Turn on thread page Beta

The "River of blood" documentary. Thoughts about Enoch Powell? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    absolutely gutted i missed this. Might youtube it....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. After all, we generally call ourselves civilised because we are relatively humanitarian - hence such things as taking asylum seekers, which has no clear and immediate benefit to Britain itself.
    If the government is not there to serve the people then why should anybody give the government taxes, fight its wars etc. In your view who is the state ultimately responsible to?

    My view is that the state will sometimes do seemingly benevolent things because it is the will of the people and it does these things in the name of the people.

    The concept that the state should be ambivolent to the needs of its citizens and answerable to some higher morality (to become 'civilized') has been tried before in this country and it lead to despotic monarchies who ultimately abused their power.

    I think it goes without saying that many immoral actions have been perpitrated by the desire to make people 'civilized'.

    There is no reason why morality can't come from the bottom up rather than the top down. As I am right wing in my politics I believe the more power people have over their own lives the better for all concerned. Nowhere can this be more inportant than the soverign power they have over their own government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    To briefly reply to your post I think we're just going to get bogged down in semantics. You could describe the situation before the Race Relations Act as 'apartheid' or 'segration' but it's not like with like is it? It doesn't compare with the scale and extent of South Africa and the USA but the principles are still the same. Just as those two descriptions are almost hyperbolic I think 'slavery' exaggerates what your trying to describe.

    Yes the landlord might have to make a reluctant decision but nothing concrete was imposed on him in any way, shape or form. He could have exploited loop holes just as White Americans did with the Housing Acts etc. Here I would bring up morality again and that the need to cushion the 'plight' of the ethnic man was more justified than accomodating the racism of white employers. Ultimately the Act was not exactly world shattering was it? You agree that every ethnic man did not get a job or house after the Act and nor did every white employer have to employ and ethnic person. It was a progression to achieving equality but it not force it.

    It be interested in your views towards equality with women because thats the same issue just along gender lines.

    Lastly I meant neccesary on the part of the State. I'm sure you agree that the State much exercise some degree of social responsibility and in this case it was being responsible to the ethnic groups in the country.
    inideed, it was 'a progreesion to achieving equality'. 'Lib' appears to have issues with that! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jibzy)
    sorry, but i feel that you are taking a narrow perspective of things here. it's not a case of forcing employers/people against their will, it's a case of ethics and justice.
    What you think it is 'a case of' is irrelevant, what is impossible to deny is that force was the foundation of these measures.

    there is no justification whatsoever for discriminating on the basis of colour.
    I didn't say there was.

    i dont care if it means denying employers their so called 'right'. that is trivial.
    That is fascism.

    Listen to what 'Lord Helstine' said. he admitted the injustice that was prevalent at the time. you appear to be turning a blind eye on this and simply hiding behind the defence of 'rights' of employers. The race relations act was right in trying to address the injustices.
    Solving a problem does not mean one has to resort to force. That's child's logic, and easily dismissed. Indeed, in many cases, I think it actually prolongs many problems to attempt to solve them in this way.

    I am under no illusions about the state of race relations back then - however I am not of the opinion that people should be forced to like and serve others. While I don't like racists, at least they are not forcing their opinions of what is right upon others, which is what you are doing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    To briefly reply to your post I think we're just going to get bogged down in semantics. You could describe the situation before the Race Relations Act as 'apartheid' or 'segration' but it's not like with like is it?
    No, apartheid is state endorse segregation. This may have been segregation, yes, but that's not an inherently bad thing. If people want to segregate, I have no problem with that.

    Yes the landlord might have to make a reluctant decision but nothing concrete was imposed on him in any way, shape or form. He could have exploited loop holes just as White Americans did with the Housing Acts etc.
    So your idea is that the law isn't the law if most people can weasel out of it? I wonder how that applies to other crimes: how about rape? After all, only 5% or something or reported rapes (God only knows what the statistics are for unreported ones) result in a conviction - does that suddenly mean that the crime of rape does not have the force of law?

    Here I would bring up morality again and that the need to cushion the 'plight' of the ethnic man was more justified than accomodating the racism of white employers.
    That's not morality, that's simply a weighing of benefits. It is a mark of someone who is moral to be able to take a morally right choice even when it leads to negative consequences, yet you seem to reject this idea out of hand.

    Ultimately the Act was not exactly world shattering was it? You agree that every ethnic man did not get a job or house after the Act and nor did every white employer have to employ and ethnic person. It was a progression to achieving equality but it not force it.
    The extent of the Act doesn't bother me. If one illegitimate use of force is made by the state, then that's enough for me to protest against it.

    Yes, its consequences were not earth shattering, but I think the moral statement that human beings can be enslaved for the good of the Nation or other, and that individual property rights and the right to withhold one's labour only exist so long as it serves the whim of the state is very much earth shattering.

    It be interested in your views towards equality with women because thats the same issue just along gender lines.
    I imagine it's broadly the same. You see, I don't much bother about whether it's a woman, or an ethnic minority etc claiming these rights, what bothers me is the state forcing them upon individuals.

    Lastly I meant neccesary on the part of the State. I'm sure you agree that the State much exercise some degree of social responsibility and in this case it was being responsible to the ethnic groups in the country.
    Being reasonable and necessary are two entirely different things. The country would've ticked along without any 'earth shattering' consequences without this Act.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jibzy)
    inideed, it was 'a progreesion to achieving equality'. 'Lib' appears to have issues with that! :rolleyes:
    I think the flaw in Lib's arguments is that he does not believe in the concept of the nation state.

    We allow employers to profit from our citizens on the basis that it is in the intersets of society.

    Persuing a racially motivated recrutement policy is not in the interests on society and is therefore not allowed.

    Because some actions cause externalities (negative consiquences not borne by the perpitrator), freedoms must come with inherant responsabilities. Not racially discriminating is simply one of those responsabilities.

    If a businessman does not like the regulations imposed upon him he ultimately has the option of not doing business here.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jibzy)
    inideed, it was 'a progreesion to achieving equality'. 'Lib' appears to have issues with that! :rolleyes:
    No, I am fine with progressing towards equality - and to be frank, suggesting I am not is completely disingenuous, insulting and infantile rubbish - however I disagree with people being forced to provide services and labour against their will.

    If someone objects to slavery being used to build the Pyramids, I would not be so stupid as to retort that they 'appear to have issues' with the creation of good architecture.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theinternetneverlies)
    If the government is not there to serve the people then why should anybody give the government taxes, fight its wars etc. In your view who is the state ultimately responsible to?
    God. I remind you our national motto is Dieu et mon Droit, which emphasises this.

    In a more modern and somewhat more secular context, I of course mean that a state is chiefly responsible to uphold morality. Simple Utilitarianism is hardly the way to run a state.

    In the context of this, the state has a moral duty to be good and decent towards every human being, British or not, just as I believe every human being has this moral duty.

    In answer to your first question - if this is the case, why have a government at all? Why not simply employ someone to do these things for you? The state exists, and uses force, because it is more than a servant: it is charged with its own duties.

    The concept that the state should be ambivolent to the needs of its citizens and answerable to some higher morality (to become 'civilized') has been tried before in this country and it lead to despotic monarchies who ultimately abused their power.
    Democracy is a good check on power; it is however a poor master. If we go down this avenue, we open the door to all sorts of abuses in the name of 'serving' the many.

    Also, I remind you that 'the people' are generally not all that moral. I have no doubt that the masses would happily sell everything this country is supposed to stand for in exchange for some cheap, short-term advantages. Which is why I believe in a parliament of relatively wise, decent and learned people to govern us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theinternetneverlies)
    We allow employers to profit from our citizens on the basis that it is in the intersets of society.
    I think the problem here is that you don't believe in individual liberty. You have basically stated that every person in this country is a slave of the state that is effectively let out to some, on certain conditions, simply to better bring about the ends of the state.

    That's a revolting view.

    Persuing a racially motivated recrutement policy is not in the interests on society and is therefore not allowed.
    Neither is sitting on TSR; however I don't advocate you should be dragged off to a labour camp in order to better serve this 'society' of yours.

    Because some actions cause externalities (negative consiquences not borne by the perpitrator), freedoms must come with inherant responsabilities. Not racially discriminating is simply one of those responsabilities.
    These consequences have nothing to do with the individual. Simply because something happens as a result of something I do does not mean I should be condemned for it.

    It's rather like trying me for murder if somehow I wait in a queue for too long and, as a result, someone is late for an appointment, rushes out into the road and gets run over by a car.

    If a businessman does not like the regulations imposed upon him he ultimately has the option of not doing business here.
    No; just as individuals are not slaves of the state, this country is not the property of the state.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    What you think it is 'a case of' is irrelevant, what is impossible to deny is that force was the foundation of these measures.



    I didn't say there was.



    That is fascism.



    Solving a problem does not mean one has to resort to force. That's child's logic, and easily dismissed. Indeed, in many cases, I think it actually prolongs many problems to attempt to solve them in this way.

    I am under no illusions about the state of race relations back then - however I am not of the opinion that people should be forced to like and serve others. While I don't like racists, at least they are not forcing their opinions of what is right upon others, which is what you are doing.
    I am not trying to impose my opinion of what is right upon you. that wasnt my intention.
    and i dont believe that the race relations act was carried out in a forceful manner in the way that you think. something needed to be done. ok, what would have been your solution? you still hang on to the case that there is some sort of slavery of employers brought about by the Governnment's legistlation. well people of colour too were being denied their own rights as well, by being discriminated against. the race relations act has in no way affected employersin a negative way; it has only made the system fairer. employers are not obliged to hire someone who lacks the competence regardless of colour. if a coloured person is highly qualified and competent, he/she deserves to get the job. this is what the equality legistlation has helped engender. the employers should know the right thing to do or infact, even if they are 'bussiness minded', all they should care about is recruiting the 'best people' for the job? bt no, it appears that back then, all they cared about was maintaining a clique of white recruits. if the race relations act sought to address this, then i have no problems with it!
    Allow me to quote a staunch Libertarian, by the name of John Stuart Mill, whom iv always held in high regard- "All that makes existence valuable to any one depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people".
    personally i feel this applies quite well to this scenario. without the race relations legistlation, the individual rights, namely the coloured, would have been denied further. Even Mill would have argued that in some cases it is justified for there to be enforcement of restraints in order to protect the individual (whom i would interprete as the 'minority'). so would you have called Mill a Fascist?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, I am fine with progressing towards equality - and to be frank, suggesting I am not is completely disingenuous, insulting and infantile rubbish - however I disagree with people being forced to provide services and labour against their will.

    If someone objects to slavery being used to build the Pyramids, I would not be so stupid as to retort that they 'appear to have issues' with the creation of good architecture.
    Ahah! now this is the issue i have with you. you are simply latching on to this idea that people are being forced to provide services and labour against their will. this implies that you are in support of someone's personal prejudices having a bearing over who they employ? that is not right. the role of the Government is to curtail the actions of individuals that are damaging to the well-being of others. again i see no problem with this. from the way Lord Helstine was talking, the employers had personal prejudices which they excercised during recruitment and selection. this is the issue! if forcing employers to do the 'right thing' is the ultimate aim, then what is wrong with that? this is why there is a Government. society needs to be regulated to prevent the evils from engulfing it!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jibzy)
    I am not trying to impose my opinion of what is right upon you. that wasnt my intention. and i dont believe that the race relations act was carried out in a forceful manner in the way that you think.
    For something that doesn't come with a threat of force, there are a hell of a lot of provisions about 'enforcement' that certainly do seem to involve that threat.

    This is simply imposing your will on others.

    something needed to be done. ok, what would have been your solution?
    Anything that did not involve this. I am no government policy maker, nor am I possessed with the full facts of the situation, but I am aware where morals have been violated

    you still hang on to the case that there is some sort of slavery of employers brought about by the Governnment's legistlation. well people of colour too were being denied their own rights as well, by being discriminated against.
    You do not have some moral right to a job or someone else's property. Someone's refusal to give you either is not a violation of any moral right.

    the race relations act has in no way affected employersin a negative way; it has only made the system fairer.
    I think that is negative. Implying someone must do something fairly is just as bad as forcing them to do something unfairly - the central component of it being the removal of free will.

    the employers should know the right thing to do or infact, even if they are 'bussiness minded', all they should care about is recruiting the 'best people' for the job? bt no
    There's no moral obligation upon someone who sells something or offers a service to do it in some sort of businesslike way. People have many different motivations for doing certain things.

    Allow me to quote a staunch Libertarian, by the name of John Stuart Mill, whom iv always held in high regard- "All that makes existence valuable to any one depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people".
    personally i feel this applies quite well to this scenario. without the race relations legistlation, the individual rights, namely the coloured, would have been denied further. Even Mill would have argued that in some cases it is justified for there to be enforcement of restraints in order to protect the individual (whom i would interprete as the 'minority'). so would you have called Mill a Fascist?
    Mill did not come from the same camp of Libertarianism as I, but still I defend his views in this context. He believed in a restraint on certain actions - good on his, it's the difference between a Libertarian and and Anarchist - however the quote you offer does not contain what he believed those actions meriting restraint should be.

    So no, you're not of the same view as him. An endorsement of restraints does not mean an endorsement of every restraint.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    God. I remind you our national motto is Dieu et mon Droit, which emphasises this.
    This is the motto of the monarchy (I think) and we are governed by a parliamentary democracy. Anyways, I don't agree with it.

    In the context of this, the state has a moral duty to be good and decent towards every human being, British or not, just as I believe every human being has this moral duty.
    If every human being already accepts his/her moral duty, and the state represents the people, then why can't the state gain its morality from the bottom up?

    The state exists, and uses force, because it is more than a servant: it is charged with its own duties.
    The state uses the force bestowed upon it by the people it represents. If it is to use this force for 'its own duties' then doesn't this compromise the freedom of the people it governs?

    Also, I remind you that 'the people' are generally not all that moral. I have no doubt that the masses would happily sell everything this country is supposed to stand for in exchange for some cheap, short-term advantages. Which is why I believe in a parliament of relatively wise, decent and learned people to govern us.
    Perhaps. But that's why we have the House of Lords, and if a society becomes too immoral, that's to say if people take advantage of its freedoms, then I believe it will go the way of Rome because it will no longer inspire the loyalty of the people it governs. And ofcourse, without the support of the people it will no longer have the force to impose its will.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jibzy)
    Ahah! now this is the issue i have with you. you are simply latching on to this idea that people are being forced to provide services and labour against their will. this implies that you are in support of someone's personal prejudices having a bearing over who they employ?
    Not at all. I don't support people joining, say, the Scottish National Party - but I support their right to do so as part of a wider scheme of liberty.

    The fact that I don't want to prohibit something by force certainly does not mean I endorse it. In fact, it is within the very nature of the idea of rights that someone should be free to use them in ways I don't approve of and that are at odds with the interests of society.

    Very few people endorse extra-marital affairs, but very few believe we should return to the days of criminalising adultery. Herein lies the difference between a 'right' and a 'good'.

    that is not right. the role of the Government is to curtail the actions of individuals that are damaging to the well-being of others.
    If the government were to insist that we were to all function, at all times, in the interests of this greater society, rather than for ourselves, then we certainly would be slaves, and I would probably hang myself.

    Can you justify every single action you took last week in terms of being positive for society? I doubt it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theinternetneverlies)
    If every human being already accepts his/her moral duty, and the state represents the people, then why can't the state gain its morality from the bottom up?
    Quite simply because they don't, individually. If they did, we wouldn't need a government at all, and we could all live in some peaceful hippy commune.

    The state uses the force bestowed upon it by the people it represents. If it is to use this force for 'its own duties' then doesn't this compromise the freedom of the people it governs?
    The state does not take the right of force from the people it represents. If it did, then it could never use it - force used is against the will of the victim; yet you are suggesting this victim gave the right to use that force against him? I think he'd tend to disagree.

    I think the state, and by extension individuals, have the right to use force in certain circumstances. I don't believe it is given, I believe it is inherent to our positions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think you've misread my arguements

    (Original post by L i b)
    No, apartheid is state endorse segregation. This may have been segregation, yes, but that's not an inherently bad thing. If people want to segregate, I have no problem with that.

    Firstly the whole point about me raising 'apartheid' and 'segregation' was because I think that they are inaccurate labels to the situation just as your use of 'slavery' is abstract and I'm still not sure why you think it is slavery. Secondly - people want to segregate? Ofcourse segregation does not have to be a bad thing but in every possible example I can think of it is.

    So your idea is that the law isn't the law if most people can weasel out of it? I wonder how that applies to other crimes: how about rape? After all, only 5% or something or reported rapes (God only knows what the statistics are for unreported ones) result in a conviction - does that suddenly mean that the crime of rape does not have the force of law?

    No my argument was that the law is not absolute. Making something illegal does not stop people doing it. In this case, just because it was illegal to deny ethnic groups a service it did not mean that every white service provider was bending over backwards every time a coloured man walked through the door. You seem to think that making something illegal, a form of behavior, equates to slavery because it stops allowing people to continue with their behaviour? How can it be if people are still free to continue that act with impunity? I doubt landlords were dragged to court for turning away a black family after the Race Relations act was passed.

    That's not morality, that's simply a weighing of benefits. It is a mark of someone who is moral to be able to take a morally right choice even when it leads to negative consequences, yet you seem to reject this idea out of hand.

    What I am talking about is a moral judgement. Is retaining discriminatory freedoms more morally justified than pursuing equality? No. You champion the rights of the service provider but not the right for the ethnic group to have an equal oppurtunity to access that service. Just as the Race relation act denies a freedom your arguement denies a freedom.

    The extent of the Act doesn't bother me. If one illegitimate use of force is made by the state, then that's enough for me to protest against it.

    Yes, its consequences were not earth shattering, but I think the moral statement that human beings can be enslaved for the good of the Nation or other, and that individual property rights and the right to withhold one's labour only exist so long as it serves the whim of the state is very much earth shattering.

    I agree but I think it's taking the whole situation slightly out of context. Thats not the crux of his speech either, as you've said is the threat of immigration and the imbalance of representation, allocation of services etc. I think everyone from the perspective of the white man, the fact that he might have to take on a black tenant was further down his list of concerns than 'his women being threatened'. The landlord is still being payed after all and on top of that, the black employee he may employ will probably be prepared to work for a lower wage. I'm not endorsing that but doesn't the employer still benefit?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    [quote=L i b]God. I remind you our national motto is Dieu et mon Droit, which emphasises this.

    In a more modern and somewhat more secular context, I of course mean that a state is chiefly responsible to uphold morality. Simple Utilitarianism is hardly the way to run a state.

    In the context of this, the state has a moral duty to be good and decent towards every human being, British or not, just as I believe every human being has this moral duty.

    In answer to your first question - if this is the case, why have a government at all? Why not simply employ someone to do these things for you? The state exists, and uses force, because it is more than a servant: it is charged with its own duties.



    Democracy is a good check on power; it is however a poor master. If we go down this avenue, we open the door to all sorts of abuses in the name of 'serving' the many.

    Also, I remind you that 'the people' are generally not all that moral. I have no doubt that the masses would happily sell everything this country is supposed to stand for in exchange for some cheap, short-term advantages. Which is why I believe in a parliament of relatively wise, decent and learned people to govern us.[/quote]



    Gosh, you sound almost 'Plato' like. not that i have issues with Plato, as some of his arguments were reasonable to me in places.

    Nevertheless, i see your point which implies 'tyranny of the majority'. but werent the coloured people classified as the Minority at time? and if so, wouldnt you then have support their interests to be upheld at the expense of the 'majority'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the problem here is that you don't believe in individual liberty. You have basically stated that every person in this country is a slave of the state that is effectively let out to some, on certain conditions, simply to better bring about the ends of the state.

    That's a revolting view.
    Yes, it is. That's why I believe the state should not enslave the people, but that the people should enslave the state!

    Neither is sitting on TSR; however I don't advocate you should be dragged off to a labour camp in order to better serve this 'society' of yours.
    The difference is that by sitting on TSR I am not entering into a social contract. I am no philosopher (I study economics), and the justification given for the free market by Adam Smith is that one man serving his own needs helps serve the needs of everybody else (my 'society'). Regulations, like the Race Relations Act, merely get rid of imperfections in the system.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    Firstly the whole point about me raising 'apartheid' and 'segregation' was because I think that they are inaccurate labels to the situation just as your use of 'slavery' is abstract and I'm still not sure why you think it is slavery. Secondly - people want to segregate? Ofcourse segregation does not have to be a bad thing but in every possible example I can think of it is.
    You don't understand why someone might thing forced labour equates to slavery?

    No my argument was that the law is not absolute. Making something illegal does not stop people doing it. In this case, just because it was illegal to deny ethnic groups a service it did not mean that every white service provider was bending over backwards every time a coloured man walked through the door. You seem to think that making something illegal, a form of behavior, equates to slavery because it stops allowing people to continue with their behaviour? How can it be if people are still free to continue that act with impunity? I doubt landlords were dragged to court for turning away a black family after the Race Relations act was passed.
    Because, even if the force of the law is not brought about, the threat of it has a corrupting influence upon free will. Equally if someone said to me 'don't do that or there is a 25% chance I'll shoot you', the possibility of getting shot would be very much in my considerations, even if it was statistically unlikely to happen.

    Free will and consent cannot exist where someone has a metaphorical gun to your head.

    What I am talking about is a moral judgement. Is retaining discriminatory freedoms more morally justified than pursuing equality? No.
    Is maintaining a freedom with negative consequences where there is no protected interest of any other person being violated better than using force to allow someone's interests to be better served more moral? Yes.

    ou champion the rights of the service provider but not the right for the ethnic group to have an equal oppurtunity to access that service. Just as the Race relation act denies a freedom your arguement denies a freedom.
    It's an odd argument to suggest any freedom is at stake. Do you think you have a right to demand that someone sells you something, or does something for you, just because they did it for someone else?

    What right do you have to their legitimately held property or labour? None. Yet in the name of these ethnic groups, you demand it and threaten force to bring it about.

    I'm not endorsing that but doesn't the employer still benefit?
    This seems to suggest that you know better than an employer and can therefore force him to do something (without, in the abstract case of law, even knowing the person or anything about him). Personally, I'd have a massive objection to anything which usurped my freedom, even if it did bring about a small benefit - for example, if someone stole my money, bet it on a horse, won four times that and gave double what was stolen back to me, I'd still have cause for complaint.

    Moreover, you seem to be of the belief that there is some sort of hierarchy of desires. I agree with good old David Hume on this front that the desires of the individual are not for anyone to rate or measure. There's no logical criteria for inferring whether someone is right to want something or not, so it seems to be that your narrow concept of a centrally imposed idea of 'benefit' is illogical. Like I say, in my case (and I doubt I'm all that atypical of a normal person) I consider liberty to be a greater 'benefit' to me than anything material.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jibzy)
    Nevertheless, i see your point which implies 'tyranny of the majority'. but werent the coloured people classified as the Minority at time? and if so, wouldnt you then have support their interests to be upheld at the expense of the 'majority'?
    You kids might be interested in this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rrer=delicious
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.