The Center Stage

[Dragoon Fighter]

Of course their kid will eventually figure out those words, but the parents should discuss why these words are bad and set a good example for their children.

I can agree to this.

And TV/Radio broadcasters have every right to censor their program however they want.

What if they do not want to censor it?

Ever consider that some people get offended/embarrassed just from hearing some of those words? Especially more offensive ones like "female dog" and the "N-word".

Yes sir. I have considered that.

No country in particular is being debated here; rather, we are discussing the ethics of the issue. Why shouldn't children hear it? Well, I've already offered one explanation:

Well, the reasons I ask is because certain countries are far more liberal than others for an example let us compare Japan and America.

Here is a link to a brief history of censorship in Japan.

Here is a link to a brief history of censorship in America.

Examples from Japanese television:

Examples of a show aimed at Japanese teens: Bakemonogatari, Shiki,

Examples of shows aimed at Japanese a general group: Detective Conan,
Naruto,

Examples of shows aimed at Japanese kids: Mitsudomoe, Yugioh

NOTE: I put the fist episodes aired that means for example detective conan's first episode aired in 199?'s (Could not find the exact year ) and is still running today which is why I used it as an example.

NOTE 1: Some of the examples are from 1-2 anime seasons ago and not currently airing, but I used them as they are not to out of Date.

I was also going to do some research into american culture for a side by side compare and contrast, but I think I am taking to long to come back with a proper response so I have sped up the processes by cutting out that info but If you need a side by side compare and contrast I can get it with in a day.

However this may seem off topic but I bring this up because Japan has a really liberal censorship system as far as I can tell (Please If I am wrong provide me the info) The only thing that is censored is pornography (I.E. genitalia must be censored). When compared to the american system it is very different. It does not seem to have a direct effect on japan that I am aware of (I know that they have the second Highest suicide rate, however I do not see the two as related.) Just by going though the list you can see an acute different characteristics though out the two cultures when it comes to censorship and cultural attitude. I think this is a very important detail when debating censorship so I am going to presume from now on that we are debating American/European Censorship. I wish to incoperate Japan as evidence that the censorship of certain things is unnecessary and while it does have a Nobel underlining of trying to help people that they are going about it in the wrong way.

They should indeed have a candid discussion on why not to use the word, as that will help the child understand the reasoning. However, if parents openly curse around their children they are setting an example for them. If parents want to prevent their child from cursing, they need to set a good example, because children tend to follow their parents' lead.

Yes they are very likely to follow there parents lead. Now I do not encourage parents to openly use fowl language in front of there children however it is really hard to discuses the word in question without using it a minimum of once so the child knows what you are telling them not to use.

Side Note: Sorry for the delay, school stuff .

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dragoon, I feel that you've shown with that post that you are ready for the DH. You showed the potential to create a lengthy and detailed post as well as willingness to use effective sources. As such, I will discontinue the debate here and advocate for you in the Jedi Council.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Must I pick a topic? I really have nothing in mind.

Pharmaceutical Research and Development Departments are being continuously downsized and having their funding cut as they struggle to break even with producing new drugs that are able to pass the stringent multi-phase requirements employed by the FDA before approval. Numerous drugs are developed at a time and few are successful enough for pharmaceutical companies to cough up the money required to run FDA trials necessary to prove the drug is safe for patients. Data from DiMasi and Grabowski indicate that the R&D cost for developing an individual drug amounts to roughly $1.2 billion and around 10-15 years for the drug to develop. In the past 50 years, only 261 organizations have managed to register at least one molecular entity, despite more than 4,300 companies currently involved in the process of drug innovation. Even after the drug is approved, the company that invested in the research & the trial testing has a limited time to exclusively market the drug before generic substitutes can replace it on the market and cut in on its profit. I believe that the FDA should extend pharmaceutical patent life and take further action in securing the intellectual property of innovative research in order to convince companies to stop devaluing R&D and to improve the quality of individual drugs that will be marketed in the future.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

not real murder, hence why its a game

However, some video games are realistic enough to simulate real life murder.

nope, never sad that, just a good amount of it

My bad, skipped over that part.

However, you are just using a steryotype, with no proof. Do we know that all gangsters come from broken familys?

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Pharmaceutical Research and Development Departments are being continuously downsized and having their funding cut as they struggle to break even with producing new drugs that are able to pass the stringent multi-phase requirements employed by the FDA before approval. Numerous drugs are developed at a time and few are successful enough for pharmaceutical companies to cough up the money required to run FDA trials necessary to prove the drug is safe for patients. Data from DiMasi and Grabowski indicate that the R&D cost for developing an individual drug amounts to roughly $1.2 billion and around 10-15 years for the drug to develop. In the past 50 years, only 261 organizations have managed to register at least one molecular entity, despite more than 4,300 companies currently involved in the process of drug innovation. Even after the drug is approved, the company that invested in the research & the trial testing has a limited time to exclusively market the drug before generic substitutes can replace it on the market and cut in on its profit. I believe that the FDA should extend pharmaceutical patent life and take further action in securing the intellectual property of innovative research in order to convince companies to stop devaluing R&D and to improve the quality of individual drugs that will be marketed in the future.

It may just because I'm stupid at the moment, but I have no idea how to even respond... O_o

lol, this is something that really is undebatable. I fully agree.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

It may just because I'm stupid at the moment, but I have no idea how to even respond... O_o lol, this is something that really is undebatable. I fully agree.

It's debatable! But it requires a little reading because it's a real topic that requires you to have informed opinions. I used this topic because I wanted to introduce you to article-based argumentation. In other words, reading up on a topic before arguing and also supporting a given position with resources.

I saw that you have a House signature and thought that you would be interested. In Season 1 you have the antagonist, Edward Vogler, who pressures House into selling Viopril (a fictional drug) as if it was a newly designed pill. When the only thing Vogler's pharmaceutical company did was to simply add sugar to the old pill (I think) and to re-market it as a new drug in order to avoid having to go through this lengthy process. That dastardly villain!

Despite pharmaceuticals providing a helpful commodity to the human population, they are primarily a business. Businesses primarily exist for profit whether they may be hospitals, pharmaceuticals, or universities.

The House reference parallels many real life examples. Take the company AstraZeneca and their product Prilosec. Prilosec's patent was going to wear off, so they used the isomer of the active compound in Prilosec, omeprazole, and developed esomeprazole which was not nearly as effective, but was used to make Nexium. A "new" drug that essentially was obtained from the same basic compound. Therefore, AstraZeneca managed to squeeze through the rules with high-profile lawyers in order to not only re-market the same chemical product (depends on how much you stress stereochemistry), but an inferior alternative to their original drug.

Nexium is not as effective as Prilosec and has further limitations. However, AstraZeneca convinced many doctors to sign on to Nexium for patients who were already using Prilosec. AstraZeneca received the desired results and sales for Nexium rose as Prilosec fell.

Now, let's have a philosophy dinosaur moment.

Are pharmaceutical companies willing to pursue profits over patient well-being because of restrictive patent legislation? OR is restrictive patent legislation needed in order to prevent pharmaceutical companies from purely pursuing profit and abandoning concerns for patients?


Again it's a mixed bag. There is no right or wrong answer. Also there are many other central questions that are correlated to this one. Debating it is useful as there are many facts on this topic supporting both sides and it always helps to have as much information as possible about any given topic. I hope that I was interesting and informative.

I am still open to continuing a 1 vs 1. You should pick the topic, because everything I write will be like this if you let me initiate the topic and the position. Take your time and if you want, I can pick an easier topic or we can discuss this one. I want you to improve, but I'm not going to go easy on you.

References
-------------
1. First post: Patents: Source
2. First post: Industry: Source
-------------
3. Second post: Prilosec & Nexium: Source
- Note: Tried to obtain article from WSJ site. But the article was written around nine years ago, therefore I couldn't find it in the archives.
4. Second post: Prilosec & Nexium: Source
- Note: Managed to find a similar article written by the New Yorker that was hosted on their site. Again covers the same topic with a slightly different tone.
5. Wikipedia: Put in any of the terms you are curious about for more information. Wikipedia is the start to everything.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

I apologize, I know this really kills my chances of getting into the DH, but, I really just don't know how to respond.

Are pharmaceutical companies willing to pursue profits over patient well-being because of restrictive patent legislation?

No, in all, or almost all Hospitals, it's the Patient first, that shouldn't be any different for the companies that supply the Hospital with drugs.

^^^if that is what we are mostly debating about, then ok. I thnk I have a more general understanding, but if not, Can we please have an easier topic?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Sure. TOS do you think affirmative action is good or bad?

 

[Dabuz]

However, some video games are realistic enough to simulate real life murder.

its a simulation because its not real, this is going back to earlier statements, how does a realistic looking game make people want to commit murder?

Even so, you give games too much credit in terms of realism, graphics nowadays are very pretty and stuff, but they yet to reach a level where they can truly simulate real life murder.

My bad, skipped over that part.

However, you are just using a steryotype, with no proof. Do we know that all gangsters come from broken familys?

http://www.focusas.com/Gangs.html
http://www.whyguides.com/why-do-people-join-gangs.html
http://alexandriava.gov/courtservice/info/default.aspx?id=7630
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=71e1c80cb69b2e741167c3a0709c9ec1

i am going to take parts from the first and last links specifically because they sum up what i want to say the best

first article:

"Some of the reasons for joining a gang may include:

* A search for love, structure, and discipline
* A sense of belonging and commitment
* The need for recognition and power
* Companionship, training, excitement, and activities
* A sense of self-worth and status
* A place of acceptance
* The need for physical safety and protection
* A family tradition"

If you try to find common factors of each listed reason, you will notice all of these things are provided by even the most average familes, a lot of these reasons have to do with attention, feeling wanted, feeling safe, having something do to in life, things a family will naturally provide if it isn't broken.

fourth article:
"A lot of times when a kid’s family is messed up, they end up spending more time on the streets, and the gang becomes like their second family."

Sure, not every gang member may come from a broken family, there are a very small amount that may just want what seems to be like easy money, buts thats only a small percentage of newly joining gang members.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

http://www.focusas.com/Gangs.html
http://www.whyguides.com/why-do-people-join-gangs.html
http://alexandriava.gov/courtservice/info/default.aspx?id=7630
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?a

Nice sources.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

its a simulation because its not real, this is going back to earlier statements, how does a realistic looking game make people want to commit murder?

Even so, you give games too much credit in terms of realism, graphics nowadays are very pretty and stuff, but they yet to reach a level where they can truly simulate real life murder.

They actually do a pretty good job of the simulation.

@ first paragraph

Because it's like watching someone commit murder. Going back to my very first point, if you watch something over and over again, you're going to try and do it.

http://www.focusas.com/Gangs.html
http://www.whyguides.com/why-do-people-join-gangs.html
http://alexandriava.gov/courtservice/info/default.aspx?id=7630
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=71e1c80cb69b2e741167c3a0709c9ec1

i am going to take parts from the first and last links specifically because they sum up what i want to say the best

first article:

"Some of the reasons for joining a gang may include:

* A search for love, structure, and discipline
* A sense of belonging and commitment
* The need for recognition and power
* Companionship, training, excitement, and activities
* A sense of self-worth and status
* A place of acceptance
* The need for physical safety and protection
* A family tradition"

If you try to find common factors of each listed reason, you will notice all of these things are provided by even the most average familes, a lot of these reasons have to do with attention, feeling wanted, feeling safe, having something do to in life, things a family will naturally provide if it isn't broken.

fourth article:
"A lot of times when a kid’s family is messed up, they end up spending more time on the streets, and the gang becomes like their second family."

Sure, not every gang member may come from a broken family, there are a very small amount that may just want what seems to be like easy money, buts thats only a small percentage of newly joining gang members.

Those articles provide no evidence (sans the 4th article, and single stories don't help much). They're also applying stereotypes.

 

[Dabuz]

They actually do a pretty good job of the simulation.

@ first paragraph

Because it's like watching someone commit murder. Going back to my very first point, if you watch something over and over again, you're going to try and do it.

Then, we could just restart the entire argument with me saying killing in game is only just a combination of button presses, and games are not perfectly simulating murder and ect. which would be pointless

still looking for an answer to this question: how does a realistic looking game make people want to commit murder?

Those articles provide no evidence (sans the 4th article, and single stories don't help much). They're also applying stereotypes.

Actually, they do, the articles all provide reoccurring reasons for joining a gang, you have to keep in mind, i only found 1 story because other stories i could find (and will, if need be) are all very similar, heck, i took a criminal justice class in high school last year, and throughout the class, we watched multiple videos where real gang and ex-gang members told their stories for joining the gang/ what happened/ ect. The reasons listed in the articles were the same as what the people being interviewed were saying, only the actual story details were different, and not every gang member had all those reasons .


Also, we have kind of detracted from how gangs correlate with game violence, since now we are just discussing why people join gangs in the first place, which could be another debate in its own right. Lets try to bring back the focus or drop this specific topic

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Then, we could just restart the entire argument with me saying killing in game is only just a combination of button presses, and games are not perfectly simulating murder and ect. which would be pointless

Sheesh, this point debate is 100% opinionated. Let's drop it, shall we?

still looking for an answer to this question: how does a realistic looking game make people want to commit murder?

Read my second paragraph in my last post.

Actually, they do, the articles all provide reoccurring reasons for joining a gang, you have to keep in mind, i only found 1 story because other stories i could find (and will, if need be) are all very similar, heck, i took a criminal justice class in high school last year, and throughout the class, we watched multiple videos where real gang and ex-gang members told their stories for joining the gang/ what happened/ ect. The reasons listed in the articles were the same as what the people being interviewed were saying, only the actual story details were different, and not every gang member had all those reasons .

Links or it didn't happen.

Also, we have kind of detracted from how gangs correlate with game violence, since now we are just discussing why people join gangs in the first place, which could be another debate in its own right. Lets try to bring back the focus or drop this specific topic

Okay.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Sure. TOS do you think affirmative action is good or bad?

.....?

I'm sorry, I don't know how to truely respond to your topic. Any chance we can go down a level into an easier topic?

I know this kills my chances to enter the DH, maybe im not ready.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

.....?

I'm sorry, I don't know how to truely respond to your topic. Any chance we can go down a level into an easier topic?

I know this kills my chances to enter the DH, maybe im not ready.

Cheer up! You may not be ready now, but I am sure with more practice you can enter the debate hall, just have faith and logical evidence !

Tip: Reading some of the threads in the archive is a good way to learn more and improve your debating format. It helped me some.

 

[Evil Eye]

Resilience is certainly key. Dragoon and the Saget were Proving Grounders so long they were practically an institution. I felt bad continually saying they needed to improve, but, well, they did need to. And they did improve. And now they have pink names.

I think you need to do some reading, though. I'm not sure I can even think of a "strictly easier" debate topic than affirmative action.

By the way, I just wanted to post and request that people stay out of Center Stage debates that they're not presently engaged in. I saw someone do that a couple pages ago, and yeah. It doesn't help anything, it just muddies the water.

If you feel so incensed by something you see that you must butt in, make a DH topic about it

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

@Acrostic

Do you think Tax Cuts will prove better for Politicians Than for Economy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?_r=1&ref=politics

With Congressional midterm elections looming, the financial debate in Washington this fall will probably be consumed by one incendiary and expensive issue: whether, and how, to extend the multitrillion-dollar Bush tax cuts.

President Obama is advocating a mixed bag of tax proposals. He wants to extend the cuts for all but the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and offer businesses hundreds of billions in breaks and write-offs intended to encourage investment and hiring.

Republicans, and a few Democrats, assert that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, warning that a tax increase right now, even if limited to the highest income bracket, would hurt small businesses and choke off an economic recovery that is already gasping.

Tax cuts for the wealthy are the least effective of all, since they are the people most likely to save, not spend. Better options include direct payments to Social Security recipients or the unemployed, or offering a payroll tax “holiday,” but those options sound more like a stimulus—and no politician wants to mention that word right now. The tax cut decision will have more of an impact on the deficit, experts say, than on unemployment or the struggling economy.

I'm looking to debate that it will be better for Politicians then the Economy.

 

[Dabuz]

Sheesh, this point debate is 100% opinionated. Let's drop it, shall we?

well, a debate is obviously opinionated, you can't debate something if it were only pure facts...i can't tell if your be sarcastic, but if not...ok

Read my second paragraph in my last post.

That just brings the debate back to point one

Links or it didn't happen.

Debate is apparently over...does not matter

Okay.

 

[Sucumbio]

no sigs please...

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

well, a debate is obviously opinionated, you can't debate something if it were only pure facts...i can't tell if your be sarcastic, but if not...ok

It's at least supposed to have facts.

BTW I changed my mind. Keep debating like we just were.

That just brings the debate back to point one[/FONT][/COLOR]

Mmk. Are today's graphics 8-Bit? No. These are full 3-D models with detailed textures we're talking about.

Debate is apparently over...does not matter

Nope. Show me the links.

Scratch what I said before about changing topics.

 

[Dabuz]

It's at least supposed to have facts.

BTW I changed my mind. Keep debating like we just were.

Gotcha.

Mmk. Are today's graphics 8-Bit? No. These are full 3-D models with detailed textures we're talking about.

Pull up a game that you feel perfectly simulates violence please instead of just mentioning Graphics a lot, because otherwise we get no where.

Nope. Show me the links.

Scratch what I said before about changing topics.

Talking about gangs is irrelevant at this point so i will not waste time and effort.

 

[Sucumbio]

that means you dabuz

 

[Dabuz]

i didn't edit my user cp to turn sigs off till after that last post xD

 

[Sucumbio]

lol ok

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You know what, dabuz? You win. Everyone says I'm getting steamrolled, and I've been playing DA this whole time.

GGs.

 

[Dabuz]

DA...? Also, its ok, i understand it must be hard to debate something you don't agree with.

P.S. There were a few things you never mentioned which could of gave you a very good argument(Columbine High School, how TV can be blamed for violence and games are a median similar to TV, being rewarded for being violent in games)

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

You know what, dabuz? You win. Everyone says I'm getting steamrolled, and I've been playing DA this whole time.

GGs.

While this was a great debate, Idk if I would say you got, "steamrolled", but rather, about even.

 

[Sieguest]

DA...?

Devil's Advocate.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@Acrostic
Do you think Tax Cuts will prove better for Politicians Than for Economy?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?_r=1&ref=politics
I'm looking to debate that it will be better for Politicians then the Economy.

Hey. TOS, just an update (I believe I posted on your wall) but I won't be able to really discuss this topic now until Saturday/Sunday. If anyone else wants to pick this topic up, then I would greatly appreciate it. Sorry TOS. I'm just really too busy at the moment. I don't mind debating it though. It's just that you're going to have to wait and someone else who wants to immediately conduct the 1 vs 1 can do so without making you wait a couple of days (if they so choose).

 

[Sieguest]

@Acrostic

Do you think Tax Cuts will prove better for Politicians Than for Economy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?_r=1&ref=politics





I'm looking to debate that it will be better for Politicians then the Economy.

So Acrostic is going to be extremely busy, so I'll fill in until he/she returns.

I've never really considered a stance on this before so this should be an experience for me. But I guess I'm forced to take the stance that Tax Cuts will be better for the economy.

I'll start off with the simple principle that if everyone gets tax cuts this:
A. Leaves consumers with more money, therefore more purchasing power.
B. Leaves businesses with more money, allowing for them to operate closer to PPF.

Something I want to make clear
PPF- Production Possibilities Frontier: In simple terms, a firm is using all the resources available to it.

With consumers having more money with which to spend, this is potentially more money flowing into the product market and with businesses having more money this is potentially more money into the resource market. This is a big part in what gets an economy flowing.

Also, even if politicians ended up with more money out of the tax cuts, don't they as consumers themselves still buy products from business. With this in mind, where ever this goes it still ends up moving into circulation, it's just a matter of it either starting in the product or resource market.

The downside we have from tax cuts is lowered government revenue, which could lead to reduction of weakening of some of the safety nets the government provides for the economy.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

A. Leaves consumers with more money, therefore more purchasing power.

So, if consumers have more money, what is going to stop the sellers from raising the prices? It would just be back to where we started.

 

[Sieguest]

So, if consumers have more money, what is going to stop the sellers from raising the prices? It would just be back to where we started.

Sellers will raise prices when the value of the product goes up, not just because people have more money to spend.

The amount of product sellers have out for consumer purchase affect seller's prices as well as competition from other firms. If firms have a lot of a product offered for sale, they can't have the prices too high or they'll end up with a surplus. And it's not always in best business sense to have too few of a product out either, though they could bump up the price, they won't meet all of demand (a shortage) and in the end it could actually have made less money than they would've if they had gone with a larger amount. Businesses look to produce the right amount of product to meet demand and to have at the right price. The presence of other firms and the substitution effect is also a controlling factor of how firms put out their prices. The idea of diminishing marginal utility is also another factor that will actually cause companies to lower prices as their product is bought, and with the consumer still having more money than they used too, this adds more to consumer purchasing power.

So no, we wouldn't be right back where we started.

More definitions:
substitution effect: Considering consumer income is not changed, consumers will opt for a cheaper substitute of a product. (Example: You buying the H.E.B. brand bleach instead of buying Clorox.)

Diminishing Marginal Utility: As consumers buy more and more of a product, the utility or satisfaction they receive from the product begins to diminish.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Sellers will raise prices when the value of the product goes up, not just because people have more money to spend.

Maybe as far as bigger corporations. Theoretically, this is true, but for small business men, maybe like, a local barbershop, for instance, I guarantee they would raise the prices if they knew that (every) customer(s) had more money. Atleast, I would...

 

[Sieguest]

Maybe as far as bigger corporations. Theoretically, this is true, but for small business men, maybe like, a local barbershop, for instance, I guarantee they would raise the prices if they knew that (every) customer(s) had more money. Atleast, I would...

Incorrect. Everything I've just posted is supply and demand, which is a big concept in microeconomics.

 

[Rizen]

Natural laws vs freewill must be over. ?

 

[Sieguest]

Natural laws vs freewill must be over. ?

I don't remember it ever starting in here. BOB SAGET! all ready had his 1v1 with Dre. concerning it in a different thread.

If you were talking about the whole spiel we were doing, I didn't really think of in terms of it being a debate which is why I just let it drop. If you do want carry through with what we were talking about it then I'll gladly pull back up what we were talking about and give you a response later today.

 

[Rizen]

^No thanks. It wasn't really a debate. The closest thing to a debate was if the subject was a debate or not. I just wanted closure.

I'll debate something else.

Edit: I don't appreciate you calling it a spiel. I supported my case that the topic was subjective, couldn't be proven either way, and not limited to the two way criteria. You disappeared without a word.

 

[Sieguest]

^No thanks. It wasn't really a debate. The closest thing to a debate was if the subject was a debate or not. I just wanted closure.

I'll debate something else.

Edit: I don't appreciate you calling it a spiel. I supported my case that the topic was subjective, couldn't be proven either way, and not limited to the two way criteria. You disappeared without a word.

Mmk
Though I don't see what problem you have with me calling it a spiel. I don't really mean anything negative by the use of the word. <_< But for the sake of not being insensitive can we agree to call it a conversation?

I disappeared without word because school started and I became busy. >_>

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

its going to be a bit before i can respond. School work is catching up on me.

But if people have more money, they are defidently going to want to spend it. Money leads to Greed. When they have money and start spending, product demand will go up.

 

[Sieguest]

its going to be a bit before i can respond. School work is catching up on me.

Fair enough, I know exactly how you feel. x.x

But if people have more money, they are defidently going to want to spend it. Money leads to Greed. When they have money and start spending, product demand will go up.

You've no way to prove the blanket statement you just made. You can't assume intent.

Quantity demanded of a product is not proportional to people having more money. That's just ignoring all the other factors you have to account for when determining demand for a product.

Demand is The desire, ability, and willingness to purchase a product. Just because someone has the money to buy something, doesn't mean they will.