Asheron

You have to wonder what kind of person argues for the right to be offensive to people.

Usually socially awkward misfits who've under-achieved despite all their advantages and need someone to blame

Or perhaps the other part is projecting their failuries by applying it on perceived injustice for a third part that they have no idea about but feel they should feel the way they do.

Oh I get it

You move the goalposts whenever you moronic diatribes are blown out of the water and everyone else is wrong?

How white of you

Njet.

My "goalposts" as you so nicely put it are firmly in the same spot they have always been in. It's your "posts" that move around quite frequently and wildly depending on which word and "race" is up in the debate.

And how would you know what skin color i have? Maybe i'm half black? Half gipsy? Half thai? Does it matter? You have no idea but just guessing as is the norm for SJW's.

The issue with SJW's like yourself is that their perceived world view is the correct one even if fact slapped them in the face, they just refuse to accept the fact and continue on with their own imaginary world view.

Well, one has to assume that given the vigour with which you're fighting for your right to be able to use racist slurs to describe people that are different in appearance from yourself, there's a pretty damn good chance you're white since I've yet to hear you reel off a term to describe white people

. . . and NO "farang" doesn't count since most of your own race can't even decide whether it's meant to describe white people in particular or foreigners in general

No doubt in anyone's mind what other slurs are meant to describe, though

Again, miss the point...

I'm fighting for everyones right to use whatever words they like about anything. Freedom of speech is infinitely more important than feelings. Children or adults with a childs mind "feel".

Oh and yeah... cracker!

And anyone saying that farang is not exclusively for white people have no idea what they are on about.

It's not about gun control.

Although many are quick to jump on that bandwagon and are missing the point.

It's about self-control and the childlike mentality that is a cancer on this nation: Losing Face.

"The high numbers of homicides in Thailand, it was reported, was often due to “loss of face and businesses disputes”, which recent deaths would appear to confirm."

"What may make Thailand stand-out however is that so many murders we hear about ... happen over what most people would consider trivial matters, mostly concerning ‘loss of face’."

“You see in Thailand there’s no 1, 2, 3,” he said. “There’s only a 3. In some countries you have a shouting match, then you have a fight and sometimes it goes to murder.

Here, you can get into an argument and the next thing you know you have been shot.” People don’t like losing face, he said, and on top of that it’s easy to acquire a firearm."

"As has been reported, losing face seems to bear much of the responsibility for murders in Thailand, perhaps more so than in other countries where ‘face’ is not deemed quite as important."

No it is not.

Human nature cannot prevent the people who may turn crazy easily to do so.

Gun control just limit the casualties

(But it is a good argument for the NRA )

Gun control doesn't limit any casualties...

Swedens murder rate is about 90 each year* and 30-35% of them are with guns and just 1-2 each year is committed with a legal gun, rest are with illegal guns.

*since 2005 but there was peak of 111 murders in 2007.

You say it doesn t prevent casualties, however your exemple show the exact opposite.

Gun control means having less guns, no second hand selling without state control.

Less guns in circulation means less guns available to buy legally or on the black market, with higher price when the avaibility is poor.

So thank you for your help to prove my point

Gun control means only one thing: making it harder to get a legal gun.

If i wanted to have an illegal gun in Sweden i could have one in my hand within a day and i don't even know "shady people".

So no, i didn't prove your point. I just proved my point that gun control doesn't combate gun crime as almost all the gun crime is done with illegal guns.

Their nationality isn't in question; their race is

Try to keep up - I know it's difficult

So it's a queston of skin color (again)... how do you SJW's not see that you guys are the biggest racists on this infinitely worthless and puny planet in the grand scheme of things?

I think you should try to keep up even though it can be hard with chronic cognitive dissonance. Seems it's hard for SJW's to understand that no one has the right to not be offended. Feelings are the last thing anyone should have to think about when uttering words to anyone.

Oh I get it

You move the goalposts whenever you moronic diatribes are blown out of the water and everyone else is wrong?

How white of you

Njet.

My "goalposts" as you so nicely put it are firmly in the same spot they have always been in. It's your "posts" that move around quite frequently and wildly depending on which word and "race" is up in the debate.

And how would you know what skin color i have? Maybe i'm half black? Half gipsy? Half thai? Does it matter? You have no idea but just guessing as is the norm for SJW's.

The issue with SJW's like yourself is that their perceived world view is the correct one even if fact slapped them in the face, they just refuse to accept the fact and continue on with their own imaginary world view.

how do you SJW's not see that you guys are the biggest racists on this infinitely worthless and puny planet in the grand scheme of things?

Are black people are allowed to be SJWs?

I though it was a 'white only' club.

Of course blacks can be 'SJW's'... newest trending hip thing is to be 'transethnic'. So if a black person feel like a white person then he/she/it is a white person.

Walk up to 100 Pakistanis in the UK and call them a Paki, what percentage do you think would take offence?

If I were in England, I would assume they were British.

So the correct insult would be 'Brit'.

Only if they are white (according to SJW's). Skin color, skin color and skin color... that's the only thing that's important to SJW's.

Walk up to 100 Pakistanis in the UK and call them a Paki, what percentage do you think would take offence?

If I were in England, I would assume they were British.

So the correct insult would be 'Brit'.

Their nationality isn't in question; their race is

Try to keep up - I know it's difficult

So it's a queston of skin color (again)... how do you SJW's not see that you guys are the biggest racists on this infinitely worthless and puny planet in the grand scheme of things?

I think you should try to keep up even though it can be hard with chronic cognitive dissonance. Seems it's hard for SJW's to understand that no one has the right to not be offended. Feelings are the last thing anyone should have to think about when uttering words to anyone.

It's the Thaivisa version of Godwin's law - when a thread gets long enough, eventually someone will claim that the word 'farang' is racist.

Sooooo.......

Using paki for a minority in UK is deathjunkienaziracistfascistislamophobia according to you but using farang for a minority in Thailand is perfectly ok?

Yeeeahh... makes perfect sense. If you are a SJW that is.

One reason you cant call a Pakistani a Paki in England is because 40 million white people will tell you its offensive.

I have a local shop near me called Paki. It is run by Pakistanis and plenty of white people go there to get what they need.

You have to understand you are offending a lot of non Pakistanis by calling a Pakistani a Paki.

Hope you now understand

No one has the right to not be offended. If we are to limit freedom of speech after "the offended" we will end up with nothing.

Pakistan is a minority...................191,000,000........UK..65,000,000

I am English, traced a thousand years of my history....Then call me a Norman, much prefer an Englander , but l cannot in some opinions use a shortened version of their homeland, Pakistan.....Why is that...?

Racial abuse.....Bwaaaaaaaah.......Gawd..

Pakistanis are a minority in the UK.

Again, I'm amazed I'm having explain something so obvious.

But i bet a case of Chang beer (if that is your taste) that you do not find the word farang offensive.

By the same rule you can't call me a Brit when I'm in Thailand.

Unless you're a racist.

Only if you are white it's ok to call you a brit anywhere at anytime. If you aren't a white brit then it's racism.. see, the skin color is hyper-super-turbo-ninja-important for SJW's when it's about words.

Negro isn't racist. It's rather antiquated and has somewhat fallen out of favour, but it's not particularly offensive.

Using it just makes you seem rather out of touch. Like saying 'gramophone' or 'lavatory'.

Seriously, is it so hard to get your head round this stuff?

Nope, i'm fully aware "about this stuff".

Reason for the word negro, as you say has fallen out of favour, is simply because people are afraid of getting a lable on them and the labling is done by SJW's and massmedia which is plagued with them. And i can assure you that if you would use the word negro anywhere in the western world you would be labled as a racist (if you are white).

I am English, traced a thousand years of my history....Then call me a Norman, much prefer an Englander , but l cannot in some opinions use a shortened version of their homeland, Pakistan.....Why is that...?

Racial abuse.....Bwaaaaaaaah.......Gawd..

Pakistanis are a minority in the UK.

Again, I'm amazed I'm having explain something so obvious.

But i bet a case of Chang beer (if that is your taste) that you do not find the word farang offensive.

Why would I? It's a neutral term used to denote a certain group, with no negative connotations or history of abusive usage (outside of the fevered imaginations of a few over-sensitive expats desperate for an excuse to play the victim card).

Note, there is a difference between a word that is considered offensive, and a neutral word used in an offensive context.

But seriously. It's 2016. Do you guys really need a race relations primer this late in the game?

Wait, wasn't it that the group a word is used for that decides if something is offensive? Or does that only apply to "non-whites"? For instance the word negro, it has only been "racist" to use last 40ish years or so, even MLK used it all the time before he was assassinated. So, it was very much a neutral word (and still is) only problem is that SJW's like yourself jump out of the bushes and start bashing people for using a word because you think and more importantly, feel, it's "racist". Anyhow, here is a good picture telling you the issue with SJW's...

Because one has a historical usage as a term of racial abuse towards a minority, and the other doesn't.

I'm always puzzled when people struggle with this stuff. It's pretty straightforward.

Pakistan is a minority...................191,000,000........UK..65,000,000

I am English, traced a thousand years of my history....Then call me a Norman, much prefer an Englander , but l cannot in some opinions use a shortened version of their homeland, Pakistan.....Why is that...?

Racial abuse.....Bwaaaaaaaah.......Gawd..

Pakistanis are a minority in the UK.

Again, I'm amazed I'm having explain something so obvious.

But i bet a case of Chang beer (if that is your taste) that you do not find the word farang offensive.

Of course you would know about the term..."obtuse", which it seems never applies to yourself....

So tell us why a shortened version of a Pakistani is offensive and a shortened version of a British national ain't....?

Sharpest tool in the shed you most definitely are not

Seems to me he provided the explanation

Explain......?

I can call a guy from Sweden a Swede, or from Finland a Fin, or a Sottish guy a Scot, why is it that I cannot call a Pakistani a Paki....Just Explain it to me...?

Because they are SJW's and in their head any word any white person use for any group is offensive if even one person of the "targeted" group find it offensive all the while not a a single word describing a white person any way, regardless of how many whites think it's offensive, is actually offensive.

A very slippery slope.

Only if you are a kiddy fiddler. Great law. Keep the deviants out of circulation.

Many more sex offenders than just kiddy fiddlers. How about statutory rape e.g.? 17 yo boy has sex with 15 yo girl, mark in passport follows. At least that is the impression I get.

So are you suggesting that the 17 year DIDN'T break a law? Or that it is acceptable to have sex with a 15 year old because he was 17?

In most (almost all?) of he European countries that would be perfectly fine.

cops can do anything they want. they are above the law because they are the law. i have had some limited dealings with them over a work permit issue. i now pay a small monthly donation. not sure if it achieves anything but hope it means i wont be locked up in their cells again.

Too many Judge Dredd comics.

Wake up call,,

this is not my birth country

i'm not a citizen,,, therefore,

i'm a guest in this country

but, i invest so much money here,,

thank you, now go away,,,

i have no where to go !

so behave yourself and close mouth

remember army in charge and they

have guns and bullets, they own this

country, do you want to argue?

Yes, just continue to lick that boot.

You need to broaden your horizons.Every farang i know has no problem and handles his piss quite well.

Then you need to open your eyes and start reading about the trouble people from the west get in to in thailand and back in there home country .

The word f????g is racist and you for one if you come from the west you should know not a good saying.

Yes, the west is such a wonderful place !

A place where you can't even say a black person is black and where all your washing has to go in the same load because it would be discrimination to separate the whites from the coloureds.

Of course you can say a black person is black.

Yes you can, that is if you aren't white.

It's not about gun control.

Although many are quick to jump on that bandwagon and are missing the point.

It's about self-control and the childlike mentality that is a cancer on this nation: Losing Face.

"The high numbers of homicides in Thailand, it was reported, was often due to “loss of face and businesses disputes”, which recent deaths would appear to confirm."

"What may make Thailand stand-out however is that so many murders we hear about ... happen over what most people would consider trivial matters, mostly concerning ‘loss of face’."

“You see in Thailand there’s no 1, 2, 3,” he said. “There’s only a 3. In some countries you have a shouting match, then you have a fight and sometimes it goes to murder.

Here, you can get into an argument and the next thing you know you have been shot.” People don’t like losing face, he said, and on top of that it’s easy to acquire a firearm."

"As has been reported, losing face seems to bear much of the responsibility for murders in Thailand, perhaps more so than in other countries where ‘face’ is not deemed quite as important."

No it is not.

Human nature cannot prevent the people who may turn crazy easily to do so.

Gun control just limit the casualties

(But it is a good argument for the NRA )

Gun control doesn't limit any casualties...

Swedens murder rate is about 90 each year* and 30-35% of them are with guns and just 1-2 each year is committed with a legal gun, rest are with illegal guns.

*since 2005 but there was peak of 111 murders in 2007.

Gun control anyone?

You'd think so wouldn't you. I mean here in Cambodia the UN actually did something well when they had their gun amnesty, the vast majority of guns were turned in. Today there are still gun murders but no where near the rate of Thailand. The only people here with guns are criminals and the elites (often the same people).

Incompetent police, incompetent leadership and the ridiculous issue of losing face. The country will not improve in any significant way in the foreseeable future due to a truly bizarre, highly superstitious and extremely racist culture. One that is not shared to anything like the same extent in neighboring countries I might add.

Yes, that's a wonderful idea... lets disarm the law abiding citizens and let the criminals have their guns, brilliant idea.

It's bit like that danish girl that was almost raped but saved herself by using pepperspray on the immigrant attacker and now she will (or was already?!) get prosecuted for having an "illegal weapon".

Lets something clear we are not taking about guns, we are talking about weapons. There is a big difference. If any of you have seen the movie "Full Metal Jacket" you would understand.

In fact, we are talking about culture.

We have evidence that humans are able to live in much greater harmony than is found in Thailand. Random examples: Scandinavia, Japan, Korea, Singapore

We must identify why some societies fare much better than others.

Many issues in Thai culture and society that must be addressed.

Have you ever noticed that people here just cannot disagree? They do not know how to disagree and detach their ideas of disagreement with a particular concept or decision from the person or people involved. Hence 100 years of chaotic politics (among the most chaotic in the world).

They must address their cultural shortcomings which I imagine will be incredibly painful for them. Redefining the Thainess they are so permanently proud of.

That kind of writing in Europe would almost lead to getting prosecuted for "hate speech"... even thought it's entirely correct.

It's not a secret that that thai people are "special kind of stupid" when they sit behind the wheel. My "best" encounter was drivin in the night time (was like 24:00 so pitch black and no street lighting) and a truck without ANY kind of lights on was driving against me and when i flashed my head lights he flashed his but didn't turn them on. I literally have hundreds stories like this from just 3 years of driving in Thailand but after driving for almost two decades in Sweden i can't even recall one "you just went full retard" incident.

Awhile ago a popular website moderator complained that younger people posting on his site have no hold of grammar or punctuation and neither they can produce more than few lines of drivel. He has maintained 800 words as a minimum of submission saying that anything less there probably will be nothing worthwhile to read. I tend to agree.

Sites - or rather apps - like Twitter, are limited to very few words indeed. A sign of our less-than-intellectual times, I suppose.

Whatever one thinks of Stephen Fry, I enjoy his take on things and his humor. In this world of mediocrity he is a shining beacon. I miss the wit of Oscar Wilde and the likes.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

There, proved that both the "popular website moderator" and you are incorrect and that with just 15 words.

Its based on trust and if you can't trust your GF / Wife why are you with her.

Babies and sex ........ why else would anyone want a woman?

Have I missed out on something else she can provide?

Can a Thai woman go cycling, hiking and running with me?

I've not met one.

Can a Thai woman discuss the latest books, movies or TV shows with me?

I've not met one.

C'mon, I'm ready to be convinced I'm meeting the wrong women.

Tell me what your one can provide .... apart from babies and sex!

They have monopoly on what men want (almost all men), it's like a conspiracy!

Come on OP. Whilst I am often questioning Thais I think it is unfair to make sweeping statements like ' why are so many Thai men'. They are not all the same. Different culture, different ways of showing how much they love their partners. I would say for this reason would answer your question.

But that's the OP's MO, he observes some isolated incident and manages to leap to some ridiculous conclusion about a whole country of peoples he's never met. And of course, his conclusions are always negative about the Thais, especially the men. Talk about insecurity and immaturity.

So let me ask you OP, if I was married with a wife and kids, and my wife wanted to go for an extended vacation alone, leaving me to work and look after the kids, and I said "no." would you call me jealous and insecure?

That's the thing OP, your knowledge of Thailand and the Thais are so obscenely poor that you are almost always wrong when you express an opinion about Thailand.

Save monetary reasons I would call you Jealous. Because she is your wife that gives you the power or authority to control her? Odd way to think when my wife mentions she wants to go to visit her family I say have a good time and enjoy the home cooking. Funny how people have come to be like this. How does one simply tell another adult no with out being controlling? As long as the kids are taken care of and as you are their other parent then why imply you have the power to say no. When I grew up quite often one or the other of my parents would go for a holiday such as a fishing trip to a week at the spa or heaven forbid time to visit the family

I guess society dictates that as you are the money maker you control the home? Interesting way to go about marriage. I guess that's why I waited until I was 40 and found who I could trust enough to live a normal life with before I got married

Come on, it's Berkshire you are replying to, don't waste your time.