? Why do most all human cultures have rules & recommendations & concerns about these outlier traits which some people are either sucked into, or born into?

We don't want to see people go off a cliff.

Discounting the rules & prescriptions & suggestions of the religious, just because their god may not exist, is far far too simplistic - and is usually a completely wrong evaluation of what is actually happening.

So, honoring our history. Honoring & supporting life. Remembering that it may be dangerous to stray too far from our natural path. And remembering that, damn it, even the fucking right is "right" on some things. Damn, that's hard to admit, but it's true.


Further response received on 5-29:
Seculars against same sex marriage. That is pretty ironic. I don't think they actually have any good arguments... but that is just me.

I doubt they have that big of a group.... most secular people are for equal rights of gays.

This idea that children deserve a biological mother and father to best succeed is not proven.

If it were, you would still have to deal with single parents, grandparents, foster parents, etc....

So if you oppose gay marriage, do you oppose these OTHER things as well?
My response:
Points raised & my responses:

Point 1: Most people believe in X.


Argumentum ad populum.

"...In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it."

2. Ironic.


There's many ironies to life.

Explore some:

3. What about equal rights?


Equal rights should be given when equality is deserved, warranted, healthy, safe, valuable, and applicable.

The right to civilly unite? Ok. Whatever.

The right to use the "marriage" term, which implies access to children, not so sure.

Doesn't matter how many naive judges are convinced, or the number of naive liberals jumping on board like lemmings.

I've acquired enough experiential knowledge & expertise on the subject at hand to change my position - change from the oh-so-predictable position of the naive left, to one more in the center or right, on this issue.

Leftists are naive about many things.

Leftists run the Salt Lake City Library.

Muslim Journeys:
and this fool:
A response to the leftist love of Tariq Ramadan:

The primary Muslim journey that comes to my mind is when several adherents flew planes into buildings on 9/11. That is the preeminent "Muslim Journey" of our age.

Also, Mohamed was not an advocate for social justice.

Come to find out liberals are naive about gays as well.

Knee jerk liberals. Yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, I'm starting to understand now. And I say that as a guy who's for single payer and who fully maintains that Ayn Rand was a complete & utter fool.

From Jesse Bering: "...Even in societies where homosexuality was tolerated, such as in Ancient Greece, men tended to engage in pederasty with adolescent boys while maintaining wives and families at home..."


Yet another connection between homosexuality & pedophilia. My goodness. Not so good of an environment for kids.

Are Mormonism & Catholicism homosexual & pedophile generators? | Connections between homosexuality & pedophilia

Also Bering has written the book "Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us."

I guess he'd know, as per even his direct stated connection between homos and pedos (my apologies to liberal sensibility for using the short word homo, but it seemed apt given what's being discussed) listed above - and since he's a homosexual.

Don't fuck animals. Hey, the Bible was right! Don't put your dick in an asshole! Damn, how'd they figure that one out?

Even non-Biblical cultures have figured these key truths out. Why is your average liberal in denial?

4. Noted annoyance at discovering that there are "seculars against same sex marriage."


Bursting the bubble of the liberal meme set is unpleasant also, for the liberal.

"There's people who disagree." Hmmm. Honest scientists may not be surprised. But "skeptics," no, they should never be presented with evidence counter to their suppositions.

5. Children deserve a mother & father, ideally is not proven.


The left cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased response on the matter.

Hey, maybe a kid ideally needs a mommy & a daddy. Damn, that's a hard one. We need to go to the lab to study that one.

Lame retrograde denialism.

The simplest, & most healthy, ideas from religion, discounted too soon & too quickly by your average secularist.

Do we need to prove that children need air? Water? Food?

How departed from our natural history, examining what all cultures do & advocate for, and what all people think on the matter, do we have to be?

I'm skeptical of anything but the default position: male & female raising children, for several reasons. One reason is what the child may need. Another reason is what I've observed first hand - observed things which most secularists / liberals have not observed.

Even if we want to test: It is unethical to "test," even though de facto tests are going on right now. I have a cousin lesbian conducting such a test right now. The daughter of my uncle from Manti who died of AIDS. Of course she turned gay. No problem there.

updated religious and political views... an atheist moderate / conservative

We can gather relevant evidence by a.) examining our own long standing natural history, and b.) examining what all cultures do in this regard - not just the ones that happen to agree with the leftist relativist hippie position, and c.) examining what other animals do, and d.) asking the children of gays what they think, and e.) making note of the probably-inherantly-abusive nature of "gay" culture.

A very high level of skepticism regarding anything but the default natural position. Gathering evidence from all sides & all tribes. Personal experiential evidence. All this has led me to conclude that children need a mommy & a daddy, and should not be placed in gay, nor single parent, households, period.

6. Single parents.

Less than ideal situation. Most everyone agrees with this.

Grandparents. At least it's usually a male & female, and they're grandparents after all.

Foster parents. Male & female.

7. If you oppose gay marriage, do you oppose these OTHER things as well?

Response: I'm highly skeptical of gay "marriage," based on first hand experiential knowledge of gay culture, plus what I've learned from others about the issue, plus what I know about biology & evolutionary history.

I oppose any use of sperm banks, except for male & female couples.

I believe abortion after viability should be illegal, and before viability discouraged.

I believe birth control should be legal, but discouraged.

I believe that the entirety of liberalism is, in part, a death cult - engaging in advocacy for slow motion suicide for everyone.

I have observed that liberals are denialists about human nature & natural history just as much as conservatives have been.

8. Do you also oppose people that cannot have children getting married? Why not?

Response: Adoption is ok, with a male & female adopting.

I oppose single female, lesbian couple, and gay male couple, use of the sperm bank or adoption.

The courts have decided trivially that tomatoes are vegetables.

Putting on robes and being a pompous know-it-all doesn't mean you know anything.

The destructive memetic infection has reached conservatives & libertarians, passed on to them from persistent liberals.

Denial of human nature. Ignoring our natural history. Toying with the lives of children. Ignoring huge problems with gay "culture."

What are the facts? What do people observe? Do you listen to what they say? What do cultures do who don't agree with your suppositions? Do we want to toy with the lives of children?

It's not my fault that atheism does not imply skepticism, and that skepticism does not imply free thought, and that free thought does not imply honesty - when it comes to groups who use these words as part of their names.

I'm not a libertarian, but Shermer has a point:

Michael Shermer on confirmation bias, on the left:

The Political Brain
A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias

People are born dumbshits. That's why god invented Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, and Daniel Dennett. All of those dudes may be more accepting of so-called gay, butt fuck, marriage than I am. But I've gathered more direct data than probably ALL of them combined  -  except for Hitchens possibly.

In any case I'm satisfied & generally happy with my transition to the skeptical-of-gay-marriage-and-adoption meme set / camp. And I have one advantage that many others do not: I've already been through the pain of leaving an abusive meme set (eg: Mormonism). Thus social cajoling, pressure, and attacks are far less able to affect me.

I'm interested in the truth and in honesty, even if that means that my previous liberal suppositions are overturned in part.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Are Mormonism & Catholicism homosexual & pedophile generators? | Connections between homosexuality & pedophilia

Adam Carolla makes a quick transition in his commentary, from gays to pedos.

"I don’t even know who’s gay and who’s not gay nine times out of 10 — why do you even need to know? Your skin color and gender one can see, if one wanted to discriminate. In terms of sexual proclivities, I don’t know what someone’s into! You could work with someone who’s into kids — how would you know?"

Clearly not every gay is a pedo. But is the link nonexistent?

Item 10 at

Which links to more info

Sickening and abhorrent to know that human nature allows for such trash as pedos to be produced. Defects that should be locked up for life. Why is such trash picked up and valued by at least some gays?

Not fun to talk about. Liberal heresy to think what I saw was not a one off - that the observation has significant relevance.


Oh, and yes the Mormon Church does abuse kids.

In my estimation there may well be deeper contributory expression-promotion synergistic links between Mormonism, gayness, pedos, and apology for pedos.

By comparison, the Catholic Church complains mightily about gayness, and they also have many pedo and/or gay priests.

Convicted pedophile who is friends with 5+ Salt Lake City area gays, and attendee at gay house parties and bars (saw first hand):

The truth sucks sometimes, but the non-truth sucks more.

Yes I imagine there's gays with more brain cells and morals. However sex with boyz (their spelling) is a common reference. Heard it first hand with my nephew and his friends many times.

I was the first leftbot chump my nephew came out to. In hindsight I wish I had referred him to other options than to hook up with gay culture.


Are Mormonism and Catholicism homosexual & pedophile generation machines?

In part I believe they are. For similar & different reasons, and for reasons having to do with expected responses to rightist extremism: leftist extremism.

Those "recovering" from those religions can also become abused & abuse themselves as they go way too far over to the other side, Both "sides" of the same coin playing off each other. Fighting each other. Helping each other be more extreme and frankly denialist.

Who introduced Mormon children to the concept of homosexuality? Past Mormon Prophet Spencer Kimball & related cohorts. So Kimball, by his extremist actions of linking innocuous masturbation with dead-end homosexuality, did both abuse children by helping them fear masturbation, plus he first placed in the minds of children the "option" for being a homosexual - so that when the child rebels against the retrograde idea of shaming for masturbation, he may look to homosexuality as a sort of "refuge" from the abusive nature of Mormonism.

A thesis.

A theory.

An opinion.

But also an observation: as noted I have a gay nephew who I spent many years with going to parties. He "came out" to me first. I observed his actions first hand. I know how harsh his father was & strict & ultra Mormon.

"Rebelling" against the abusive ultra-conservatism of Mormonism, meant, for my nephew, becoming a petty ultra-gay sexual-dead-end narcissist - abused so much by both sides that he readily accepts a convicted pedophile into his friend circle.

Next, we have my supposedly-bi uncle from Manti, Utah. Again, in response to the abusive nature of Mormonism in Manti, he moves to San Francisco, gets AIDS, dies, and leaves his straight family with no father. A multi-year process admittedly. But still this was the net result.

Then, we have groups like Atheists of Utah, who see themselves as the "answer" to Mormonism. Their "answer" is gayness, whosale embracing of the "gay agenda." No questions. No dissent. No other ideas. No other concepts. No other politics than ultra-left. No other thoughts allowed in their group. Just the most extreme leftist agenda, period. Their "answer" to Mormonism is: homosexuality.

So, a huge homosexual generation machine: Mormonism, and respondents to Mormonism. Linked together & a de facto gay and gay-agenda-apologist generator.

As for Catholicism, they also help generate more homosexuals and pedophiles by having forced celibacy of their priests. Their doctrines preach great fear about homosexuality. Their leaders talk about this again & again. So in Catholic households they are constantly telling their children about gayness. And the priests are often just a bunch of fucking pedophiles. So, in such an environment, what do you think will be the result?

When children rebel, they *may* more easily become gay, or a pedo, or both - and thus be tarred by the abusive stance of Catholicism on sexual issues. The first answer for Catholicism is to require all their priests to be married, to a woman. And secondly to allow women priests, women who are married to men.

For Mormonism, they should stop distributing the abusive book Miracle of Forgiveness. Stop interviewing children & adults about masturbation, and about sex before marriage. Tell children that masturbation is ok. Trying to wait to have sex in marriage is ok - but sometimes having sex with a person you'll most likely marry is ok too. Plus tell them that oral sex is ok - tell that especially to the adults (as oral sex was banned in Mormonism in the past).

Sex sex sex. When you try to press it down too much, you may just end up having a gay-person generation machine.

Now, I have to keep saying this I know. I realize there are service oriented gay people who are more level headed. More ethical. More moral. Less petty.

However, there are huge problems with "gay culture." Direct links to pedophilia which are not easy to dismiss. Not every gay person is such a "link," but the de facto links are there, at the parties, at the bars, on the Internet, and so on.

How to move forward? With honesty. Honesty about abuse on the right and the left. Honesty about how harshness on the right can well lead to a petty destructive narcissistic culture on the left in response. Playing off each other.

There are "answers" to be found on both sides, left & right. What answers come from the left? To not shame children too much for things like masturbation. To not be too controlling. To have systems in place which provide a social safety net for people. To help keep "cheats" in control, rich sociopathic cheats who would screw everyone over if it weren't for proper regulation.

The "answers" to be found on the right are that shaming for some forms of sexual expression does help protect us, from AIDS, from petty narcissism, from dead end tail chasing, and so on. That normal family life, with a mommy, and a daddy, and children, is the ideal center for humanity, it has been, it is, and it must be the center. When a male-female parent with child structure is not the center, the right is "right" to say that we're about to go right off the fucking rails.

As for gayness, gays have a right to jobs, apartments, and to not be harassed per se for having sex with other gays. But, on the other hand, children have a right to a mommy and daddy (!), including adopted children!

In my view both single women, and lesbians, should be barred from sperm bank use, period. A legal framework should be put into place to ensure that artificially facilitiated reproduction more closely mirrors what happens with more natural.

It's dangerous to fuck with how 13.8 billion years of evolution have set up. Humans are not blank slates (ref. Steven Pinker). We have a long sexual, not asexual, not homosexual, just sexual history.

Sex. The left fear it as much as the right. Don't be afraid of sex. Celebrate it. It's where life comes from! It helps you be wisely selfish. It helps you not to live a petty, stunted, dead end life - if you allow it to work normally. If you honor it's history.

A man.

A woman.



Children may need a mommy and a daddy - even adopted children.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage" because two gay people cannot make babies, naturally with each other, period.

Only naturally sexually reproducing couples (ie: male & female couples) should have access to children.
Crazy defective destructive dangerous outlier men who're attracted to children should be locked up for life

Not everything is equal: gay's cannot produce babies naturally with each other, men with men, and women with women. Cannot, naturally, via the method which came from 1.2 billion years of evolutionary sexual history.
Yes there are service oriented gays who're more moral. But, things aren't so cut and dry as to assume that gay culture is a healthy panacea "answer" to right wing religion. It ain't.

Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea: Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. Fully natural, normal, valuable, and useful human morality can and does exist within religious frameworks. A damn hard thing for a liberal to admit! In fact many liberals are in active denial.

Sometimes the nuttypots DO know something. Fuck. That's a damn fucking hard thing for an ex-Mormon, or liberal, to admit. But most liberals are so naive and victims of fearful politically correct culture, they don't dare investigate whether their own presuppositions are flawed or not.

Is the "right" right, sometimes? Yes. Often they go way too far with their responses. AND their responses can push people right over the edge, right into the destructive cultures the right is so fearful of. That's the damn sucky thing about the whole situation (from the perspective of your average PC liberal who would prefer that things be otherwise).

Lefties can be as abusive as righties. An ultra-rightie can easily become an ultra-leftie - with an equal level of abuse being present. But often such people are too naive to recognize what is happening or what has happened.

Been there, first hand. Seen it happen to others, again and again. Seen the costs. So now, I'm more for honesty, than for 100% advocacy for leftist agenda.


Additional links:

Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma -- the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here -- questioning gay marriage -- secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)

response to: 'Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers' and questioning sex with 'boys' in gay culture

Brief history of the modern childlove movement

The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?

'Severing Love From Diapers': The Other Case Against Gay Marriage

A Non-Religious Case Against Same Sex Marriage

Read the "yes" side at:
if you're a self described liberal you already know the no side. So read the yes side.

A secular case against same-sex marriage

The Political Brain
A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias

Michael Shermer on confirmation bias, on the left:

Homosexual Sentenced to 40 Years in Prison After Offering ‘Son’ to International Pedophile Ring

Man who's friends with 5+ gay people in Salt Lake City, and an attendee at local gay house parties & bars:

Advice for Social Conservatives & Moderates, from a Family Values Atheist

Religion is a natural phenomenon.

Human Nature: A Conservative, Classical Liberal & Libertarian View

My own additional thoughts: