quote:In response to another question, Khatami also justified his country’s use of capital punishment for acts of homosexuality, but said that the conditions for execution are so strict that they are “virtually impossible to meet.”
“Homosexuality is a crime in Islam and crimes are punishable,” Khatami said. “And the fact that a crime could be punished by execution is debatable.”
The audience responded with silence to his remark.
Unbelievable. If the speaker had been Ann Coulter, I doubt she would have made been permitted to get past hello before the Harvard crowd started shouting her down. But she doesn't say or belive anything so outrageous. Why does this islamofascist gets a free pass?
Kudos to Massachusetts Gov Mitt Romney who called this nut-job's visit “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists.” And said taxpayers should not fund any part of it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
'round here we call killing people just for being gay "murder" and it's punishable by life in prison or death.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
You're saying they should have rioted at his speech? Seems like there was a lot more to be learned from hearing his position than by booing him. He is a political leader, or was, correct? Ann Coulter is not.
I wonder why they invited him.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
He had to leave the country because a group of Jewish Iranian Americans served him with papers relating to the civil rights violations of Jews in Iran. I've tried to imagine the look on his face, and thought about what was running through his head afterwards. I love America.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Funny
I remember students such as myself condemning those who argued tax dollars should not be used to finance the visit of one Michael Moore as his views did not represent the views of the community.
There was a huge debate about allowing people to be able to express their opinions no matter what they were. The conservatives in Utah answered by demanding the school finance the visit of another person with the opposite view point. We ended up getting Sean Hannity.
So instead of just paying money for Moore (which they argued was excessive) we spent MORE money to get Hannity over before Moore made his visit. LUCKY US!
Moore spoke to a capacity crowd, he left, Utah is still Utah, but at students at UVSC have more exposure to other peoples opinions.
You call Khatami an islamofascist, and yet he disagrees with Al Qaeda, with anti Israel sentiments, and agrees with fighting terrorism, helping out the Palestinians, and unfortunately in enforcing the Koran.
He believes homosexuality is not good for society, OH NOES! There are plenty of Americans who feel that way, are they all evil and should keep their opinions to themselves?
Khatami basically said that he views homosexuality as a sin, but whether it warrants execution is debatable. I am sure there are MANY in Iran who see it as VERY much warranting execution (we can all be horrified but thats what they think). Khatami also said crimes deserving of execution are "virtually impossible". So how does that equate to "executing homosexuals is OK."
I think everybody but the most extreme agree that NOT killing homosexuals is a VERY good thing. But Iran is NOT the US. Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality? We see them as religious fanatics, and they see us as Godless degenerates infidels.
If we refuse to allow those who disagree with us to say what they are thinking, we only confirm in their minds that WE are the closeminded agressors.
I applaud Harvard for being brave enough to sponsor such a valuable speaker, however controversial his personal views are. I would LOVE to have such a great opportunity to see into the mindset of the current regime that runs Iran.
But that just might be the political scientist in me. I just don't think every speaker should be allowed to speak based on the MORAL beliefs he carries. College students are mature enough to hear and decide for themselves the truth in somebodies words.
If Charles Lindburg COULD speak to me about his experiences in aviation I would LOVE it for its historical value, even though I might get some anti semetic comments along with it.
I sure hope they never find a way to bring back the dead. You people would all insist we never allow them to speak because of ANY backwards view they might still be retaining.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Too bad we could sue him for the routine murder of gay people in his country.
But hey, Islam says its ok to kill gays, right? So who am I to complain. When enough people who think like him get here and vote their conscience I'll just take my beheading with a stiff upper lip.
Pix
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Too bad we could sue him for the routine murder of gay people in his country.
But hey, Islam says its ok to kill gays, right? So who am I to complain. When enough people who think like him get here and vote their conscience I'll just take my beheading with a stiff upper lip.
Pix
Oh please, as if it would be SO difficult to fight the crazy idea that gay people should be executed.
You are right from now on the US when it deals with Iran's nuclear program needs to head the effort with a banner of "Homosexual rights for all!"
I must have been doing it all wrong when I was a missionary trying to find a common ground for discussion before even mentioning religion. I SHOULD have been saying, "Your a Buddhists? Man I don't waste time with nonbelievers, just quietly go to hell and never bother me again!"
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality?
I keep reading this over and over again.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality?
I keep reading this over and over again.
In a good way or a bad way?
I didn't mean "How can an American use American values to judge others." I meant "How can we condemn foreigners for not living by the American moral system."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't see what the problem is. If it's OK to do something in another place, we should let them. Like if another country thinks Americans are infidels who all need to burn in the holy fire of Allah, we should be cool with them killing ... hey, wait a second!
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality?
I keep reading this over and over again.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Well, I liked your points about the Moore/Hannity debacle. (I was there, by the way, for Michael Moore.)
But... Can you really be suggesting that killing homosexuals is nothing more than a subjective cultural issue?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Well, I liked your points about the Moore/Hannity debacle. (I was there, by the way, for Michael Moore.)
But... Can you really be suggesting that killing homosexuals is nothing more than a subjective cultural issue?
NO! How could you glean that from my post?
"I think everybody but the most extreme agree that NOT killing homosexuals is a VERY good thing"
I am saying that we should not refuse to hear what somebody has to say because they hold a view or even MANY views we think are terrible.
We should also not let a disagreement on ONE point make discussion on ANY point impossible.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:NO! How could you glean that from my post?
I think it was the word "BUT" that immediately followed the sentence you put in quotation marks above.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
"I don't advocate the killing of homosexuals, kids, BUUUUUUT: etc."
It seems you didn't meant it that way. So I'm glad I asked for further clarification. Because it definitely gave me pause.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:We should also not let a disagreement on ONE point make discussion on ANY point impossible.
That's an important point.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think it was worthwhile just so Khatami could face a roomful of people completely, violently opposed to his beliefs who were nonetheless relatively calm and respectful. Not cowed, not rioting, just listening to get a measure of his beliefs and, by extension, the beliefs of his government.
Know your enemies...
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I agree with BlackBlade and Theaca. He didn't go there to talk about how gays should be executed. Somebody asked him a question about how things happen in his country and he responded. As an ex-president of a country we're on edgy terms with, I think he's an excellent source of useful information.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I think it was worthwhile just so Khatami could face a roomful of people completely, violently opposed to his beliefs who were nonetheless relatively calm and respectful. Not cowed, not rioting, just listening to get a measure of his beliefs and, by extension, the beliefs of his government.
Know your enemies...
Interesting point Chris.
TL: I'm glad you understand me better. I was worried when I wrote my first post that I would spend the rest of the thread arguing that I don't condone the mistreatment of homosexuals.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
MiG,
I can't understand why Ann Coulter's comments aren't met with rioting either.
Glad we finally agree on something.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality?
Great post, BB, except for this bit o' silliness. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I hate thread titles that are deliberately false and deceptive.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality? We see them as religious fanatics, and they see us as Godless degenerates infidels.
I don't understand what's wrong with the above statement. It makes perfect sense.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality?
I judge the actions of others by my standards of morality, that being the only standard I have.
My standards include some leeway for knowledge and upbringing, but generally, the same morality applies to everyone.
I expect others to judge my actions in much the same way, using their own standards of morality.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Maybe they are wondering if America HAS a standard of morality.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, and Mig, I worked against shout-downs and intimidation of conservative speakers when I was an undergrad (yes, it's been going on that long), and I stamped out any such comparisons in the group I worked with. We simply applauded the good manners of the audience in the face of controversial remarks and expressed our hope that such courtesy would continue to be extended to others.
Maybe all the protesting and advocacy on this issue finally worked, and we're now seeing the fruits.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality? We see them as religious fanatics, and they see us as Godless degenerates infidels.
I don't understand what's wrong with the above statement. It makes perfect sense.
Dag more or less explained it, I also clarified my intent later on in the thread, look for the confused emoticon post.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
"The Great Satan" doesn't scream "MORALITY!". Maybe if our nickname was "the cuddly teddybear across the ocean" there'd be more empathy and less sabre rattling.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality? We see them as religious fanatics, and they see us as Godless degenerates infidels.
I don't understand what's wrong with the above statement. It makes perfect sense.
Dag more or less explained it, I also clarified my intent later on in the thread, look for the confused emoticon post.
Are you explaining to me why it should or shouldn't make perfect sense? Because it made perfect sense before, but now I'm not so sure.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:So instead of just paying money for Moore (which they argued was excessive) we spent MORE money to get Hannity over before Moore made his visit.
If this is the event I think it is, I don't you spent much if anything for Hannity or Moore? I found a couple of confusing links but this one seems a little more clear. KSL News "Before today's rally, student leaders announced that Sean Hannity has agreed to speak on campus. While Hannity will speak for free, UVSC will pay his travel expenses." "As for the $40,000 price tag for Michael Moore's speech, student leaders say most of it has already been recouped through ticket sales." and this too, looks like you didn't pay anything for Hannity... Huntsman Helps Pay for Sean Hannity's UVSC Appearance "Hannity has agreed to waive his standard $100,000 speaker's fee and is asking only for reimbursement of his travel and other expenses." "Huntsman campaign spokesman Jason Chaffetz said Huntsman helped arrange Hannity's appearance and will pay his travel costs. The money will come from donations solicited by the campaign specifically to pay for Hannity's travel. " "Student leaders have been under fire for bringing Moore to campus, both because of his political views and because of his fee of $40,000 plus expenses. The student leaders say tickets for his speech have been sold out and have brought in about $30,000. In addition they have received donations to help pay the expenses."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:So instead of just paying money for Moore (which they argued was excessive) we spent MORE money to get Hannity over before Moore made his visit.
If this is the event I think it is, I don't you spent much if anything for Hannity? I found a couple of confusing links but this one seems a little more clear. KSL News "Before today's rally, student leaders announced that Sean Hannity has agreed to speak on campus. While Hannity will speak for free, UVSC will pay his travel expenses." "As for the $40,000 price tag for Michael Moore's speech, student leaders say most of it has already been recouped through ticket sales." and this too, looks like you didn't pay anything for Hannity... Huntsman Helps Pay for Sean Hannity's UVSC Appearance "Hannity has agreed to waive his standard $100,000 speaker's fee and is asking only for reimbursement of his travel and other expenses." "Huntsman campaign spokesman Jason Chaffetz said Huntsman helped arrange Hannity's appearance and will pay his travel costs. The money will come from donations solicited by the campaign specifically to pay for Hannity's travel. " "Student leaders have been under fire for bringing Moore to campus, both because of his political views and because of his fee of $40,000 plus expenses. The student leaders say tickets for his speech have been sold out and have brought in about $30,000. In addition they have received donations to help pay the expenses."
I could be wrong, but based on how things seemed. If Hannity had cost ANYTHING they probably would have paid it. Who pays 100,000 to see Hannity? I am not sure if Hannity found out Moore was coming and offered to come.
From a student in student government who arranged his expenses Hannities travel accomidations amounted to several thousands dollars. Ill see if I can talk to him again and find out the exact amount.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Oh, and Mig, I worked against shout-downs and intimidation of conservative speakers when I was an undergrad (yes, it's been going on that long), and I stamped out any such comparisons in the group I worked with. We simply applauded the good manners of the audience in the face of controversial remarks and expressed our hope that such courtesy would continue to be extended to others.
Maybe all the protesting and advocacy on this issue finally worked, and we're now seeing the fruits.
Ask Ann Coulter. She regularly gets shouted down.
I don't think that the Harvard crowd should have shouted him down or rioted, as one poster noted earlier as the alternative to staying quite. The audiance could have voice its disapproval of hateful comments in other ways. It could have booed the speaker, some could have walked out, turned their backs to him, or given him a thumbs-down (maybe even shown him another finger).
I'm surprised at some of you. The point is that hateful speech of this type should never go unchallenged. No matter who says it. Note that he meerly stated that it was debatable whether executing gays was legal. Debatable? He didn't deny that gays are executed. He couldn't even condemn the very idea as immoral and wrong.
Let me clear on one other thing, I don't have a problem with the terrble man speeking at Harvard or any place else in the US. As for the money? I'm not from Mass., so I couldn't care less. What I have a problem is with this gutless crowd failing to challenge this idiot and leting him know that his type of intollerance and evil won't be tolerated in the West.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I don't like Mr. Khatami, but it is important that he be understood, because he is a very real threat, and it does not pay to ignore threats. Having an enemy tell you about himself and his beliefs is invaluable.
"leting him know that his type of intollerance and evil won't be tolerated in the West."
Trust me, he knows that the west does not agree with him. To him, this is just more proof of our decadent western values.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote: I think everybody but the most extreme agree that NOT killing homosexuals is a VERY good thing. But Iran is NOT the US. Where do you get off judging others by America's standard of morality? We see them as religious fanatics, and they see us as Godless degenerates infidels.
The problem here is that someone is right and someone is wrong. Either it's wrong to kill homosexuals for engaging in homosexual behavior, or it's morally acceptable to kill them. Given the current situation on the planet Earth (we don't have evil alien overlords threatening to destroy the entire planet if we engage in homosexual behaviors, for instance) I'd say killing homosexuals is morally wrong. Just like torturing innocent babies just for fun is always morally wrong. Anyone who claims it's morally acceptable is simply wrong.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't listen to those who are doing or condoning morally wrong actions. Indeed, I think it's important to listen to them in order to understand how they are justifying their answer. Once we understand that we can begin to possibly convince them that their actions are wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ann Coulter still gets regularly invited to speak at universities.
Also, its not entirely surprising that a former head of state receives at least minimally more respect than a polemicist. Note that nobody applauded, either, its not like they particularly agreed with him.
I expect there were people challenging it, too. Lots of protests have been made against his visit, and I bet some were by students at Harvard. When he's on stage speaking he should be allowed to speak.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I don't like Mr. Khatami, but it is important that he be understood, because he is a very real threat, and it does not pay to ignore threats. Having an enemy tell you about himself and his beliefs is invaluable.
"leting him know that his type of intollerance and evil won't be tolerated in the West."
Trust me, he knows that the west does not agree with him. To him, this is just more proof of our decadent western values.
Dude, Khatami's a private citizen, and about as dangerous/threaty as Al Gore. Not to say that he doesn't have a following in Iran, but Ahmadinejhad has effectively strengthened the Iranian presidency and enflamed Iranian nationalists to the point where a comeback for Khatami would be almost impossible.
And your last sentence at the bottom there.....it doesn't make any sense. Unless you're saying tolerance is a form of decadence. Are you?
Now if Khomeinei was visiting. Or Rafsanjani. Or some random Ayatollah even....that would be dangerous.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Harvard is a private school- why would taxpayers be paying any of it?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If the speaker had been Ann Coulter, I doubt she would have made been permitted to get past hello before the Harvard crowd started shouting her down. But she doesn't say or belive anything so outrageous. Why does this islamofascist gets a free pass?
Because he was the leader of a country and it actually matters what he thinks?
Also, Khatami has a better excuse for being prejudiced than Coulter does. He was raised/indoctrinated in a racist, homophobic society.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Oh my god, I just actually read the article and your posting of it must be a sick joke...
quote:Khatami, who was president of Iran from 1997 to 2004, was met by angry protestors who called on him to apologize for human rights abuses committed by the government under his watch. Police estimated that 200 protestors gathered outside the Kennedy School of Government.
Was this a game to see how long it would be until someone caught this?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Just read the article as well...
quote:“A nation by the name of Palestine has been eliminated from the map,” Khatami added.
As far as I can tell, a Palestinian state has never really existed until just a few years ago.
quote:Romney announced on Tuesday that he would not allow any state agencies—including state police—to provide support for the event. Yesterday’s event was secured by Harvard and Cambridge police as well as the US State Department.
That seems a trifle petty. Security forces would have served to protect American lives as much as they would have served to protect Khatami's. Thank goodness they weren't necessary.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm sorry, I don't have a lot of patience, understanding or love for people who think it's morally debatable weather people like me should be murdered.
I want him and his poison out of my country.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Just read the article as well...
quote:“A nation by the name of Palestine has been eliminated from the map,” Khatami added.
As far as I can tell, a Palestinian state has never really existed until just a few years ago.
Still doesn't. They have to declare statehood first. And just like in 1948, they aren't willing to have a state if it means that the damned Jews have one as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think it's actually pretty funny that Khatami is a more worthwhile speaker than Ann Coulter, since he can actually give a useful perspective on Iranian polity, while Coulter has little else to contribute other than a completely bogus historical perspective ('McCarthy was a hero!') culmunating in virulent scapegoating for all things liberal.
But whatever. Khatami's a doddering ex-autocrat from a country that murders gays, subjugates women and 'disappears' dissidents, and Coulter's a bombastic lunatic who uses overboard vitriol to sell books to a demographic of fellow lunatics. Why finance either of their trips?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yasser Arifat recognized the state of Israel back when Rabin was in charge of things, too bad he lapsed back into terrorism down the road.
Also Lisa, I would take what you can get when it comes to Pro Israel Iranians.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But whatever. Khatami's a doddering ex-autocrat from a country that murders gays, subjugates women and 'disappears' dissidents, and Coulter's a bombastic lunatic who uses overboard vitriol to sell books to a demographic of fellow lunatics. Why finance either of their trips? [/QB]
Well put.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I think it's actually pretty funny that Khatami is a more worthwhile speaker than Ann Coulter, since he can actually give a useful perspective on Iranian polity, while Coulter has little else to contribute other than a completely bogus historical perspective ('McCarthy was a hero!') culmunating in virulent scapegoating for all things liberal.
But whatever. Khatami's a doddering ex-autocrat from a country that murders gays, subjugates women and 'disappears' dissidents, and Coulter's a bombastic lunatic who uses overboard vitriol to sell books to a demographic of fellow lunatics. Why finance either of their trips?
From a students perspective, being able to hear from the horses mouth what government officials in Iran believe, think, feel, would be an AMAZING opportunity. America right now has VERY direct contact with Iran, and we are concerned about where their country is going. Students in the audience that day will go on to become tomorrows leaders, they will have gleaned important info from that speech, and they will understand what Iran is much better then from never hearing it.
If you wan't to pay people to tell you moral codes that make you happy, go join a religion.
If you want to hear people who are unique in their qualifications describe things you do not understand, outside the US, go to college, preferably a good one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, there's a specific complain that I think has validity, and I will try to illustrate it using a coarse comparison: would we pay to have a murderer present, just because he legitimately provides a unique primary-source opportunity for people studying criminology and psychology?
The issue isn't so much exposure or the right to present (Khatami can justify his educational utility) as it is the financing of a person who did a stint as a ruler in a country that regularly violates human rights we consider sacrosanct. That's taxpayer money that Khatami is now tipping his bellhops with.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I thought tax money wasn't being used. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pretty sure the funds to get him to Harvard were privately procured. Isn't harvard a private college now? Or is it still government owned?
What has tax payers money got to do with it anyway?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not likely to be tax payer money. And, even if it were, given some of the things we do pay for with our taxes, this would be pretty benign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If it's not taxpayer money, then any contention I have is next to moot =(
I think I was confused by the commentary by Mick Rooney, who .. um, oh.
Was denying taxpayer money use for the SECURITY of Khatami. Okay.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: From a students perspective, being able to hear from the horses mouth what government officials in Iran believe, think, feel, would be an AMAZING opportunity. America right now has VERY direct contact with Iran, and we are concerned about where their country is going. Students in the audience that day will go on to become tomorrows leaders, they will have gleaned important info from that speech, and they will understand what Iran is much better then from never hearing it.
What makes you think he's going to be saying anything other than propaganda?
Do you REALLY think he thinks killing gay people is debatable or do you think he was softening his position for an american audience?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"What makes you think he's going to be saying anything other than propaganda?"
Propaganda is damned useful. It is also often the only thing you get. History is the study of conflicting propagandas.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Just reading the report of the interview taught me new things about him. I had no idea that he was open to the idea of Israel AND Palestine both existing. The current president of Iran is ALL FOR the elimination of Israel. I was under the impression everyone in the government felt this way.
I also know that alot of people were replaced with stricter conservatives when Khatami left office. But still his comments challenged my notion that things in Iran were a certain way.
I am loath to assumed I know somebodies motives when they say something and I only have 2nd hand sources reporting it.
It is my OPINION that Khatami most likely is not so concerned with the rights of homosexuals, as he is of empowering Iran and making it a force to be reckoned with. I think he was genuinely interested in speaking without reserve to learned Americans and saying what was on his mind.
As for propaganda, in Political Science you can often glean important information from propaganda. In fact in China its COMMON KNOWLEDGE that you can learn important inside information by reading between the lines of the propaganda. Their newspapers are practically ALL propaganda, but you can still learn alot from it by not reading whats on the surface.
Pixiest I agree with you that its terrible that homosexuals are executed in Iran, that the government sends assasins to kill the liberal Iranian thinkers even after they have fled the country. I am NOT arguing about Khatami's moral codes. I am arguing 2 things.
1: Khatami is a product of his generation and culture, we can learn about what that culture/philosophy is by observing his words/actions.
2: We lose out if we refuse to allow even the most radical people to speak as we can still learn from their words very relevant and useful ideas pertaining to many fields.
I am quite confident harvard asked Khatami to come as an educational exercise in politics. Not as a way to instruct its students on why we should be more like the Iranians.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)