Yunla

I like the way you use Frightfully Important terms like "macro-famine" to mask the fact you are either making things up or simply don't know what you are talking about. The food situation in the DPRK is better than it has been in a good while and the economy is likewise improving. Furthermore the DPRK has not invaded one foreign country in its history or even threatened to, nor do they have a military government.

Unstable, is it? How many coups has it undergone since 1948? And how many has Thailand? Nice try, though.

I was taught to use "macro" rather than "mass" for certain sociological brackets. Mass is a useful term for some things though. I don't see what is frightfully important about the words "famine" or indeed "macro."

Famine in NK is cloaked by the fact external monitors are discouraged from reporting it. The reports I've been reading are of an exponential macro-famine effect. This means that famine gets a lot worse generationally, people are born to malnourished parents, and are malnourished in childhood. This means the normal term of famine does not suffice.

You ask why it is unstable? You judge stability on numbers of coups alone? Stability equals food for everyone, a manufacturing base that benefits the citizens, a solid infrastructure again to benefit citizens.

"Has never invaded" but is constantly threatening to nuke everybody. If they had the military might, you can be sure they would have been far more aggressive externally. As I said in my post, they wish they had the power for external confrontations. By they I mean the lunatic regime rather than normal NK people.

On Thailand, while it has other major sources of income, tourism is a very big factor here. That is another reason why comparisons to former and current despotic regimes is nonsense. Thailand relies on the positive image of the nation to keep tourism numbers up. Nations such as NK etc. do not have to maintain such a positive image.

I believe that with lowered corruption, tourism here will increase by huge numbers. Tourists love Thailand, and will love it even more when they feel more confident in positive results from corruption-busting initiatives. I wrote an article for the paper a few years ago, which talked about "comparative effects on tourism."

Point one, was that most Western tourists prefer to visit nations that are holding democratic elections. Point two was that most Western tourists prefer to visit nations that are stable and secure, in the electoral process and all other areas.

So on point one, yes, some tourists are discouraged by an emergency pause in elections. However, they can feel reassured that this pause in elections is temporary, and elections will once again be held in the near future.

On point two. Tourists, including myself, were discouraged by the sight of voters being beaten to a pulp outside voting stations in the last election. We were discouraged by political roadblocks, at which a taxi driver was beaten to death. These are extremely negative factors to tourists. They are like saying "yes people have the vote, but look at the political chaos and violence."

My perspective, which I will never budge on, is that point two trumps point one. As a tourist, I am happier to accept an emergency pause in elections, than I am to accept the sight of voters being beaten up at voting stations, or cab drivers being beaten to death at political roadblocks, as we saw last election.

I believe that tourism increases in stable and secure nations, and if that stability and security was achieved by an emergency pause in elections, then that is acceptable to most adult tourists, as they can see the reasons for the pause, and understand that elections will be held again in the near future, when stability and security have been fortified. Those with a less common-sense take on points one and two, will simply shout about North Korea and Orwellian and other things that are completely irrelevant in a nation that relies on a positive, welcoming and friendly image to promote tourism.

I think that it is not possible for you and I to discuss this subject.

We do not merely have polarised views, we also have deeply entrenched views. And I am too ill to engage in trench warfare, knowing that neither myself or the other person is going to move an inch.

In my social-science books, I put stability and security before anything else, as I believe stability and security are the foundations upon which everything can be built. I support the current leadership, as they have brought stability and security. You prefer the leadership of PTP to the current leadership. That is your view, and I respect it. However, neither of us are going to change our views, and I could sit here and write essays about why I have my views, it would make no difference.

So I will bid you farewell, and I will just let history decide which of these two positions was the right one.

"In my social-science books, I put stability and security before anything else, as I believe stability and security are the foundations upon which everything can be built."

I see. Stability as demonstrated in North Korea, and as was once in Burma/Myanmar. Don't you hate the halting return to the chaos of democracy in Burma? That's why you're cheering on the junta's move towards that wonderful, stable military government that Burma once had.

During the original Star Wars trilogy you were the one rooting for the Empire.

I enjoyed your use of North Korea as an example of "stability and security." The fact that NK is not stable or secure, is of minor importance isn't it.

On stability, NK is held together by external financial support, it is teetering on the brink of catastrophic macro-famine, manufacturing and industry and science are uniformly hijacked for unstable endeavours. It is what I would use as an example of "unstable."

On security, NK have been rattling toy sabres forever, and striving to obtain a real sabre, with which to rattle. There is nothing secure about a nation that wishes it had the power to wage wars abroad, and is hurtling towards conflict with all the speed it can muster.

Of all the arguments against the current leadership in Thailand, the "but, but, but, North Korea, Nazi Germany!" arguments are the most ridiculous and easiest to topple. Those examples are of nations who wish/ed to engage in foreign wars of conquest. Thailand is no such nation, the military is defensive to protect the security of the Sovereign Kingdom and all persons therein. Thailand also has a unique culture and philosophy which to a certain degree inoculate it against this type of external conquest war behaviour. In comparing Thailand to those situations, you are totally undermining your own argument.

Under the previous democratically elected government, the military blocked anything that it disagreed with. In case you forgot, the military says that it is not accountable to a democratically elected civilian government. It said it had that right.

I get it, you didn't like the amnesty issue. Know what though? The democratically elected MPs didn't allow the amnesty did they? They held it up for public scrutiny and it never went through. Abhisit was leader of the opposition and he did his job.

You now claim that because there are "weekly announcements of corruption purges and arrests of discredited persons' things are better. That is just BS and you cannot be expected to be treated respectfully when you make such a false and misleading statement. The military has had absolute control for 22 months. In that time, please name one current government official who has been arrested, charged and convicted of corruption. To date we have seen a vendetta against former members of the last democratically elected government. Lots of accusations of malfeasance but no evidence. I don't doubt some of them were corrupt. Well, get the evidence and make a case. In the meantime, in the triangle of corruption, it is as bad as ever. The removal of commercial enterprises from the beaches in Phuket was all for show. The state of corruption is far worse in Phuket today than it has ever been. The taxi mafia rule with impunity. The shakedowns of bars continue. Name one Phuket official who has been arrested and charged. Name one official from Samui who has been arrested and charged. Go on, do it.

You claim there is stability. Is that because the military and its proxies are no longer sabotaging the democratically elected government?

This year, the burning in Chiang Rai was worse than it ever was. And yet, nothing was done by the military government was there?. No arrests, no action. NOTHING. Why not? There are enough army bases and personnel all over the place to have done something.

Do you know what Yaba is and where it comes from? It comes in over the border from Myanmar. Who controls the Thai border?

How can tons of that poison make their way across the border and into every town and village of Thailand when the military has been in absolute control for almost 2 years. Ask yourself why.

Your use of the term "discredited persons" is lifted from the language of repressive regimes. Who decides what a discredited person is?

Make no mistake, I am against corruption and I don't care who is arrested for it. The issue for me as it is for those who travel around the country regularly is that we see the different treatments accorded people and how much worse it is in some regions. Phuket is absolutely disgusting. There isn't supposed to be commercial activity on the beaches. I counted almost 100 jet skis on Patong beach. These machines are illegal, yet they operate with the protection of the Marine 5 office. Please explain how this is done 2 years into absolute military rule.

I think that it is not possible for you and I to discuss this subject.

We do not merely have polarised views, we also have deeply entrenched views. And I am too ill to engage in trench warfare, knowing that neither myself or the other person is going to move an inch.

In my social-science books, I put stability and security before anything else, as I believe stability and security are the foundations upon which everything can be built. I support the current leadership, as they have brought stability and security. You prefer the leadership of PTP to the current leadership. That is your view, and I respect it. However, neither of us are going to change our views, and I could sit here and write essays about why I have my views, it would make no difference.

So I will bid you farewell, and I will just let history decide which of these two positions was the right one.

"He believed that the accused man may be responsible for other related crimes with victims too scared to come forward."

A jealous rage violent attack, does not fit this person's behaviour at all. Jealous rage is a fleeting thing, after which he could easily have called the ambulance and police, admitted the assault, and prayed for the girl's recovery.

He beat her almost to death, then chained her up, and watched her suffer for two days. This is psychopathic serial-killer behaviour. If I were the police, I would be checking his internet history and searching his apartment for DNA and "trinkets" kept from previous victims.

The fact that he was already looking for the next victim, coupled with the imprisonment of a dying girl, would lend to the theory that this was not his first victim, and would not have been his last, had it not been for the incredible strength and courage of this brave woman. I continue to pray for her recovery, and I admire her bravery beyond words.

"...rooting out underworld influences and unduly “influential people” in the economy and society."

This is exactly what most people have been demanding for decades.

Using soldiers to arrest heavily-armed underworld groups and crime-bosses, is just basic common sense, because many serious gangsters have the kind of firepower that would put the lives of normal policemen and policewomen in danger.

So I will wait and see, I hope that they do break up underworld gangs, and apprehend the crime bosses.

I know I will be barbecued for writing this.

That's crap. The military had the power all along. Go and read the "law" under which the military rules Thailand.

To be blunt, I find your comment offensive because it is intentionally misleading.

Remember that army general who was implicated in the human trafficking scandal of a year ago? What happened to him?

He was subject to military law and under the command of the military wasn't he?

When you can come back and tell everyone in this forum that the general was subject to a transparent judicial process, you will have a substantiated position.

And what of the officials implicated in the land encroachments and the corruption of Phuket? The military has the power right now to wipe them out. It has not, has it?

I believe the comments that this is all about stifling dissent and pushing through the new constitution are more credible.

Well, I'm not comparing the current situation with a perfect world scenario.

I'm comparing the current situation with the previous situation.

Under Yingluck there were no priority corruption purges, there were however priorities such as amnesty and passports for criminal fugitive family-members, and also some might say there was an actual increase in overall corruption under her leadership. There was also a constant barrage of threats to stability.

In any case, under the last leadership, we did not receive weekly announcements of corruption purges, or see the sackings and arrests of discredited persons.

Under the current leadership, we are seeing stability and security, and also the very real signs of anti-corruption initiatives being mobilised, slowly but surely. I applaud these things, and will continue to do so.

I was very moved by the tributes from the local community, many of them customers at this poor gentleman's shop.

The thing that struck me about the tributes, from people of all races and beliefs, they all spoke of what a nice man he was, a true friend, a lovely chap. The tributes never mentioned his religion, they all just spoke about what a lovely man he was, and how he had been a very happy and uplifting presence in their daily lives for years. I think that his customers have a very good take on life and philosophy, they felt that his religion was nobody's business, and they didn't even mention it really. He was a lovely guy, and that is all that mattered to his customers. If only everybody in the world could share this perspective.

From reading this story, it becomes clear that he was a true local shopkeeper, in the very finest traditions, providing not only things that people want to buy, but also friendship and kind-hearted conversation, things that are the only rays of sunlight in some peoples' lives. Pensioners, disabled persons, or others who live alone, for some of them the only time they get some friendly banter is in the local shop. This man understood this, and he always had time for his customers. RIP.

Back-street abortions cause illnesses and death.

Women prevented from having legal clinical abortions, will seek out alternatives anyway. They won't suddenly convert to a new way of thinking, they will just go to back-street coathanger abortions instead.

In the case of legal abortions, the baby dies.

In the case of back-street abortions, the baby dies, and the Mother can get serious illnesses or die too.

A pro-life stance would be the former option, as it at least protects the life of the Mother.

The Police also work nationwide. I know one policeman who regularly works at the other side of the country, for a week or months in row.

My point, which you deftly side-stepped, was that army units from another region, would most likely not be known to the crooks who have a corrupt stranglehold in a different region. Local police in that region would be very much on display, troops from another region would not. Was my point.

Allright i 'll write it in baby-language, hopefully you understand it then.

My policefriend from Bangkok is member of a special team which works in Phuket, Chaing mai, Pattaya to arrest the bad boys there. After that they come back to BKK for a while and get a new mission.

Now you figure out why they work that way......

That is very sensible.

How many of those special mobile teams are there? Are they numerous and solid enough to face down serious criminal networks in every major city and town? I don't doubt for an instant that there are police such as those you describe. I do however doubt that they are in the sort of numbers that may be needed for prolonged large-scale anti-corruption purges.

The army are numerous enough, and solid enough for this task. And they would be leaving bases, not leaving active policing posts in other regions.

The Police also work nationwide. I know one policeman who regularly works at the other side of the country, for a week or months in row.

My point, which you deftly side-stepped, was that army units from another region, would most likely not be known to the crooks who have a corrupt stranglehold in a different region. Local police in that region would be very much on display, troops from another region would not. Was my point.

"...rooting out underworld influences and unduly “influential people” in the economy and society."

This is exactly what most people have been demanding for decades.

Using soldiers to arrest heavily-armed underworld groups and crime-bosses, is just basic common sense, because many serious gangsters have the kind of firepower that would put the lives of normal policemen and policewomen in danger.

So I will wait and see, I hope that they do break up underworld gangs, and apprehend the crime bosses.

I know I will be barbecued for writing this.

As you should be chicken little. In order to stamp out corruption, it must be replaced with something. Most Thai officials cannot survive on their wages alone. Giving heavy handed oafs god like powers is just creating government sponsored gangsters. Thinking like this puts the whole country at risk. Thailand needs to create courts that are not swayed be politics.

I eagerly await your complete manifesto for reforming a system with macro-corruption on all tiers.

"Needs to create courts that are not swayed" is of course essential in all nations, but is not in itself a solution to the current situation at ground level here.

On the wages, we agree. And the hope would be that once a nation stops losing so much money to corruption, it will benefit everyone financially long-term. Not least because a tourist nation such as Thailand, will see a huge increase in middle-class big-spending family-tourism, if that nation eradicates corruption and crime.

"In order to stamp out corruption, it must be replaced with something." Yes, it must be replaced with "no corruption." By using force to break-up organised crime and compromised authority figures.

"...rooting out underworld influences and unduly “influential people” in the economy and society."

This is exactly what most people have been demanding for decades.

Using soldiers to arrest heavily-armed underworld groups and crime-bosses, is just basic common sense, because many serious gangsters have the kind of firepower that would put the lives of normal policemen and policewomen in danger.

So I will wait and see, I hope that they do break up underworld gangs, and apprehend the crime bosses.

I know I will be barbecued for writing this.

naive and surprising from you I must say

I'm surprised that it is surprising. I've been flame-grilled on this site for being a Junta Fangirl for several years, just for basically recognising that action must be taken to prevent macro corruption on all levels of society, and for not wanting to see more crime-related misery in the lives of normal honest working people.

The other point about army being used to break-up organised crime and corrupted positions in society, is two main points.

One, local police have to live in the same community, and they may be working under positions that have been compromised. So it may be hard to even engage in operations against influential local villains, if those villains have compromised certain positions in the force. On this same point, police in the area should rightly fear repercussions against themselves or their families, if they are identified as being involved in busting corrupt underworld figures, who have tentacles everywhere.

Secondly, and connected to the first point, is that army can be drafted in from other regions, they remain anonymous to the local crooks who may have compromised positions in the local force. Police can not really be moved from other regions, as that would leave their home regions vulnerable to higher crime rates. But a national army is by its nature national and can be relocated for purposes of anonymity, in situations where corruption and intimidation has spread deeply into a local community.

There is no actual way to convey the damage that corruption and crime does to a nation, how it saps the wealth from the nation, or the fear that normal working people have to live in, when there are compromised and corrupted authority positions in their community. So you have to weigh those terrible problems, alongside a military component in response to the problems.

"...rooting out underworld influences and unduly “influential people” in the economy and society."

This is exactly what most people have been demanding for decades.

Using soldiers to arrest heavily-armed underworld groups and crime-bosses, is just basic common sense, because many serious gangsters have the kind of firepower that would put the lives of normal policemen and policewomen in danger.

So I will wait and see, I hope that they do break up underworld gangs, and apprehend the crime bosses.

I know I will be barbecued for writing this.

When I read this headline, I was expecting tigers.

Maybe next time!

The title of this thread is one of those broad sweeping generalisations that can not be answered by nature of the question itself.

So my answer is "yes and no" which is the only possible way to reply to a broad sweeping generalisation.

If we are comparing nations that have become very advanced by the wealth created from early industrial manufacturing etc., the West, versus countries that are still catching up in wealth and social terms, then yes obviously life is worth more in wealthy countries. Because road-safety and workplace safety etc. the citizen is an investment with a lot of training and financial obligations which make them the kind of investment that needs to be kept safe at work and on journeys. But those are macro social views, generalisations. They apply to general perspectives, and not to individual cases.

Pictures of specific situations are very different. If you go to ground level, and visit a hospital in Bangkok, you will see highly-trained Doctors and Nurses working extremely hard to save peoples' lives, to make patients comfortable, and to try and keep their spirits high with flowers and gifts etc. I've said before that I think Thai doctors and nurses are the best in the world, based on my experiences in the fairly huge amounts of time I've been hospitalised here. And since their job is to save lives, the huge amount of effort and genuine human compassion they show at work, would mean that the answer to the OP is "no" and life here is worth at least as much as anywhere else.

But it is a bigger and more complex picture, and so "yes and no" is my answer, depending on which specific situation you are looking at.

"God and the angels were dead against this move"

Really? Well if you want to be orthodox what did Jesus mean when he, according to scripture, said in his prior agony in the garden, "Father, if possible take this cup away from me, but not my will, but your's be done" I take that to mean an almost unwilling participant but at the same time a very human response. If Christianity is founded on the divine plan of reconciliation of mankind to God, then Jesus was willing pawn in a master plan and on the cross said "Father, why have you forsaken me?" As part of that punishment was an experience of abandonment and separation. This is the story of despair transformed into hope which is the basis of the faith.

While some of your opinion conforms, much of it is a completely different take on traditional belief.

I have to admit while all adherents of most religions share similar desires to connect with something greater than themselves, the sight of a limp and flagellated and thereby inglorious and powerless Christ as opposed to a huge and glorious golden statue of Buddha is a great irony and an interesting consideration in the fact that Christianity despite it's many flaws became the largest religion in the world.

RE: "If you want to be orthodox." I don't.

I believe, and it is only my belief, that Jesus became mortal in response to Satan's envy, an envy so monstrous that it poisoned the world and everything upon it. Satan was jealous because Jesus was not cast down, in mortality, doomed to take a myriad of mortal forms for eternity. Jesus was safe, and this caused Satan great fiery rages of jealousy.

So Jesus became mortal, and gave his life, to show many things. He showed Satan that it was not the divine protection of Heaven that made Jesus great, but the peace and joy that Heaven represents. Jesus taught people this peace and joy, in the hopes that it would save human beings from a future cataclysm, involving flaming swords from the sky, or nuclear bombs in fact.

Only by turning the other cheek, living a peaceful life, and embracing humility, would humanity survive the future cataclysm. If people continued to fight each other, technology would eventually make this fighting apocalyptic. Jesus arrived in time to plant the seeds of peace, in the hopes that humanity would embrace peace, before technology advanced much further.

Sadly, his message was lost on most people, including many Orthodox Christians, who tick all the theological boxes, yet still support warmongers. Tony Blair is one good example, he launched a war that led to a million deaths, and said "I have prayed about this, and God will judge me." This is a good example of misunderstanding the message of Jesus. Jesus chose to die upon the cross rather than commit murder, or form an army to protect him. Jesus was telling people that peace was the only show in town. Without humanity adopting peace as a core belief, there will be an apocalypse. We are seeing this now.

As I clearly said in the start of my first post in this thread. "I believe that...." after which I wrote what I believed. This is because I believe it. I don't know what else to say.

She went back twice because she initially "had gone to his apartment in Ramkhamhaeng to do some cleaning to get money for her studies" and I am assuming that she hoped he would behave like a gentleman and continue to provide her with this much-needed income.

Maybe she hoped that his erratic behaviour was just a temporary thing, and she could continue to work for him, and maybe eventually things might turn into a happy relationship. Her only "mistakes" were wanting to work hard to earn college money from cleaning, and having hope that this big strong man would be a protector.

Obviously the crimes are attempted murder, extreme bodily harm, imprisonment, torture, sexual assault. The sentence should be life in prison with no chance of release.

She is probably the luckiest person of the year, her internal injuries were horrific and left untreated for two days, while the monster kept her chained up. I can't imagine how much she must have suffered in those two days. I am so very happy to read that she survived, and all my thoughts and prayers are with her for a swift and comfortable recovery. The strength she showed by escaping despite her injuries, was truly superhuman, a far greater physical feat than the bodybuilder could ever achieve. I believe that her inner strength will help her in the years to come, as she battles to overcome the post-trauma anxieties.

Hmmm, so Isis are anarchists and iconoclasts. Very little is new in heaven and earth, the Sphinx received its nose job from Egyptian Salafists way back, just as the Talban blew up the Buddha statues in Afghanistan. The EU shows the signs of nepotism, decay and runaway bureaucracy that afflicted Rome during its decline.

All of this 'Metrocide' idea casts Isis as generic barbarians, but I think it's not the law of the jungle,they desired but the highly codified sharia law in its purest form. I suspect most Muslims would agree with this, whether they approve or not is another question.

I'm not sure that ISIS and similar groups are big on philosophy, I doubt they would consider the ideas I was talking about as a reason for their actions. But they are certainly committing acts of pure hatred, and so much hatred is subconscious, it is a deep-rooted resentment that is rarely articulated in philosophical statements of intent.

This is hatred for cities where women are political leaders and business bosses, children are allowed to run around free to choose their own destiny, and LGBT people are allowed to parade openly and demand equal rights. All of these things make ISIS thugs very angry. Because as you say, they follow the most hateful parts of their religion, amplify the violent texts, and ignore the long sections of poetry about how women are wonderful and should be cherished etc.

Many Muslims are intelligent enough to take their holy book in historical context, it was written in a by-the-sword era. They now work in modern cities, wear suits, and are friends with people from all religions and walks of life. So they can very easily ignore the crazy swordfighting stuff in their holy book, as they have never even seen a sword in their lives. In addition, there are Muslim scholars who are trying to broadcast this reformation / enlightenment view, that their holy book is filled with many beautiful things, and God is great, but that the swords and lopped off limbs belong to a different historical era. There is a strong movement of these scholars, and a slow but steady reformation taking place. It is obviously slowed down by the fact that people like ISIS will kill you if you advocate selective understanding of the relevance of a given text.

One of the most interesting things to emerge in recent years, was the reports told to journalists who were on the trail of ISIS, local people and former hostages were telling the reporters "ISIS had no Korans, they did not pray, they just shouted these same handful of violent phrases quoted from the book, but they were never actually seen carrying the book itself." If we add this to recent reports of the Brussels attacks, which were describing a trend of "petty criminals and gangsters turning to terrorism" as opposed to "deeply religious people turning to terrorism" we are facing the possibility that infact many of the ISIS people are not motivated by deep religious faith, unless they fancy a particularly gory phrase from a text, they are violent criminals who feel that terrorism allows them to engage in this violent crime on a bigger scale, and with greater adulation than they were previously getting for mugging old ladies etc.

​I watched a BBC interview with the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy this week, in which he said [paraphrased] "ISIS are not committing Genocide, they are committing Metrocide."

I have disagreed with this gentleman on several issues in the past, but he is spot on with this Metrocide analysis. ISIS are attacking cities, and what modern cities embody. They are turning inhabitants of a given city against eachother, turning it from a modern place of equality, industry and business, into basically a caveman-era place of might-is-right, where the biggest caveman wielding the largest cudgel is the only person with any rights at all.

ISIS are killing people of all faiths, not Jews or Christians specifically. Attacks are often on cities. Cities represent civilisation, education, civility, gentrification, women's rights, workers' rights, individuals' rights. What we know as civilised modern society was born in cities. ISIS have destroyed cities across the Middle East, even ancient ruined cities. It is a war on the cosmopolitan values, embodied by cities, ergo Metrocide.

In more barbaric times, before the arrival of cities, the world was ruled by the might-is-right culture. Women had no rights, physically weak men had no rights, disabled persons had no rights. All rights belonged to the strongest men. This is the opposite of the modern city, where a woman can own her own home, have a good job, choose her partners etc. In the modern city, a small weak man can become incredibly wealthy and successful by working hard and using his mind and skills. This is the opposite of the barbarian times, where such men lived in fear, and were ruled over by the biggest brutes.

I liked the term Metrocide, and the thinking behind it. This is not a war between religions, it is a war between barbarism and civilisation. And so on the OP title, I believe that Europe, the US, the Middle East, Africa, anywhere that you find a modern city with cosmopolitan values and enshrining the rights of the individual, these are all targets for ISIS and similar groups.

The EU is more vulnerable, because it has 30,000 Eurocrats getting paid a fortune to send each other memos and spend years discussing what the legal size of a tomato should be. This has led to failures in wider society, failures in employment, policing, housing, causing areas with ghetto poverty and unemployment, which are not isolated to Muslim groups, this poverty in the EU is common to all races. The EU is shackled by its own Eurocracy, and incapable of responding swiftly or even recognising problems. There are memos to be sent, conventions held, and celebratory banquets. This macro-corruption and quantum-level compartmentalisation is all clearly on display to anyone who wishes to attack the EU.

The authorities need to accept that some rich kids are just such bad people, that their actions are making the wider population feel great resentment towards all wealthy families, regardless of how good or bad those families are. The actions of a handful of delinquents can actually tarnish the image of all wealthy and law-abiding families as a whole. It is very corrosive to social cohesion to allow this resentment to fester in the long term.

Allowing a small minority of lawless rich kids to behave like this, is offensive to everybody, including the many well-behaved youngsters from rich families. Allowing the handful of scandalous criminal youngsters to walk free, gives all well-behaved rich kids a bad name and makes them wildly unpopular in society. It is a lose-lose deal, which can only cause simmering resentment to grow and grow.

It would be much healthier for everyone if the criminals were treated like criminals, this would actually deter some of them from behaving so shamefully in future. And it would allow all the law-abiding youngsters from wealthy families to interact with the rest of society without feeling ashamed of their families' wealth or social position.

One small point I would add, is that if you are in a high-density tourist area (anywhere in the world) you may start to feel a slight loss of identity. You may be treated very kindly, and all your needs catered for. But the feeling is that you are being processed, you are walking the same path that everyone walks. You are a sort of product, an essential tourist thing being pushed into a system. So even though you are essential, you are still a tourist thing. Also, in many tourist hotspots, there is often a sense of hurry, of being moved onwards very fast, it is very hectic and busy. This contrasts with what I personally like about visiting new places, which is relaxing and taking things slowly.

For most people, this is fine, we are very happy to support the tourism industry and the local businesses, and we are thick-skinned enough to remember that underneath the 'tourist' label, we are a real person too. A person with unique characteristics, and a personality that may not match all the cookie-cutter activities on offer, or subscribe to the hectic hurry of a holiday schedule.

For anybody who already has identity issues, or mental-health issues such as depression, I think the perception of undergoing a transition from a person to a product, may be a lot harder to cope with.

And again this is a global factor, it is not a Thailand factor. For decades people have tried to take holidays worldwide and go "off the beaten path" and to avoid the uniformity of the tourist areas, where everyone is encouraged to take an interest in the same activities, places or products. Many people broke away from all that, and tried to go their own way on unusual holiday treks etc., and I believe it is partly to retain their very important sense of self-identity, without which even the most well-balanced person could find themselves losing touch with reality.

What this couple does is their decision, public figures or not. You don't like surrogacy, you prefer adoption, understood, maybe so do I. But this case isn't about about what you and I prefer, our preferences and beliefs have NOTHING to do with it!

Why on Earth do you think this couple should suddenly start talking about, and promoting adoption? They are in a legal battle to keep their child, how does adoption enter this? How about we include discussing water shortages in the North then as well?

Oh jeez. This couple didn't seek to be public figures. That was forced on them by this situation.

I completely agree.

However my point was that they are now public figures, and if they did lose this case, they have a platform and they could use for a very good cause by promoting adoption.

I was quite clear about this in my post. I never implied they had been seeking celebrity status, only that they now have a platform by accident.

I would urge you to read my posts before replying to them. I did not suggest they should adopt during this legal battle. Only that if they lose and have no other way, they could turn a loss into something positive. It was only a small casual comment, until it got pounced on.

From where I'm standing this legal situation is confusing, because of changes to laws and the mother changing her mind, also the relatively short history of legal cases regarding this type of arrangement. So I do not feel confident to really say what the legal outcome will be.

"Our preferences have nothing to do with it" on which we agree, however I was not posting a preference, only an opinion, which is that in a worst case scenario, something good could still be salvaged. I thought I was being quite nice and sensible and friendly too.

Oh jeez. This couple didn't seek to be public figures. That was forced on them by this situation.

I completely agree.

However my point was that they are now public figures, and if they did lose this case, they have a platform and they could use for a very good cause by promoting adoption.

I was quite clear about this in my post. I never implied they had been seeking celebrity status, only that they now have a platform by accident.

I find your suggestion in bad taste and ridiculous actually. It's all about your agenda and nothing to do with them. They already have two children and doing all they can to keep the youngest. Focus on that please.

I don't see what is "bad taste" about me saying "if they lose the case." I'm not saying that I hope they lose the case. I think you might be able to get some traction if I were actually saying that these people are bad, or I hope they lose the kid, I don't think they should be allowed to adopt, etc. . I don't think they are bad and I have no say in the legal trial anyway.

I honestly am confused about the legal issues, because the law has changed, and also the woman has changed her mind, and I am not a legal expert. I don't know the woman personally, so I cannot really comment on the various slurs levelled against her in this thread. I think it is sad that a kid is being put in the middle by this situation.

I don't have an agenda. I just posted a very friendly comment about how, as sad as they would feel if they lost the case, they could use the platform to promote something very good in the world, adoption. This is what I would do, hence this is what I posted. It is not an agenda, it is an opinion.

By the way, my best friend in New York, her gay brother and his partner have adopted. They are very happy. The kid is especially happy as she now feels like a real child with a real home and caring family, as opposed to how she was feeling before ; like an unwanted statistic.

For every Cuban Cigar you smoke, God takes one hour away from your life and gives it to Keith Richards!

to the person having the hallucination, it can be indistinguishable from reality and the belief of it could have physical manifestations .this manifestations vary depending on the associations one attributes to the hallucinations, it is not the hallucination that causes these physical changes but the belief.

Beliefs can be powerful motivators.

I have seen a hypnotist convince a subject that the pencil eraser he was placing against the subjects arm was a burning cigarette tip, the subject developed a burn welt on that area.

So if a hallucination has positive associations, one will have positive reactions or if it is a negative one, one can have negative reactions. A scary hallucination could could raise your heart rate, release, adrenaline,, and it could even kill you

Regardless of all of these it is still just a hallucination.

And there is nothing wrong if one uses hallucinations to augment reality as long as one knows it is hallucinations and not reality

That is where religion get's in to trouble, they think that hallucinations and the delusions they present is reality, and are not content with that but want to extend their delusions to others.

I am not a sugar-frosted rainbows kind of person, and in most ways I am very grounded and scientific. I come from a very "real" upbringing, a lot of physical world experiences that were nightmarish and yet completely real.

So what I'm saying is that as a person, I never expected anything from life, except more of the same hardship and suffering. And I never feared death, even the blackness of oblivion that science promises, the wormfood destiny etc. Even that seemed better to me than my early life.

So I am really not by nature riding round on unicorns and singing happy songs kind of person. But then one day, I had a vison experience which convinced me, this experience went against all of my life experiences. And it was filled with love and hope, things that I had never really seen much of before.

I feel it is futile to try and convey this in a chatbox text. The feelings of total love and joy that I experience in deep prayer, this exploding universe of sensation, the feeling that God remembers who I am and is welcoming me home, these things do not translate well into words on a computer screen!

Apart from this tragic and unnecessary loss of life we have to consider that somewhere in the depths of the junta someone is seeing incidents like this as a welcome addition to the govts's justifications for total control of the social media and help deflect from their true reasoning.

There are always excuses for these mindless yobs. In my time long before the Internet, television was blamed for youth violence and unruly behavior, before that they blamed the movies. Back in the 1930s my great uncle was a movie gangster fan he used to idolize Edward G. Robinson and many of the youths at the time used to dress like movie gangsters. My uncle tried to rob a petrol station as Edward G. Robinson did in the film, Little Ceasar. He knifed the petrol attendant who survived the attack and my great uncle ended up serving 15 years in prison. It`s always been a talking point within my family. Read the American and British newspapers, this is happening every day in those countries.

This is nothing new. The social media is not to blame because there will always be mindless thugs even if the Internet was taken down. The only difference is that we would not get to hear about it.

If the internet were taken down, there would be the largest and most ferocious uprising in human history. So I think that would be worse than the current situation.

It is clear that the internet is not the problem. The internet saves millions of lives, with emergency-warnings, outreach programmes and aid efforts.

I wrote an essay about social media escalating petty feuds a few years ago. Situations where two strangers, person A and Person B get into a minor tiff in a chatroom, they go from disagreement to insults, the insults get worse, and they sit behind their computers basically wanting to kill each other, even though they have never actually met.

My point in that essay was that if they had been sitting face to face in a cafeteria, and talking rather than typing, they would probably have maintained some civility, even if only to avoid being thrown from the Café. The situation may have progressed differently, and they may have become best friends for life.

This is not to say that internet is bad, because the internet is infact a very good thing for everyone. Also not to say that chatrooms and social media are bad, as they have their uses, f.ex. staying in touch with family and friends over long distances in real time.

Only that many of the cases of serious hatred between two complete strangers, caused from a very petty comment and random minor bickering, these things may have played out differently, if the people were talking face to face in a nice cafeteria, and were able to appreciate that this human being has depth and complexity and deserves respect, they are not a cheesy avatar photo, at which to launch a string of expletives and there is no reason to threaten them.