burman

Left facing swastika has Buddhist roots, right facing swastika has Hindu roots.

More info on Swastika symbols here.

Swastika

It's past, present and future girlfriends.

would you let your wife, daughter, girlfriend wear a t-shirt with any word combination but including "whore"?

Well it's probably not the best slogan to have on a t shirt outside of a native english speaking country because as we have seen from the OP, people misinterpret it.

Also, there is no set dress codes for my girlfriends. Do you have these regulations in place for your wife? What else isn't she allowed to wear?

My guess is that her farang boyfriend/ husband is a rugby fan and give her this shirt in good faith.

My motto - keep your nose out of things that you don't understand, you end up looking more foolish than your alleged 'victim'.

my guess (assuming it was) her farang boyfriend/husband is nothing but an uneducated low-life clown with neither respect for females nor any knowledge how to behave properly not only in this country but anywhere. no explanation (no matter how weird) justifies that a lady wears a t-shirt "i am a whore"!

But it didn't say that did it.

Only on the first page of the topic, and already the four word slogan being discussed is being misquoted.

so in your opinion omitting the word "rugby" in "I'm A Rugby Whore" is misquoting? what part of "whore" is it that you don't understand? would you let your wife, daughter, girlfriend wear a t-shirt with any word combination but including "whore"?

GIVE ME A BREAK MAN!

Not just in my opinion, it's a fact you misquoted. You left a significant word out a four word slogan which changes it's meaning entirely for god's sake.

"I'm a whore" and "I'm a rugby whore" are different.

Look at this definition of 'Post Whore'

Post Whore Definition

But by your understanding calling someone a post whore is the same as calling them a whore? Or a prostitute?

it is just a fashion thing, like Thai businesses having an email address on their letterhead

They don't look like saltwater crocs at all to me.

I think hybrids from Siamese crocs is probably right.

My guess is that her farang boyfriend/ husband is a rugby fan and give her this shirt in good faith.

My motto - keep your nose out of things that you don't understand, you end up looking more foolish than your alleged 'victim'.

my guess (assuming it was) her farang boyfriend/husband is nothing but an uneducated low-life clown with neither respect for females nor any knowledge how to behave properly not only in this country but anywhere. no explanation (no matter how weird) justifies that a lady wears a t-shirt "i am a whore"!

But it didn't say that did it.

Only on the first page of the topic, and already the four word slogan being discussed is being misquoted.

If you gave the bar owners the choice then the status quo would remain the same pre-smoking ban

But hold on, doesn't this run contrary to popular opinion of consumer wants?

I thought the majority of people wanted non smoking bars?

Surely they would become busier and more landlords would be banning smoking from their premises eager to take advantage of this majority market?

Why would they remain smoking bars and aim towards the less profitable minority market?

Yes I agree about cannabis and ecstasy as well, I do know they are harmful. But I also do think the govt / media does like to sent out a slightly twisted version of the truth, or at least the media is allowed to add quite a spin to it that backs up what the govt wants the people to hear.

But in truth so far removed from the western media these days I couldn't offer any conclusive evidence of this so perhaps a debate for another day.

^ I'll have two of whatever he's taken please.

Even though it's got some press that doesn't mean much, it's only a couple of joints or so I would have thought since I doubt 1000 baht buys you much on walking street.

I expect they will be out soon enough, probably already. Soon as fine negotiations are finished.

So this is a Doctor's opinion we are getting?

Do you have a link to the study you quoted earlier? I would like to take a look at it.

The Dubliner is pricey on it's food but there is just not enough choices to go elsewhere for a good English brekkie so they can charge what they like and still get the custom.

Vantanas on Koh Phangan does just as filling a English brekkie than The Dubliner, and I think that works out at around 200 baht.

Maybe a vivarium would be in order?

1: Koh pagnan beaches.

Shittiest in Thailand. Garbage everywhere. Not impressed at all. Even hua hin has better beaches than this. But for a beachguy i reccomend samui bigtime, dont even bother visiting Kohphagnan.

Really, the beaches are that bad? I stay around Haad Yao end and they seemed fine to me, very nice in fact. And no garbage everywhere at all. I visited Chaweng a few days later and was wandering along the beach picking up broken beer bottles along my stroll down the beach.

2: Food.

Sucks. An island with approx 30 pizzaplaces? (from what i reccon on my drives around the island), a local takes me to his nr 1 and it is un-eatable, the few thaiplaces i stopped at where nothing that impressed me either. Might be good to go on a diet when visiting this craphole. And pricewise it did not compare to what im used to in Thailand either.

Yes I agree, not a great deal of good food there from what I have seen (only an annual visitor though), and ertainly nothing to compare to what the more developed islands offer. You would have found Vantana's at Thong Sala very nice for English food though.

3: Pagnan in general

Dont bother visit. As i always thought, the people that love it are mostly youngsters that go for the party. The rest of us, that love Thai culture, beaches, nightlife, food, and so on have absolutely no business going there.

As I said earlier in the thread, two total outsiders, my 60 yr old parents, found Koh Phangan to be their favourite island by far.

They didn't rate Samui very much at all, but to be fair they didn't stay on Haad Rin on Koh Phangan and stayed at Chaweng on Samui.

By the way anyone who has spent time in Thailand should know that if you get a local guide to sort out your rooms and food etc. they will not be thinking of your best interests but the commission they earn. It's like coming to Bangkok and asking a tuk tuk driver to show you around and then complaining that it's only full of tailor and gem shops.

Don't worry Rivalex, it's not all that snobbish in there at all, usually a decent enough mix of foreign and Thai office workers. It's a little pricey on the food but not as exclusively expensive as Boksida seems to think.

The irony is where it is expensive to drink the customers are all happy that there are bars like the Londoner to keep the riff raff occupied and away from them.

Just read your other post, can you provide links to these studies I would like to have a look at them myself.

My basic belief is that burden of proof has to be on those proposing to curtail the freedom of others. The evidence is not strong enough in my view to justify using the state to restrict and control the smoker. If the evidence ever does become strong enough then I will accept that the restriction of freedom of one man is justified in protecting the freedom of another.

Thanks theyreallrubbish for the opinion, but I believe evidence stating that second hand smoke is dangerous to others is strong enough now for them to curtail smokers freedoms a little.

but this differs from the state exerting control over what happens in property owned by a private business that people are free to choose to enter or not provided that the activity going on is not obviously harmful such as child abuse, hard drug abuse etc. and has been made illegal.

I would say that (certainly in the UK) bars are public houses for all of the public to enjoy their drug of 'choice'. (well there's another debate right there but for a different time).

And if second hand smoke is damaging to that public then that freedom is being taken away from them.

If we were talking about cannabis or ecstasy for example I would wholeheartedly agree with you that the govt is curtailing people's freedoms with misinformation. But I do believe that second hand smoke is damaging and that people who want to avoid this damage should still be able to go to a bar and enjoy a drink.

I still believe that non smoking and smoking bars is the fairest compromise yet, and one that should have been called for by many more voices where all smoking in public houses has been made illegal.

And BTW, do you or do you not consider second hand smoke to be harmful to other people's health?

I didn't need to click on the link, I know what a straw man argument is. Do we really need to wiki everything these days.

You are now engaged in an ad hominem attack. Which is another debating technique based on deflecting from the actual argument. You believe that by characterising me as a rebellious student and attributing personal characteristics to me that may or may not be true you can dismiss the validity of any arguments I make.

No I engaged in attack to try to draw you into answering my questions which you were avoiding. And still are. I shall repeat at the bottom, would love to see an answer to a direct question.

My fundamental point that you seem to be willfully ignoring is that government uses scare tactics and pitting temporary majorities against minorities in order to expand its own control. Those who fall for this when they're on the same side as the government fully deserve the loss of liberty they'll suffer when the government decides to take control over some other aspect of their life that they don't agree with.

Yes I believe they have done this many times and have believed that since I was quite young in fact. I wasn't willfully ignoring your point, it's just you are not telling me anything new here.

But, lets go back to what you said before. About if a man who doesn't have control his own body having no freedom.

If I were in a public space and making someone breathe in my second hand smoke would I be taking his freedom to have a smoke free body away?

Why should my freedom by more important than his?

Now if you answer those two questions we are back on track. Your point about governments being over controlling is well noted already.

^ What parts of the country? And would you say it represents 21% of Thailand's 60+ million people?

Have you seen or heard of any Thai people that are starving to death?

Putting aside issues like that, I would want to know its criteria for malnourished and its methodology.

One of the reasons it says people are undernourished is because they lack enough knowledge of their dietary requirements to fulfill them. Not necessarily because there isn't enough food going around.

So for example lets take a rural Thai guy that eats three times a day but only chicken and rice for a year. He would be considered undernourished and part of the 21% of 'hungry' people.

Far different from reasons people are undernourished in Africa, North Korea etc.

My disagreement is not for or against smoking or for or against the evidence on second hand smoke, but the astounding willingness of people to allow government to intrude into every aspect of their life if its wrapped up in a scare or a hate of some kind.

Well we are talking about smoking in bars here. I offered you a question about 'is it right for me to restrict others freedom by letting them breathe my second hand smoke' but in a typically rebellious student fashion you have ignored a debate that you are not comfortable with and gone back to the familiar slogan shouting anti government speeches.

Which I have to tell you are not as shocking or surprising to us as you might think. We've all read 1984 you know.

So stop stroking the ego, and get back to answering my question about second hand smoke.

Also still waiting to hear why you called me a straw man? Another shouted slogan you can't back up when questioned upon it?

Yep, some things just don't seem right do they. You know it's a shitty world full of tragic accidents, but a ten year old girl, killed by a jellyfish whilst swimming, it's just not fair is it. The family have to live with that forever now, what a bloody shame.

Condolences to the family.

Fair enough bkkblue here's my changed opinion.

You made him sound like a <deleted> but he probably isn't at all.

You might want to read a few of my posts, I'm pro smoking (in some bars) and also willing to take the responsibility for harming others.

The blinded by addiction remark is pathetic though as that means you will not take the view of any smokers on board when discussing a debate about smoking. It's a cop out phrase.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, non smoking and smoking bars should be allowed to operate. Compromise is needed.

What's the argument against that Clayton?

Come on I am interested and more than willing to change my opinion should I find reason to.