JCauto

Just so things are clear <insert rolling eyes emoji>... https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism No, criticism of Israel is not automatic grounds for accusations of Anti-Semitism. However, the following is: Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. I think that is a reasonable list that differentiates these actions from simple criticism of the Israeli government (something I as a Jew also partake in although I am not Israeli nor have I ever been there). Mick - so just mentioning Israel brings religion and Jews into the equation, does it? Does mentioning Ireland bring buggering priests and buried children's bodies into the equation automatically? Obviously it should not, any more than mentioning any country and connecting it to any religion which anyone could do with almost any other country. Why is it you feel this is the only place where there is such a connection? I would ask you to re-read the list above and re-think through your processes that got you to that strange place.

At least you post honestly most of the time even if we disagree on substance. Many of your brethren are far more cynical than you in that they refuse to be honest about their own cynicism and acceptance that nothing will change and there's no point. This is to me one of the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals (in the context of their US designations). Liberals do believe in working towards a better future and for the improvement of conditions for others. Conservatives do not see much in the way of hope for the future and are not particularly concerned about others. This is demonstrated in their lack of coherent policy other than "does it <deleted> the Libs off?".

Pretty easy to tell from your responses. What are your main issues - the hypocrisy of "virtue signaling", gay people's rights outside of your country mattering to you somehow, worker's who are treated brutally outside of your country mattering to you somehow, "wokeness". These are all positions that identify you as an Conservative. "Virtue Signaling" was Alt-Right code invented to minimize people's feelings of empathy for others. That you find it odd that people would care about disadvantaged "others" in countries outside of your own demonstrates a similar callousness that is a trademark of Conservative commentary. The "war on Woke" is the latest Conservative rallying cry to minimize any discussion or understanding about the injustices suffered in the past by non-White non-male people. It's not exactly something you are hiding carefully.

I would recommend not attempting to apply logic or reason to Thai politics, especially when the former Prime Minister is the one carrying the water for the Coupmakers to ensure all is whitewashed to become "legal". This, ironically, was what Chuan was derided for when he was PM, his adherence to legal principles over practical consequences and unwillingness to make things work. Now he's somehow ended up being the guy putting up the Christmas windows for those who simply seize power and use it whenever they feel like and use people like him to make it all look nice to casual passers-by. Pathetic end to a hopeless political career, the Thai version of the Vampire Lestat.

"Activists" are not the ones virtue signaling, they're in the streets. If you're outside of your house engaging in these issues in some manner, whether it be the work you do, the protest you attend, the defense of the people being abused by others (although to be fair this can be also done online although clearly this is a lower level of engagement and of impact) then it's possible you are an "activist". I don't think someone with rainbow shirts or flags or symbols on their FB page is an activist although they MAY be if that support translates to actual action. There's nothing wrong with signaling one's support for a cause, and you'll note that similarly anyone stumping for the Right is usually designated as a "Conservative Activist" or whatever. But those are people who are, you know, being active. They're not just typing on a keyboard. Those typing people, who are by far the majority, are signaling their support for that cause but are unwilling to go beyond that. They consider that support virtuous, but I expect that the Conservative supporter similarly considers their support of those causes to be virtuous. So it's not "virtue signaling" since that's obviously the reason one would signal in all cases. You are trying to make that a pejorative by labeling that as "virtue signaling", meaning it's the person trying to impress others about their viewpoints being correct but being unwilling to do anything about it or even believe in it. How do you know they don't? I expect that the Conservatives like yourself who "virtue signal" believe what they type. But if you similarly aren't attending protests about Drag Queens reading to children or whatever then you're not an Activist.

Yeah, the PM just picks and chooses how long he will be in power and when and to whom he will delegate it should he decide (this time) to stick to whatever it is he said. This is the "democracy" the Yellow Shirts and Amaat have "fought" for, one where only they or the ones who represent old power can continue to govern, or as Prayut properly refers to it, "rule" the population despite their clear preference for other leadership. Oh, and you'll notice that their "fight" is one without violence, one where the authorities give them food and water, one where the Army never starts shooting from concealed positions and racking up the bodies. Quite unlike the situation of those who are against the illegal and continual seizure of power by the Elite.

Where are the activists who should be decrying it? They're usually in police cells or on the receiving end of violence from the authorities or their stooges. Where are the governments who should be uplifting their people? They're the ones beating any attempt to change the status quo which is in every case the propping up of the local Elite (in Thailand, these are the "Amaat"). Where are the rich governments who should be doing their utmost to alleviate it? They're mostly doing business with the local Elite. And where are the Cynical? Asking questions they already know the answers to and making it seem hopeless so they can be satisfied in their complacency and justify their lack of action or thought towards a better future.

There's a new term now, "sportwashing". Quite apropos for this situation in my opinion.

I appreciate your point, however the people in your photograph are Tommie Smith and John Carlos who made the "Black Power" salute on the podium after their race in the 1960's in Mexico City I believe. Jesse Owens was the one who won several gold medals and showed up Hitler in Berlin. And yes, pretty much every right that people take for granted these days is there because of "activists" whom the old and conservative disparage and mock, but who actually are the people who make things better for others.

Or, like some of us whom you might label as "activist", we actually give a toss about the future, especially as we have children who are likely to have to live with the consequences of our choices whether they like it or not. They plainly do not. Which is logical, as would you I suspect should your future have been compromised before you even got going. I'm going to continue to work towards a better planet and future, and you not giving a shirt just means you are part of the problem. That's your choice and your right to choose. However, please get out of the way of those of us who haven't given up yet. Thanks.

Indeed! And the terrible harm that it has done! Oh, um, er, uh, yes, about that...there isn't any. Why haven't you got any statistics or arguments about why "this has gone too far...and become the usual free-for-all". Wouldn't you say addressing things such as, oh, massive uncontrolled corruption among the ruling classes, the complete lack of democracy and ability of the population to elect their own government, the unbelievable amount of prostitution and human trafficking, the large number of guns and shootings (often in combination with alcohol) and the amount of drinking and driving accidents, injuries and death are a bit ahead in the queue than this terrible scourge of people wandering around smiling with the munchies?

The issue is not "jumping into your 3.0L pickup and driving at 100kph". It's driving at 10kph. The research has proven inconclusive as to whether the introduction of legal cannabis results in increased or decreased incidences of impaired driving and accidents. The research is absolute and crystal clear that alcohol causes impairment and increased incidences of accidents, injuries, death and damage. Yet alcohol has been legal the entire time and you're waffling on about marijuana when you clearly don't understand anything about it. Nobody who gets high starts driving faster, they drive slower. It's not ideal, but it's far less dangerous than drinking and driving and that is not under any dispute anywhere in the world.

Ah, clearly this is a refined and educated poster! Now do tell us all about how Trudeau is a "cuck", which I understand is Incel for "cuckold". Have you been naughty with Justin's wife? Perhaps, as I expect you've come here since you were so darn hansum that the gals back home couldn't keep their hands off you and you needed some relief from being sexualized constantly. I personally find only the sharpest minds dwell on the imagined sexual fantasies of their political enemies. I look forward to your future incisive analyses of Canadian politics...

That would be ageist and wrong. Discrimination against someone for any physical reason or for something they can't change like age is wrong. However, demonstrating your lack of knowledge through the words you type shows you are a know-nothing, at least as far as this particular topic is concerned.

Practically nobody starts with nothing who became a billionaire. His father was a diplomat working in the foreign service, his mother a correspondent for Time Magazine, they were on full international salaries and bennies. He went to International Schools as a kid growing up in Bangkok. I respect that he was able to build his business through his efforts although I know none of the particulars other than his abysmal products in the pizza industry and what I've read on this thread. But any international school kid gets a leg up from the cradle. I gave the same advantage to my kids, nothing wrong with that at all, it's what most parents who can do would do. If they start a business, as no doubt with Bill I'll give my kids a hand as I will when they want to buy their house. That's something I can do but not everyone else can, hence it is privilege. I assess character more by how they treat others, particularly those who live ordinary or poor lives. Often these people haven't any understanding of the day-to-day issues of the majority of the population because they don't experience how expensive it is to be poor for example, or how hard it is for someone in the middle class to save for that honeymoon or dream vacation to Thailand.

Ah yes, another child of privilege and enormously wealthy man telling us proles how $8 a day is a pittance, practically nothing, wouldn't even bend down to pick it up in the street. Which for his ilk is likely not even true, they never met a penny they didn't desire. Not sure where becoming enormously wealthy by peddling abominations of a beloved food sits on the billionaire sin scale, but every time I see a hot-dog and cheese-stuffed crust with fake crab and pineapple on top, it makes me sad for what we've become.

As is often the case, one finds real expertise when one asks on TV. Appreciate your input, and like those ones too, imagine they'd be less hassle than a metal-topped one when it comes to boarding airplanes etc. I'll see if I can stroll around the top floor of Emporium and have a gander at a few other spots nearby that have been mentioned, then will go the Lazada route if I can't find a winner in the wild. Cheers.

Ooh, some of those are way cool. Love the Zulu one, may go for that instead. Get all Druid-like, grow the beard and wear long robes. People would probably start listening to what I said. Or perhaps the opposite, not sure.

Had a look through the online links, and there's a few meeting my description, but with something like this that requires high quality and the correct height etc., I need to actually see it before buying. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Sorry Frits, I know you're Dutch and I persist in making posts that utilize humor and reasoning methods that are not understood by Dutchies with their tendency to take things at exact literal value and their, uh, inexperience with humor in general. Carry on and ignore me.

I am looking for a high quality wooden walking cane, preferably with a nice metal handle of some sort that has a bit of heft so it can be both an aid to my recovery from surgery and a security boon in a sticky situation or to protect against aggressive dogs. I saw one online at Chanintr.com but unfortunately no stock and not available to order. If anyone has come across such a thing recently, would be greatly appreciative.

I'll show you facts! What percentage of gun owners are irresponsible? It's a very small amount! So what's the problem? Similar to irresponsible Yorkie owners. Small amount! I don't see the difference between owning a Pitbull and owning a Yorkie at all! It's the same as owning a gun and owning a water pistol.

What's the "whoosh" sound you just heard? Never mind.

I'll be charitable and assume that you meant "aren't" since English isn't your first language. So...what do you reckon? Should guns be free for all to own given that we're certain that there are many nutters who will buy them and not be properly trained? Or is it just the price to pay for freedom? Do you reckon that all people who own Pit Bulls properly train them and are of sound mind?

Guns are safe if owners are properly trained and they're kept in a safe. So everyone should have a gun.