Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

“Large” Restaurant Customers need special accommodation?

189101214

Replies

  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    Though costly it might be to a restaurants advantage to modify their seating. Just take a look at statistics...there are far more people that are overweight and obese than there are "normal" weight...whatever normal is?

    Wow!! If those statistics are true, when did we reach that stage, and why??
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,273 Member
    TonyB0588 wrote: »
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    Though costly it might be to a restaurants advantage to modify their seating. Just take a look at statistics...there are far more people that are overweight and obese than there are "normal" weight...whatever normal is?

    Wow!! If those statistics are true, when did we reach that stage, and why??

    Yes the stats are true, in 2016 71% of US population was overweight or obese. It was somewhere before 1988 when less than 50% of the population was overweight or obese.

    jrn2ovoffer5.png

    Looks like went past 50% somewhere in the 1980's

    8eucytimlg67.png

    2rexlzhjcnkb.png

    https://infogram.com/us-adult-obesity-rates-since-1960-1gzxop49on65mwy
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,904 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.

    Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.

    One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.

    We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.

    I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.

    Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?

    I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.

    I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.

    We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...

    So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.

    First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.

    It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.

    My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.

    I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.

    I agree with everything you said.

    To be clear, I'm not telling restaurants what they should and shouldn't do - if providing more comfortable chairs for overweight people makes good business sense, then I wouldn't stop them from doing it. If they decide that offering huge portions and increasing the salt/sugar/fat content of their food will increase sales, then they have the right to do so as long as they are transparent about it.

    My angle concerns the larger societal implications of institutionalizing food addiction by modifying menus and rearranging public accommodations to enable dysfunctional and self-destructive eating habits. You can make a case that it is profiting from the misery of others. Yes, eating yourself to the point where you can no longer comfortably fit on standard furniture is a miserable situation to be in, no matter how you frame it.
    That's well said Bry. I've never been obese, so granted my view is probably a bit different than someone who has, but that said, I think we're largely on the same page here.

    Pure anecdote incoming - but I think it fits here. My dad's long time doctor threw him out of his office the last time they met due to dad's refusal to take care of himself. For context, it had been about 25 years of doc/patient relationship to get to this point. Right or wrong, I (and brothers/mom) all took the docs side.
  • h7463
    h7463 Posts: 626 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.

    Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.

    One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.

    We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.

    I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.

    Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?

    I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.

    I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.

    We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...

    So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.

    First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.

    It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.

    My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.

    I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.

    I agree with everything you said.

    To be clear, I'm not telling restaurants what they should and shouldn't do - if providing more comfortable chairs for overweight people makes good business sense, then I wouldn't stop them from doing it. If they decide that offering huge portions and increasing the salt/sugar/fat content of their food will increase sales, then they have the right to do so as long as they are transparent about it.

    My angle concerns the larger societal implications of institutionalizing food addiction by modifying menus and rearranging public accommodations to enable dysfunctional and self-destructive eating habits. You can make a case that it is profiting from the misery of others. Yes, eating yourself to the point where you can no longer comfortably fit on standard furniture is a miserable situation to be in, no matter how you frame it.
    That's well said Bry. I've never been obese, so granted my view is probably a bit different than someone who has, but that said, I think we're largely on the same page here.

    Pure anecdote incoming - but I think it fits here. My dad's long time doctor threw him out of his office the last time they met due to dad's refusal to take care of himself. For context, it had been about 25 years of doc/patient relationship to get to this point. Right or wrong, I (and brothers/mom) all took the docs side.

    On the bold part of the quote...
    If this was a permanent decision, for a doctor, I find it a bad move. While I can understand the frustration that the doc might have had on a personal level, regarding your dad, and considering their long-term relationship, he better be the good example, doing jumping jacks from room to room, when he sees his patients. His staff and he better all be at a healthy BMI themselves, too...
    Around here, all the people involved in healthcare on any level, are just a part of the average big population, and when it comes to giving advise about nutrition and overall healthy lifestyle, they mostly don't have a leg to stand on...much less should throw patients out of the office...IMO
  • RivenV
    RivenV Posts: 1,667 Member
    RivenV wrote: »
    RivenV wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.

    etc.

    Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...

    I admit that I also would find it offensive, but apparently not everyone does. Offense is very subjective. And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?

    Not trying to start a fight but trying to highlight that different cultures have different approaches to obesity and how to help. And maybe a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't truly fit all. Perhaps, as you say, this approach is counterproductive for "the vast majority of people," but at least a few people have piped up in this thread that would indicate this style of approach wasn't counterproductive to them.

    People are individuals and they're motivated by a wide variety of things. I also was larger as a kid and caught a good amount of flak for it from my father, who had always been athletic and in shape, so I do relate to your experience, there. His very direct approach felt unkind to me, at the time. Also like you, I wanted to find my own solution. Once I did, he was one of my biggest cheerleaders in my attempts to lose weight, but some people really do respond to a direct approach.

    Other cultures have different approaches to obesity, but this culture has its own. Some cultures have arranged marriages, but that doesn't work here. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but once you start down a path you can't just teleport to a different one.

    Well, our culture isn't exactly knocking it out of the park in the battle against obesity, is it? (Nor has it been since the food pyramid was introduced through much government lobbying, despite the rising levels of obesity being the main reason for the food pyramid to begin with.)

    Love the mish-mash of idioms, though. "There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but you don't change knives mid-skin," might be more consistent. ... Please don't skin cats, though. Culturally that's frowned upon here ;)

    30,000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents. There's a lot of things we're not doing a great job on, but I don't see threads here about how people need to be made aware of their hazardous lifestyle every time they get behind the wheel.

    I'm guessing you don't think it would be appropriate to tell every driver you see that they could run over a child or hit a deer, and they should really be using a form of transportation that's safer and less polluting. What it is about obesity that makes this ok?

    I'm not sure I even understand what you're asking me here.

    Of course... there aren't threads like that...here...? This is a fitness site?

    Maybe you didn't notice, but I'm also not one of the people who thought that it would be good for a restaurant not to increase their seating, citing social pressure and/or encouraging people to lose weight by making them uncomfortable in public.

    So. What are you asking me, if you're asking me anything, at all?
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,904 Member
    h7463 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.

    Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.

    One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.

    We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.

    I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.

    Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?

    I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.

    I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.

    We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...

    So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.

    First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.

    It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.

    My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.

    I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.

    I agree with everything you said.

    To be clear, I'm not telling restaurants what they should and shouldn't do - if providing more comfortable chairs for overweight people makes good business sense, then I wouldn't stop them from doing it. If they decide that offering huge portions and increasing the salt/sugar/fat content of their food will increase sales, then they have the right to do so as long as they are transparent about it.

    My angle concerns the larger societal implications of institutionalizing food addiction by modifying menus and rearranging public accommodations to enable dysfunctional and self-destructive eating habits. You can make a case that it is profiting from the misery of others. Yes, eating yourself to the point where you can no longer comfortably fit on standard furniture is a miserable situation to be in, no matter how you frame it.
    That's well said Bry. I've never been obese, so granted my view is probably a bit different than someone who has, but that said, I think we're largely on the same page here.

    Pure anecdote incoming - but I think it fits here. My dad's long time doctor threw him out of his office the last time they met due to dad's refusal to take care of himself. For context, it had been about 25 years of doc/patient relationship to get to this point. Right or wrong, I (and brothers/mom) all took the docs side.

    On the bold part of the quote...
    If this was a permanent decision, for a doctor, I find it a bad move. While I can understand the frustration that the doc might have had on a personal level, regarding your dad, and considering their long-term relationship, he better be the good example, doing jumping jacks from room to room, when he sees his patients. His staff and he better all be at a healthy BMI themselves, too...
    Around here, all the people involved in healthcare on any level, are just a part of the average big population, and when it comes to giving advise about nutrition and overall healthy lifestyle, they mostly don't have a leg to stand on...much less should throw patients out of the office...IMO

    Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. Dad was a classic blamer though, all doc's/mom's/everyone elses fault why he couldn't lose weight and was getting ill. Doc C. was a rabid fitness nut and just ran out of patience. Like I said, for right or wrong...but I understand why he did it.