Cart Search
Offworld Trading Company
Rightwinger Rightwinger

Why am I a Hater?

▼

Why am I a Hater?

I posted this in philosophy/life, and got no responses, so....RE-POST!!

from JoeUser Forums

I was recently in a friendly--for the most part--discussion about gay marriage.

Now, I really have no valid opinion on the subject, but I will say that I don't think galaxies are going to explode, if gays and lesbians are given the right to say "I do". After all, in the words of the great country music legend/drag queen icon Dolly Parton, "They should have to suffer, right along with the rest of us."
And besides, I really don't think it's my place to judge them. What they do is between them and the God to whom they so cavalierly flip the finger.

It's their choice, it's their consequences. At least, that's how I see it.

However, because I made the statement that I didn't really agree with the homosexual "lifestyle", I was called a "hater".

Several times. Often vehemently.

Now, why am I a hater?

All I did, was to express an opinion; I don't "hate" gay people. My sister is a lesbian, and a very good friend is bi-sexual. The father of another good friend came out several years ago, and he and his "partner" are friends of ours, as well.

I simply disagree with how they live their lives. Is that so shameful and intolerant, really? 

I mean, I disagree with how drug addicts and theives live their lives too, but am I considered a hater for it? I don't think so....
And really, don't gays pretty much disagree with how I live my life, too, having that yucky natural, vaginal sex with someone of the opposite gender, and all.....ICK!

In fact, over the years, I've been derisively called a "breeder" and a "straight"; like there's something weird, or perverse about it. 
Why are they not considered haters, for that? For having that intolerant opinion about me, and what I do in my bedroom? For "hating on" my lifestyle?
Why do we allow political correctness to only go one way? If you understand what I mean, that is?
Why aren't both sides held to the same standard of decorum?

And you know, while I'm at it, speaking of hate, do atheists ever attack any other religions besides Christianity?
They can say the most ignorant, vile, hateful, despicable things about Jesus Christ and the faith He founded, but they never seem to tag other faiths as severely, if at all.

Why is that?

Maybe it's because we Christians are an easy target; we might defend our faith in a debate, but other than that, we won't fight back very hard. They know nothing will really happen to them, if they nastily belittle our beliefs.
I mean, it's not like we're going to issue a fatwa against them or anything, right?

And, they say these mean, hateful things because--as we all know--we're the haters. Not them. 

Funny how hypocrisy works, isn't it?

 

273,078 views 175 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top

How imaginative; 'thought crimes' as a religious defense but surely you jest, especially considering that the article concerned those blasphemous homosexuals seeking equality (under the law)??? Heresy and blasphemy seem to be theological staples, have always been considered religious thought crimes, are ever-present in religious circles and come pre-stamped with your idea of the ultimate of penalties. Everyone is a sinner in the eyes of everyone else including that god of yours, yet you find solace grading the sins you perceive in others as if there were some scale available for this task. Make sure you really want to get into what the bible has to say about those things deemed as abominations and the little thought given to most of them. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDKL-f9Iwds

Reply #127 from PolMach Forums Top

On the second page there was some discussion on children raised by gay adoption being worse off than children with mom+dad.

I'm an atheist. I believe the statement above is probably true. It's also true that:

  • Children with just one parent are worse off
  • Children with no siblings are worse off
  • Children with no siblings of the opposite sex are worse off
  • Children who are homeschooled are worse off

... and so on. You get the picture. The more exposure to different parts of life a child gets, the better it is able to adapt to society.

Some might say that having gay parents exposes to homosexuality and makes more tolerant. Sure, but it also strips away a huge chunk of normal social parts of life that comes with a mother and a father. Same goes for indoctrination; sure, you know a lot more about the culture of one religion, but it shuts off everything else. The damage done by both of these things far outweigh the positive aspects.

Just wanted to point this out since I found it interesting that BoobzTwo attacked the idea of gay parents being a worse choice and doubled down by pointing out the abundance of single parents. There are a lot of them, but there are a lot of religious people, too. It doesn't mean that you're not better off as a kid with a mom and a dad, on average.

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting LNQ, reply 127
I believe the statement above is probably true.
End of LNQ's quote
Puzzling that you used the words 'I believe' and 'probably true' in the same sentence. Exposure to the varieties of life without sound edification or when made from biased reasoning is of no productive value to anyone. Not sure what any of this homosexual ‘stuff’ has to do with being an atheist though? The best thing for children would be to have responsible people care for them regardless of gender, not just some idealistic combination and not just because they are the parents.

In a way, being gay is like being an atheist … in a way mind you. As long as people do not know you for what you are (your ‘self’), there are only minor complications. When one announces their disbelief in an overseeing and human controlling deity just because of a lack of any proof, all shit brakes out and as if with the push of a button they are classified and jointly held responsible for everything that ails mankind. It is amazing to see how quickly this process takes place. All their intelligence fades to nothingness, their morals become extinct and depravity becomes their norm, but then you already know this is just balderdash.

When one announces that they are gay, all shit brakes out and they are classified. All their intelligence fades to nothingness, their morals become extinct and depravity becomes their norm, but then you should know this is just balderdash too … ‘deva view’ to coin a phrase. I just don’t do this stereotyping and bigotry thing at all well under any guise, my personal beliefs aside. If you do not accept homosexuals for other than religious reasons then you should at least make those reasons known … considering that you are an atheist.

Reply #129 from PolMach Forums Top

I'm not a native english speaker so I make that sort of "double negative" kind of mistakes unless I'm really careful. I meant that I believe in this view.

I mentioned that I'm an atheist because earlier certain stances were tied to atheism. Meant to point out that atheism doesn't really have anything to do with the point. Also, I wanted avoid being classified as a religious person, which I was afraid some would do after reading my post.

I agree, the best thing for children is to have responsible parents. So I agree, that exposure to varieties with life without proper edification is of no productive value to anyone. It doesn't mean that exposure is not also very important.

I don't mind homosexuality. I just wanted to point out, from a scientific point of view that on average it's better to be exposed to what is biologically normal when you grow up.

As you pointed out, you can more than make up for this hindrance with better parenting. And you should.

Bottom line what I was trying to say is, everything matters when you grow up. Your environment, your genes, your parents, your siblings, your friends, your neighbors. So anyone who understands science and probability should not go up in arms when someone says that gay parents might be a hindrance to a kid's development when compared to a normal option. It's just physics. Cold hard science. And it's not something you can't overcome, and many people with a normal family setup are way worse off than children with gay parents. There is no such thing as a perfect setup for bringing up kids, but there are better and worse options. Just like a shorter male is worse off than a taller male; you can overcome it but you will have a harder time in life, and it has nothing to do with any religious view. How much worse off, that's what research is for.

I tried to show a moderate point of view on this thread on this issue. Not everything is black & white. I fully support any gay parents that adopt a child and make his/her life better than it would be without them.

Also, I have no idea if gay parents are a better choice than a single parent. My hunch is that children with gay parents might be better off, since shared they have more time to spend with the kids. Irrelevant to the subject, but an interesting notion to think about.

Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting LNQ, reply 129
LNQ
End of LNQ's quote
I see you are from Finland, got you, sorry but I knew there must be a simple explanation. Interesting comments but I think this 'normal' thing is just a play on words. I didn't infer that you were presenting a religious point of view; I was just puzzled with the atheist comment is all. Gay people are not all the same, apatheist are not all the same and religious folk are not all the same, just seems like a no-brainer. There are both good and bad people in all walks of life (most are in the middle) and nary a walk is exempt. Even amongst the gods, there were the good, the bad and the ugly. Homosexuals are just as capable of raising children as the rest of us. But until we learn to treat people like people though, this kind of bigotry will forever be shoved in our faces and passed off as some kind of gospel.

Reply #131 from PolMach Forums Top

By normal I mean the statistical most probable case. Doesn't really get any more normal than that. It has really nothing to do with the associaton with normal as 'ok' or 'all good'.

In all honesty, I agree with you. What you do is more important than who you are. I just ended up writing two long posts to point out that on a macro scale there are no individuals, and in that scale you benefit from being closer to the average. On average.

Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting LNQ, reply 129
I tried to show a moderate point of view on this thread on this issue. Not everything is black & white. I fully support any gay parents that adopt a child and make his/her life better than it would be without them.
End of LNQ's quote
I too believe most people live in that grey area called reality. What should be feared are those dogmatic people amongst us (religious or otherwise) who insist on this black or white only nonsense? Institutional dogmatism is founded in bigotry and breeds a hateful environment of absolute intolerance. And along with it comes the harshest, most unimaginable penalties possible, devised for people who THINK otherwise … the ultimate thought crimes. If JU practitioners do not like homosexuals to the extent mentioned above (as if the met them all) they should just say so (and why if they dare), just don’t give me any self-righteous drivel gleaned from some antiquated book, pleeeaaase! 

Quoting LNQ, reply 131
I just ended up writing two long posts to point out that on a macro scale there are no individuals, and in that scale you benefit from being closer to the average. On average.
End of LNQ's quote
And I agree with you as long as the statistics are both meaningful and equally applied which they seldom are. In your statement above you mentioned that children under certain conditions are ‘worse off’ … worse off than what; some statistically dictated ideal or the cruel realities of abusive circumstances. I watched “The Beaver” grow up (in another life of course); I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe in it now. Life just doesn’t come with a guarantee so all we can do is our best and offer assistance to those in more difficulty situations humanly, whomever it takes.

 

 

Reply #134 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 133
Reply #133 lulapilgrim
End of lulapilgrim's quote
Lula, we have laws to deal with vandalism and we even apply them to churches because we care. You make it sound like the gay community has no reason to distrust you and are only being ‘anti-god’ to spite you and that is silly. If you insist on using the radical “queer elements” as the norm for homosexuality, then what is wrong with everyone else using the radical “religious elements” as the norm for Christianity? Seems like these particular ‘queers’ don’t appreciate either side.

“The e-mail, which is peppered with foul language, berates the Q Center, a local LGBT activist organization, for engaging in a dialogue with the Mars Hill’s leadership. “What we have to say to the Q Center is this: F—K YOU, you don’t represent us. You are disgusting traitors who prioritize social peace and the bourgeois aspirations of rich white cis gay people over the more pressing survival needs of more marginalized queers.

Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 134
Lula, we have laws to deal with vandalism and we even apply them to churches because we actually care.
End of GirlFriendTess's quote

I know that. 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 134
You make it sound like the gay community has no reason to distrust you and are only being ‘anti-god’ to spite you and that is silly.
End of GirlFriendTess's quote

All I did was provide the news site and call their actions of smashing 9 windows causing several thousand dollars damage "hateful clashes". 

The reason the self-proclaimed 'angry queers' did their hateful act of vandalism is because the Mar's Hill church is known for teaching traditional sexual morality and holds the Bible based views on homosexuality. 

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 134
If you insist on using the radical “queer elements” as the norm for homosexuality, then what is wrong with everyone else using the radical “religious elements” as the norm for Christianity?
End of GirlFriendTess's quote

Again, all I did was post a link to a news story, without comments as far as the norm for homosexuality.  But as far as Christianity, note the pastor's reaction, 

“This certainly saddens us greatly as our pastors in Portland have made many efforts to build relationships with the homosexual community in Portland,” Smith said. “Even though they chose to destroy our property and scare away people trying to worship Jesus, we wish them no harm.”

Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 135
All I did was provide the news site and call their actions of smashing 9 windows causing several thousand dollars damage "hateful clashes".
End of lulapilgrim's quote
I know Lula but am I supposed to just forget your priorities concerning homosexuals and pretend otherwise? I apologize if you were just bringing us the current rash of hate news. I read the whole article and these people were operating on their own against the wishes of the local ‘gay organization’ which was talking to the church too ... as shown in my last post. You have clearly made your view of homosexuality known in this and several other posts so who was I to presume something different now?

Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 136
You have clearly made your view of homosexuality known in this and several other posts so who was I to presume something different now?
End of GirlFriendTess's quote

That's just it....My view of homosexuality hasn't changed. It is exactly the same traditional and biblical view as that of the pastors at the Mars Hill church. 

This article is germane to the discussion and clarifies. 

Why homosexuals think they are hated

BY DALE O’LEARY

April 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI and others have recently drawn attention to the fact that simply putting forward the Church’s unchanging teachings on marriage and sexual morality puts a person in the position of being accused of “hate.” In particular, GLBT (gay lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) activists are demanding that Catholics and those of other religions change 4,000-year-old teachings about marriage and sexual morality. When believers answer that they are not authorized to make such changes in what God has revealed, the GLBT activists accuse them of “hate,” even going so far as to charge them with “hate crimes.”

It doesn’t matter how gently the words are spoken or how carefully the message is phrased, the GLBT activists only hear “hate.”

Although there is no one cause for same-sex attraction (SSA), in many instances it can be linked to childhood gender identity disorder — the failure to identify strongly with one’s own same-sex parent or peers in the first two years of life. Some persons with SSA as children wanted to be other sex or pretended to be the other sex, while others simply felt ‘different’ from their same-sex parent and peers.

Very often the child’s relationship with the father was seriously deficient. Not having a positive, healthy relationship with one’s father affects the way a person deals with authority, rules, and rejection. Often persons with SSA were rejected by peers, who did understand their ‘different’ behavior. Every time the unhealed adult with SSA feels rejection, faces discipline, or is confronted with rules, he remembers the pain of his relationship with his father or peers. He transfers these feelings to those who oppose him and screams in pain “You hate me, you hate me.”

The only real solution in these cases is for persons with SSA to forgive their fathers and to be reconciled with their father God. Until that happens we cannot take their anger personally. We must speak clearly about the need for healing and repentance — but remember that the sexual sin is the fruit of a developmental disorder and often the first sin that must be repented of is the sin of resentment.

I had an opportunity to see this work with a woman who had been involved in lesbian activity. While the healing process was long and difficult, it began when she forgave her parents. From that moment on, she never returned to the same-sex activity.

Some persons with SSA are themselves filled with anger and ‘hate’ and they project that on anyone who opposes their demands. They assume we must be as angry as they are. We must constantly remind ourselves that under their anger and their hate, persons with SSA are wounded men and women. As small children they accepted the lie that they were different. They were unable to embrace their true identities as sons and daughters of God. In spite of their anger and false accusations, we must continue to speak the truth. Only by this means can we help them find their way out of the lies in which have been trapped. And most of all we need to pray for them.

This article was originally published on the Crisis Magazine website.  

-------------------------------

Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 137
Reply #137 lulapilgrim
End of lulapilgrim's quote
Give me a break, please. If one were actually interested in why homosexuals feel such 'hate', one would presumably ask them as I have and not have to seek those reasons from higher up the chain of command (which I don't have) is all. I have no idea what you personally believe, but I know you and the Rightwinger are haters because you think the bible tells you it’s god’s will and your church will accept nothing less. “It doesn’t matter how gently the words are spoken or how carefully the message is phrased” the RCC has capitulated to nothing of consequence and has only made minor concessions whenever the coffers are threatened. This is hardly an impartial article, but this one offers actual useful information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 138
I have no idea what you personally believe, but I know you and the Rightwinger are haters because you think the bible tells you it’s god’s will and your church will accept nothing less. “
End of GirlFriendTess's quote

 

What you seem to refuse to understand throughout this discussion is the difference between loving the sinner but hating the sin.

I can separate the person from their sinful or misbehavior. 

Love the person but hate their misbehavior. 

I Love the homosexual but hate homosexuality. Get it?

I Love the atheist but hate atheism. Get it?

I love my children but hate their misbehavior. Get it?

 

 

 

Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

This article uses the words "sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" is a construct,redefinition of homosexuality. Pure sophistry used to obscure the simple reality of what homosexuality is....a form of sexual behavior. "Sexual orientation" is a vehicle for "selling" the idea of homosexuality as normal and immutable.  

But anyway, 

We are male and female and the natural sexual orientation is heterosexuality. 

The truth about Homosexuality is self-evident. Homosexuality is sexual disorientation, an objectively disordered condition (an addiction really) deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction.

 

 

 

Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 139
Reply #139 lulapilgrim
End of lulapilgrim's quote
What I know is that your professed love is hollow. If homosexuals were just sinners  ... civil rights should not come into question because as your book says, we all are sinners, the difference being only a matter of degree.  If someone personally dislikes something socially and legally acceptable so much so that they would try to restrict any of the rights of other citizens, this would be overt bigotry and I would have to question the interpretation of the source.  We just don’t live in a great big church (even though you do) where everyone has to bow at your alter. Too bad you don’t love homosexuals enough to allow them to be who they are and let your god do his own judging for a change.

 

Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 141
Too bad you don’t love homosexuals enough to allow them to be who they are and let your god do his own judging for a change.
End of GirlFriendTess's quote

I'm not judging people who call themselves homosexuals, I'm judging homosexuality and you just don't get it. 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 141
... civil rights should not come into question ....  If someone personally dislikes something socially and legally acceptable so much so that they would try to restrict any of the rights of other citizens, this would be overt bigotry and I would have to question the interpretation of the source. 
End of GirlFriendTess's quote

Yep..you just don't get it. 

I'm 100% for civil rights based on age, race, gender, or handicap. However, what do homosexuals have as a group to claim this special status? 

 Do some research and learn what the courts established as the 3 criteria for civil rights as a protected group. You'll find the homosexuals fail on all three. 

 

 

Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 142
I'm not judging people who call themselves homosexuals, I'm judging homosexuality and you just don't get it.
End of lulapilgrim's quote
Stop being so foolish  You are not trying to prevent homosexuality from adopting children or getting hitched ... you are trying to prevent these people, the homosexuals from having these things. Let me know if you ever figure out how to remove the homosexuality from the homosexual without restraints. At least then you could explain it to your own catholic queers who are supposed to what, know better.

Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top

"...and the truth will make you free".

 

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God,  can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual behavior. Everyone living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, talents and gifts as well. 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 143
Stop being so foolish 
End of GirlFriendTess's quote

I'll take your advice for it is foolish of me to continue this discussion. Bye. 

Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top

THANK GOODNESS }:)

Reply #146 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why am I a Hater?
End of quote
Rightwinger; have you figured out why you are a hater yet. I will give you another clue ... the bible tells you so. I on the other hand do not have a bible to tell me who (and why) to hate so I make these decisions along my path through life. The difference is I decide one person at a time based on our specific involvement. If I wanted to hate someone who happens to be gay, then the hate would be based of his being a big prick (hahaha), not because he is gay. I don’t really care what he does or why because we have secular laws that minimize harm to others. Homosexuality has been around throughout our history, well before Judaism, Islam and Christianity were concocted. So if god didn’t make queers that way, then evolution is the only other explanation which means it is not their fault. If god made them that way, then what godly reason could there be for using them as living targets? If there is a god, I could only imagine he wouldn’t have a bigoted celestial bone in his perfect in all ways heavenly body … but you do!!!

Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top

because what it actually after is a CIVIL UNION not a MARRIAGE. marriage in and of itself should only be between man and woman. BIGdifference between marriage and a union!

Reply #148 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting drmiler, reply 147
because what it actually after is a CIVIL UNION not a MARRIAGE. marriage in and of itself should only be between man and woman. BIG difference between marriage and a union!
End of drmiler's quote
A rose by any other name is always still just a rose no matter how anyone wants to define it. Or do semantics (PC) play an important role in your rational?

Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top

This news article goes directly to Rightwinger's point in the OP..

 

Fox News psychiatrist says he fears threats of violence when questioning homosexual agenda

BY MATTHEW CULLINAN HOFFMAN

  • Thu Jul 05, 2012 19:32 EST
 

July 5, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist who functions as a Fox News expert on the channel’s “Medical A-Team” says that he hesitates to write anything that might be considered objectionable to homosexual activists, due to the threats of violence he is likely to receive as a result.

 

In a recent Fox News interview with Ablow, the psychiatrist spoke about the recent New Family Structures Study (NFSS), which showed that children who were aware of same-sex sexual activity on the part of at least one of their parents were much more likely to have been sexually abused themselves and to suffer from depression, impaired relationships with others, and many other problems.

Observing that the study is the largest ever done on this subject, Ablow said that the disturbing results indicate “we’ve got to look more at it,” adding: “And it’s such a controversial thing, I’ve got to tell you, that I hesitate to write the blog [on the topic], because every time I do you know I get threats.”

“Well, we’ll get letters,” the Fox host answered.

“No, I get threats, I get threats!” responded Ablow. “People are going to come to my office, they’re going to burn down my house, it’s incredible.”

“In this politically-correct insane environment, citing data doesn’t seem to be compelling enough, because there’s a lot of hatred,” he added.

Click here to read Ablow’s blog entry and to see the video interview broadcast on Fox.

In his blog entry on the subject, Ablow elaborated, stating that he “he hesitated to write about this topic in an opinion piece.”

“I didn’t hesitate because I think the topic frivolous.” he continued. “I didn’t hesitate because I think of Social Science Research as a meaningless journal (because it is anything but that).  I didn’t hesitate because funding for the NESS comes partly from conservative groups (because data are data, unless they can be refuted on objective grounds, and this study is painstaking, in many regards).  I hesitated because I worried about getting more of the threats and hate mail (by post and e-mail) I receive whenever I even mention the seemingly unspeakable issue of how social forces related to sexual orientation and gender identity might impact well being in children.”

However, wrote Ablow, he would not be intimidated into silence. “When I see a path of enquiry that might yield some bit of truth, I want to try to be the person who takes it, no matter how treacherous.  And, so, it is with this commentary, now in your good hands, to take or leave, to debate, to discuss-as Tennyson wrote, ‘to strive, to seek, to find…’”

Ablow’s account of violent threats and harassment by proponents of the homosexual political agenda is echoed by many in the United States who take a pro-family position.

In May of this year, Bristol Palin, daughter of former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, received over three thousand responses
to a blog post opposing homosexual “marriage,” many of which were laced with curse words and insults, and some of which advocated her death.

In February, a 14-year-old home-schooled girl who gave testimony in her state legislature against homosexual “marriage” received death threats and violent insults in the form of comments under the You Tube video that recorded the event.

Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

* Same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates threaten Bristol Palin and her family with death
* 14-year-old homeschooled girl receives death threats for defending marriage
* Death threats against UK columnist for opposing homosexualist agenda
* Mormons, Knights of Columbus Face Chilling Threats and More Vandalism for Prop. 8 Support
* Gold standard’ study’s striking findings: children of heterosexual parents happier, healthier

 
 
Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula, was there some point to the above nonsense besides plugging the RCC agenda? There are consequences today when you kick people in the ‘nads’ as long as you folks have been hammering and murdering gay folk … kind of like with you and your witches and wizards and whatnot. It wasn’t much over 200 years ago and you guys were still trying to murder witches too. This OP was a joke and expressed nothing so much as the bigotry and hypocrisy of the author. I doubt there ever was such a conversation, at least not the way he explains it. This is about the bigotry of the religious establishment and nothing more. How many death threats do you get allowing for your hate for homosexuality and not the homosexual of course???

What do Christians have against Homosexuality   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZFCB9sduxQ