|
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws. [/ QUOTE ] This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists. People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info. People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] That’s why I like the rules of my religion – love your neighbor. We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws. [/ QUOTE ] This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists. People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info. People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] That’s why I like the rules of my religion – love your neighbor. We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure muslims of various stripes like theirs, perhaps even more for some of them since they seem more willing to die for them. My point is you can't say to him "hey, that's wrong you azzhole" since you must honor his claim to knowing it's right since the premise is the same as yours. "It's in da book." luckyme |
Re: Case in Point...
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.
|
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. [/ QUOTE ] And if it is ... then it's moral, right? And who is the judge of what the correct one is? It's no different than any interpreted work, there is virtually no position that can't be supported. luckyme |
Re: Case in Point...
Hence the word "opinion".
|
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws. [/ QUOTE ] This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists. People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info. People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] A+ First chezlaw. Now you. What is the world coming to? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
Hence the word "opinion". [/ QUOTE ] So we agree. A moderate follower of any cult can't judge the morals of someone from another cult when the claim for the morality for each of them come from revealed truths and/or sacred texts. The Glass House dilemma. There is no "atheist code". Atheists are free to argue from first principles. Think about how the American underlying documents were hammered out. "is this the kind of world we want to live in".... "or this..." or. With our innate humanity as a rough guide and our millenia of experience as a fine tuner. luckyme |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that. The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on. If the meaning is actually compassionate, then torture and brutality shouldn't be used to couch that meaning. The idea of a God planting these words, knowing that some people will take them at face value, torturing, killing, and raping their neighbors, is sick. It's absurd, but it's also twisted and evil. As long as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on these texts, they will be sick, pathological religions regardless of the specific actions of their followers. An instruction manual on doing horrible things is an instruction manual on doing horrible things, even if people like to interpret it nonliterally. Those publishing the message "commit atrocities" shouldn't be let off the hook just because they intend that message to be taken with a heavy dose of special nuance. Certainly the readers can't be relied upon to apply such nuanced readings, and extremism is only intellectual honesty among those who don't understand the various technicalities that make this rule or that rule inapplicable. As long as you say that the command is God's word, it stands to reason some people will obey it at face value. The seed of the violence and hate is the text itself, even if it's a stupid interpretation of the text that results in such behavior. One thing that skeptics (if not all atheists) do believe is that everything - everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing is absolute, nothing is the ultimate reference or the ultimate authority, and therefore a single misinterpretation can't result in awful behavior. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hence the word "opinion". [/ QUOTE ] So we agree. A moderate follower of any cult can't judge the morals of someone from another cult when the claim for the morality for each of them come from revealed truths and/or sacred texts. The Glass House dilemma. There is no "atheist code". Atheists are free to argue from first principles. Think about how the American underlying documents were hammered out. "is this the kind of world we want to live in".... "or this..." or. With our innate humanity as a rough guide and our millenia of experience as a fine tuner. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Of course we agree on that point. One can only give a moral opinion and such opinion would be relative to a metric or one’s own metric. I was being facetious about the rules of atheism. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that. The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on. [/ QUOTE ] where does the koran say this? i'm not familiar w/it at all and i assumed that it was being interpreted loosely in order to justify atrocities. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
If she had followed the law she would not have been raped, except by her owner. To quote a muslim cleric "“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” the sheik told the congregation. “The uncovered meat is the problem. “If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred.” [/ QUOTE ] Cats have moral agency? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that. The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on. If the meaning is actually compassionate, then torture and brutality shouldn't be used to couch that meaning. The idea of a God planting these words, knowing that some people will take them at face value, torturing, killing, and raping their neighbors, is sick. It's absurd, but it's also twisted and evil. As long as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on these texts, they will be sick, pathological religions regardless of the specific actions of their followers. An instruction manual on doing horrible things is an instruction manual on doing horrible things, even if people like to interpret it nonliterally. Those publishing the message "commit atrocities" shouldn't be let off the hook just because they intend that message to be taken with a heavy dose of special nuance. Certainly the readers can't be relied upon to apply such nuanced readings, and extremism is only intellectual honesty among those who don't understand the various technicalities that make this rule or that rule inapplicable. As long as you say that the command is God's word, it stands to reason some people will obey it at face value. The seed of the violence and hate is the text itself, even if it's a stupid interpretation of the text that results in such behavior. One thing that skeptics (if not all atheists) do believe is that everything - everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing is absolute, nothing is the ultimate reference or the ultimate authority, and therefore a single misinterpretation can't result in awful behavior. [/ QUOTE ] Sounds like you’ve been reading Farenheit 451. |
Re: Case in Point...
Wait a sec... I thought you disagreed! Didn't you say in another thread (in response to chezlaw in fact), that ridicule should only match the severity of the dellusion?
|
Re: Case in Point...
<font color="blue"> We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? </font>
No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her. Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days. |
Re: Case in Point...
<font color="blue">Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. </font>
Ahh. So you use your own morality to form an opinion on what is moral from the "good book", then... Er, isn't the good book supposed to be the source of our morals again? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. </font> Ahh. So you use your own morality to form an opinion on what is moral from the "good book", then... Er, isn't the good book supposed to be the source of our morals again? [/ QUOTE ] Anoint me King, Stat, and I will gladly judge and rule over my people. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that. The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on. [/ QUOTE ] where does the koran say this? i'm not familiar w/it at all and i assumed that it was being interpreted loosely in order to justify atrocities. [/ QUOTE ] That's Leviticus, dude. This discussion shouldn't be limited to Islam, which has historically been relatively peaceful. I know that there are some verses in the Koran that, taken literally, are pretty damning. But I don't want to discuss them, as I've never read the Koran and am ill-equipped to deal with arguments of context/etc. |
Re: Case in Point...
But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality?
Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from! Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? </font> No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her. Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days. [/ QUOTE ] The good ol’ days. Now we have political correctness. Anyway, my wife owns me and no one is coming to my rescue. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If she had followed the law she would not have been raped, except by her owner. To quote a muslim cleric "“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” the sheik told the congregation. “The uncovered meat is the problem. “If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred.” [/ QUOTE ] Cats have moral agency? [/ QUOTE ]The real victim here is the family of the young girl, and her husband/ future husband. That she was defiled makes her unfit for marriage, and if anyone has a right to moral outrage it is her family. She has disgraced her family and Muhamed, blessed be his name, and peace to those who hear it. These young men who have been tempted by her, have also be caused harm. For they have been swayed away from their true calling by Allah, blessed be his name, and lead them straight into the arms of the dessert demons. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days. [/ QUOTE ] The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] <font color="blue"> We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? </font> No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her. Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days. [/ QUOTE ] The good ol’ days. Now we have political correctness. Anyway, my wife owns me and no one is coming to my rescue. [/ QUOTE ] LOL!! But seriously... How do you reconcile your current beliefs with such a passage? How do you think, "Well, that's BS, but this part is not,"? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you&#8217;ve been reading Farenheit 451. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, censorship is cool. That's what I'm always saying. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
For they have been swayed away from their true calling by Allah, blessed be his name, and lead them straight into the arms of the dessert demons. [/ QUOTE ] My favorite kind of demons. Uh, not that I traffic with them. All that whipped cream in my fridge is for, um, unrelated purposes. Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar... |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
LOL!! But seriously... How do you reconcile your current beliefs with such a passage? How do you think, "Well, that's BS, but this part is not,"? [/ QUOTE ] It's the New Covenant. See, it used to be that murder and rape and stuff were cool. But God changed his mind. And if those morons are dumb enough to take God at his word? Well, gee. They should know that God changed his mind. Hope they enjoy the eternal barbecue. Along with us hedonistic devils with the good looks, right? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality? Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from! Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent? [/ QUOTE ] Morality is not impossible without the Bible. Absolute morality is impossible without an Absolute Standard. Followers of religions such as Christianity and Islam use the Bible and the Koran as their reference to try to figure out that standard. Does that answer your question? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] For they have been swayed away from their true calling by Allah, blessed be his name, and lead them straight into the arms of the dessert demons. [/ QUOTE ] My favorite kind of demons. Uh, not that I traffic with them. All that whipped cream in my fridge is for, um, unrelated purposes. Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar... [/ QUOTE ] "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... " The Book of Women 4.34 Translated by A. Yusufali "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.... " The Book of Light 24:31 A. Yusufali "As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)." The Book of Women 4:15 M.M. Pickthall |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days. [/ QUOTE ] The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God. [/ QUOTE ] Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality? Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from! Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent? [/ QUOTE ] Morality is not impossible without the Bible. Absolute morality is impossible without an Absolute Standard. Followers of religions such as Christianity and Islam use the Bible and the Koran as their reference to try to figure out that standard. Does that answer your question? [/ QUOTE ] And when they get stuck they compare this version of an absolute standard to their own morality? No it doesnt answer the question, we're right back at the start. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days. [/ QUOTE ] The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God. [/ QUOTE ] Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran? [/ QUOTE ] Are you implying he is not up to the task of opining on the Bible? What specifically do you take issue with? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran? [/ QUOTE ] Not having read the Koran implies not having read the Bible now? The Christians are in trouble - then again, they never pay much attention anyhow. "Midianites? I've never heard of those." "Have you read the Bible?" "A bunch of times! It guides my life." |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days. [/ QUOTE ] The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God. [/ QUOTE ] Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran? [/ QUOTE ] Are you implying he is not up to the task of opining on the Bible? What specifically do you take issue with? [/ QUOTE ] The Jesus part. (He obviously is well versed in the Bible, though.) |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality? Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from! Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent? [/ QUOTE ] Morality is not impossible without the Bible. Absolute morality is impossible without an Absolute Standard. Followers of religions such as Christianity and Islam use the Bible and the Koran as their reference to try to figure out that standard. Does that answer your question? [/ QUOTE ] And when they get stuck they compare this version of an absolute standard to their own morality? No it doesnt answer the question, we're right back at the start. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I don’t understand the question. Is someone giving me authority to decide what is moral? I can read some reference material and interpret it. I then have an opinion on what it means. That becomes my opinion. If that reference material is indeed a reference for Absolute Morality, then how I interpret it does not change AM. I can be right or wrong in my interpretation. To say that my morality is right or wrong is not really accurate. I don’t “have” morality. |
Re: Case in Point...
Lestat -
I agree with you. The error is qualitative: objectifying women as sexual commodities that, once used, become worthless. This point of departure is the problem; some take it closer to its logical conclusions than others, but all share the same fundamental error. Also, as Peter666 would point out, it makes perfect sense for a theocracy to take extreme punitive measures against sexual impropriety. Because their religion teaches that God thinks fornication is basis for eternal torture; aren't they really doing women a favor by veiling them from head to toe and locking them safely away? |
Re: Case in Point...
I've only skimmed this thread, but I agree with everything Lestat has said.
This stuff is ridiculous, and I can't believe how few the people are that realize even a faction of the extent to which religion causes problems like these. Freedom of religion is one thing when books are read and prayers are said, but when it comes to having the right to stone women over what some 1500 year old book said is just ridiculous. |
Re: Case in Point...
Anyone take my "Koran challenge" yet? Trip report?
Open this book up and read what it says. Seriously. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
I've only skimmed this thread, but I agree with everything Lestat has said. This stuff is ridiculous, and I can't believe how few the people are that realize even a faction of the extent to which religion causes problems like these. Freedom of religion is one thing when books are read and prayers are said, but when it comes to having the right to stone women over what some 1500 year old book said is just ridiculous. [/ QUOTE ] I agree as well I think but maybe there's some different use of the word ridiculous. The belief here is nowhere near as silly as say believing that dinasours were on some ark. Much more serious because of the consequences of the belief but not particularly silly. Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous. chez |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous. [/ QUOTE ] It's a chicken/egg problem. The roots of the belief go back thousands of years, and "religion" meant something different back then. It's impossible to cleanly separate everything. To some extent, the scriptures themselves were civil, rather than spiritual, documents. If people wanted to follow the Code of Hammurabi today, I'd criticize them too. But they don't - because nobody thinks it's divine. |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone take my "Koran challenge" yet? Trip report? Open this book up and read what it says. Seriously. [/ QUOTE ] Recommend a good online translation? |
Re: Case in Point...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous. [/ QUOTE ] It's a chicken/egg problem. The roots of the belief go back thousands of years, and "religion" meant something different back then. It's impossible to cleanly separate everything. To some extent, the scriptures themselves were civil, rather than spiritual, documents. If people wanted to follow the Code of Hammurabi today, I'd criticize them too. But they don't - because nobody thinks it's divine. [/ QUOTE ] but its not the case that this type of attitude is only found within the religous. The root cause is largly economic and 'She deserved all she got' is a common refrain even in our 'civilised' advanced world. Put those sentiments in a brutal primative society and the results aren't suprising. Even if you think that the reason these societies are still brutal and primative is because of religon its not the case that root cause of this barbarism are religous. chez |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.