wprime

Do you need cash rates or just the spot rate?

Spot rate you can get from Yahoo Finance.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GBPTHB=X/

Just change the GBP to the currency you want to convert.

Yes you can, once you sell it. Contact the placed you purchased it and they will redo the paperwork with the new owner.

8 hours ago, gearbox said:

How do you know the field hospitals are free for foreigners? Can you choose to stay in a field hospital?

I asked these questions before and never got a definitive answer.

Yes, if you present yourself to a public hospital or are tested positive through mass testing, and are asymptomatic, you will be transferred to a field hospital free of charge.

I went there two weeks ago. At the SE corner of the 11 super hwy in Chiang Mai you will pass through a check point where you need to scan a QR code and register your details. You will receive advice via SMS on the phone number you put down. You do not need to quarantine but you need to monitor your symptoms and if you have symptoms of COVID-19 you will need to inform them and report to a hospital.

The advice you are hearing about quarantine is out of date. They changed it on 1-Sep.

What are you planning to do up there? All the pubs and most of the bars were closed.

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can't say I've noticed much tolerance from other people in my lifetime. The official dogma may have changed, but in the real world I live in if I were to wear a dress in public I would expect a bashing.

 

However, I have noticed that people of a certain mindset on corona are  becoming waaaaay more intolerant of those that don't toe the government line. Even those I'd least expect it from. Before corona it was intolerance against those that didn't kowtow to the official line on PC or climate change.

On this very forum, there was a great deal of intolerance towards those that supported a certain politician.

That's in the short term but in the long term things have become far more tolerant in the west. Things like being gay, non-religious, opposing wars, showing tits (that seems to go in and out of fashion though).

It's not that bad in the short term either. I lived in Tennessee when Trump was running for election. I met some of the supposedly racist Trump supporters (I'm half Thai) and they were all super nice and friendly, not racist at all.

I did an education masters at the Uni of Melbourne which is one of the most progressive courses in one of the most left-leaning cities in the 1st world. Almost everyone there was open minded and could discuss sensitive topics except for the odd classmate.

This notion that everyone is at each other's throats painted by the media isn't reflected in reality. It's a small minority of intolerant people that feel the need to suppress discourse, unfortunately that small minority happens to be a loud one.

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't take offense at people disagreeing with me. I'm just saying that placing a lawn sign sign blaming an ethnic minority can have no reasonable purpose other than to offend. You can dodge that all you like but that's how it is.

His sign was objective, based on available evidence the virus almost certainly originated in China (which is a country, not an 'ethic minority'). So it is both true and of public interest (it's important to know how the virus originated to prevent it from happening in the future and part of knowing that where it originated).

People like you that find the truth so offensive are exactly what this thread is about. You stifle open debate under the guise of protecting people then go on to support attacking them behind their backs because it won't offend them then. I know people have said this is a new phenomenon and while the internet has made it more obvious, it's certainly nothing new:

 - In the Western dark ages, people were persecuted because their views on science offended others.

 - In post-colonial America, white people were persecuted for loving black people because this offended others.

 - Just 20 odd years ago in parts of America, women are persecuted for having sex with other women because it offends others.

When you proclaim there is a universal set of rules for what is offensive known by the "educated/enlightened", you are agreeing that these people deserve to be persecuted because they did indeed offend others. Thankfully many societies have moved on from the above but they moved on because they allowed open discussion of what is right and wrong rather than just declaring things wrong behind people's backs.

In Russia people are still persecuted for being gay, in China people are persecuted for having a non-conformist religion, in Afghanistan people are persecuted for supporting female teachers. Why has Western society moved towards tolerance but these other countries have gone backwards over the past few decades? It's because of the freedom of expression people in Western countries have enjoyed that allowed them to openly debate these issues. Society's progress depends on this open exchange of ideas, even if those ideas might offend.

Social norms dynamically change over geographical and chronological contexts, there is no universal set of rules for avoiding causing offence. Once you realise that, you'll learn to be a little more understanding of ideas you disagree with, and a little more understanding that just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they intend to offend you.

In any case, we're going in circles, I'm going to leave it at this.

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

get real, I'm commenting to a third party about the alleged actions of a person probably years later from another country on a private forum. That's a world away from being in his face in the way that his sign was for his neighbours. Can you not see the difference? I did not racially abuse him from next door like he did to his neighbours. Nor did I use racial hate speech of any kind while his sign was explicitly intended to cause offence to Chinese people in his immediate vicinity. The disagreement is perfectly acceptable. The use of hate speech is not. Your apparent inability to understand this is disingenuous.

I see the difference, I don't agree with it. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're being obtuse or disingenuous. Likewise, just because someone doesn't automatically agree with your baseless accusations about a third party, doesn't mean they're being disingenuous either (you must like that word).

As you correctly pointed out earlier, intent is what matters most. The problem is you always assume offensive intent (just like you assume of the lawn guy). This is the reason you seem to take so much offence from people disagreeing with you.

 - Just like when you compliment a black lady's intelligence and she interprets that as meaning black people are typically dumb.

 - Or when the lady at the J lounge in Sydney assumes my Thai girlfriend is subservient for giving me a neck rub and tells her, "you don't need to do that you know".

 - Or when you called my Thai friend unsophisticated because she was honest and direct with her friends (rather than gossiping about them behind their backs which you find okay). I know you were just relying on your personal biases and had no intention to be offensive.

As I said earlier, people rarely speak with an intention to offend others. Most of the time it's an over-sensitive respondent like yourself who assumes offensive intent. This is why tolerance is about regulating your own responses to feelings of offence by understanding that different people have different standards of what is offensive and that just because you're offended, doesn't mean someone is deliberately trying to offend you.

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's impossible for him to be offended by a comment not made to him. You're being obtuse.

Are you seriously suggesting that accusing people behind their backs is okay because they probably won't hear it directly to get offended?

54 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I didn't tell him anything.

Right so making accusations behind someone's back is okay but discussing them openly with them where they have a chance to defend themselves is deeply, deeply offensive.

You still think your rules are universal among the "educated/enlightened"?

You've just made up a system of rules to justify your desire to silence opinions you don't agree with.

2 hours ago, Kanada said:

Rabbit

By your own writings you seem to feel that you are disrespected…corrected…censored and basically “regarded as nuts” but when you write statements as you have above (especially on the subject of religion) you have to know you’re inviting those very sentiments!

 

What’s the deal?

What do you feel is nuts about it? He's saying he's offended by the indoctrination of children by religious institutions. While I don't find it offensive, I certainly find elements of the religious indoctrination of children to be unethical so his views are perfectly reasonable.

(admittedly I haven't read the full context, I'm just basing this on what you quoted).

54 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You couldn't be further from the truth and what is deeply, deeply offensive is projection - telling others what they think.

 

Your contention that the lawn sign did not demonstrate intention is totally disingenuous. The lawn sign was absolutely intended to whip up anti Chinese sentiment. The is no other reasonable conclusion.

So you say it's deeply, deeply offensive to tell others what they think, then go on to say what that lawn sign man thinks.

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I actually disagree with that. I think it's unlikely that people won't be offended by in their opinion offensive sayings. IMO being tolerant is about accepting that other people have different opinions and have a right to say them even if offensive to some. That doesn't cover speech legally wrong such as slander or libel.

Shutting down speech that a certain segment of the population doesn't agree with is going to end badly, IMO.

Yes that's better. People can't control whether they're offended, but they can respect the rights of others to express themselves even if it offends them.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

That would involve statements of fact as well. I don't think that's a reasonable definition of snowflake, I think it should be defined more narrowly.

 

I realise it's not a precise definition, I used it that way for lack of a better word.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

99% of it goes to intention. More on this below.

 

Was the intention of the sign poster to establish a front lawn based encyclopedia? I don't think so. The sign was clearly intended to whip up anti Chinese sentiment. No other intention can be reasonably inferred from his actions. This wasn't a situation calling for the defence of free speech. This was out and out racial vilification as outlawed by clause 18c of the racial vilification act.

I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about my views about freedom of expression, but for your information, both truth and expressing genuine belief made in good faith about matters of public interest are valid defences so calling it 'out and out racial vilification' is wrong.

Regarding his intent, that's your assumption. While I tend to assume the best in people (perhaps to a fault), I don't think he had any motive at all. I think he was just angry about the impacts of the virus and in the typical fashion of people who lack agency in life, he's looking for someone to blame. If that's the case, he's not looking to offend anyone, he's seeking validation from like-minded people.

That being said, I would tend to agree that intent to cause offence is a good point to draw the line though. The problem though is that some people who lack empathy tend to make assumptions about intent (they feel bad, therefore someone intended to harm them). Because of this, people may still consider expression of opinion that they find offensive to be wrong because they assume intent to cause harm. People rarely intend to cause offence by expressing themselves, almost all expression of opinion is done to seek agreement.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

I think you believe Thais to be unsophisticated. I'll warrant that a great many Thais understand perfectly well that such a comment would be offensive.

 

Only the uneducated and unenlightened. Everyone else knows what the rules are

Those Khazak people weren't offended. Just because something would offend you, doesn't mean it would offend someone else. What you don't understand is that there is a great deal of cultural diversity around the world; not everyone shares your views and you taking the position that your views are superior and that anyone who doesn't share them is unsophisticated, uneducated, or unenlightened is arrogant and intolerant. There is no one standard set of rules about what should and should not offend, everyone is different. Your assumption that I share your views in thinking she's unsophisticated for speaking her mind is also close-minded. I greatly respect her for being honest.

You are a classic example of what I'm referring to with the word 'snowflake'. You consider anyone who doesn't agree with you to be inferior so you close yourself off from learning about other people and surround yourself with like-minded people making you feel this kind of intolerance is normal. It's not beneficial for anyone, particularly yourself, as you close yourself to plenty of really kind and well-minded people just because they don't conform to your views.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

It's fine to denigrate snowflakes. I have no problem with that. I assume you mean a snowflake is a person who becomes unreasonably offended by offensive comments? On the other hand, a necessary part of the bargain is that the other party must be willing to demonstrate due deference and regard by refraining from making offensive comments. Is it just a one way street?

I'm using snowflake to mean people who are intolerant of views they don't agree with.

How would you define an offensive comment?

There was a chap in Australia who lived in a Chinese area and had a sign up on his front lawn that said Covid came from China. A man filmed himself trespassing onto the man's property and destroying the sign and posted it up on social media. The sign was reasonably likely to cause offense as Chinese people are quite sensitive about their nationality; But in his subclass of Australian culture it's completely acceptable to state your opinion, especially if it's most likely true.

A Thai friend of mine who studied in Australia told her Kazakh classmate that he "smelled like Indian people". This was her opinion and she certainly didn't mean to cause offence. It is just that in her culture it's not offensive to say such things.

In parts of rural Pakistan if a girl dresses provocatively, she causes offence to the men around her and it can even be considered her fault if they rape her.

That's the problem with the line of thinking that argues for the right not to be offended. Every culture, or indeed everyone has different views on what is offensive. Part of being tolerant is learning that you are responsible for your own emotions and responses, and that nobody can cause you to feel offended but yourself. Being tolerant is not about avoiding saying things that might be offensive, it's about hearing other people's views without feeling offended.

There are plenty of people who can have a good debate then share a beer afterwards with no hard feelings. It's just that snowflakes tend to be the loudest so it seems like they're the norm.

Thai coins? Eur Seree are the market leaders.

If you message me some photos I'd be happy to take a look.

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That is not obvious.   

 

Insinuations were being made about a 35-year old man having an underage girlfriend and the subsequent connotations.   The contexts of those allegations were, obviously, not relating to "the media not being able to release her name due to her age", a rule that you have made up in the context of a road accident.

No such insinuations were made, I literally said that the media wasn't releasing their name right above it.

Your own personal biases drew you to your conclusion about having an underage girlfriend. Get your mind out of the gutter.

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

...or, there's just no reason to release her name, what's her identity got to do with anyone else?

 

"she's underage"

What is the legal age to be a passenger in a car?

Under age for the media to report her name obviously.

In my experience they look for a girl who's intelligent, one who's beautiful, who's of equal social class, who can cook and clean, and who's fun.

As long as none of them meet each other it makes for a pretty happy life.

Just now, Rampant Rabbit said:

They know they are overloaxed but No pompem just put  bigger  tyres and more rear leaf springs............... until the chasis  snaps, the brakes overheat and the steering  goes to  buggery. Its  not  just ice trucks, all fruit  carrying trucks as  well, thousands by me  sitting in the outside  lane cant move for fear of it  tipping over.which i often see

I was driving back from Pai the other day in the mountains and it was raining and this pickup truck in front of me could not get enough traction to climb a hill - you can see his wheels spin freely each time he tried to climb it. Imagine that pickup in any situation where he'd have to brake to avoid a collision, pair that with typical Thai driving, and it becomes pretty clear why these pickup trucks have so many accidents.