burman

Kat come on, you played the female card and you know it. But we have to agree to disagree on this or we will never get anywhere.

but it is instructive to understand how both sides of the coin view the same scenario and statements ... isn't it?

Yes indeed, its why I asked. Never one to debate and win points, only to broaden my own thinking. The Ladies forum is particularly good for that, we are often a world apart as you said earlier.

Ok, lets start on a fresh one coz I think we agreed on the last point.

How about the woman is controlling him by not giving him sex?

We all know it's a man's great weakness, is she by holding it back manipulating him also?

If a man has to come to the point of offering a trip away with the shared room deal, we jump to say he is controlling her, using the trip to get sex.

But let's step back here for a second, couldn't the woman also be accused of holding back sex until she got a trip? Is she not controlling also?

(ps. not about OPs case so much, but a little hypothetical)

^ Your mate sounds like a <deleted> though.

It's not rubbish. Men and women are at times from different worlds.

Yes I believe I took your comment the wrong way, apologies.

And before anyone goes ballistic about the "accustomed" comment, that is also pertinent, because in the East women are more focused on submerging their point of view in deference to the male's, especially when she is less powerful than him, either economically or confidence-wise.

I know many women from the east that do not submerge their point of view in anyway at all. Many more than I do women that submerge their point of view. So I don't think I have become accustomed to anything of the sort.

I would have to say that I do agree with you up to a point. The offering of a trip in return for sex? And no other trip option even being put on the table does seem wrong. I wouldn't say 'controlling' so much though, I think there's a better phrase for it but at 5 am I cannot think of one.

'Controlling' suggests to me like that there are no options on the table, but maybe thats not right.

Not carried away, simply reading your words back to you and some of the implicit or perceived attitudes therein. I love how on this forum, a definite and unapologetic female point of view is always "carried away." Perhaps that's because you're not accustomed to how we really think.

Excuse me Kat, I do not always say that a female point of view point is carried away, I specifically told you that you was getting carried away. Don't hide behind your sex and don't accuse me of something just because other men on this forum have acted that way before.

Ok Kat, understood your point better now, its late here sorry.

Can we have a little less of the 'in your world' rubbish though as I was only asking a question based on something you said.

To be fair, in that situation I would offer the separate room as well, I'd hope she didn't take it (!) but the offer would be there.

But she does have the option of not taking a trip though? So hardly would call it controlling unless you are a very easily controlled person. She just has to say 'no' doesn't she?

I said this:

And were a man to breathe in my second hand smoke in a public place does he have control over his own body? Or am I taking his freedom away?

And you said this:

You'd need pretty strong evidence that this is a direct health hazard before you can justify government intervention. At least you should if you believe in freedom. That strong evidence doesn't actually exist. The fact that the evidence doesn't exist is no longer a matter of concern to those who don't believe in freedom

If I made a mistake then sorry, but if you can handle a debate then explaining what I got wrong and correcting me will get you much further than silly accusations about straw men.

So please clarify for me then, I was talking about second hand smoke and you said 'the evidence doesn't exist'. What did you mean by that then?

Do you believe second hand smoke is damaging to other people's health or not?

You'd need pretty strong evidence that this is a direct health hazard before you can justify government intervention. At least you should if you believe in freedom. That strong evidence doesn't actually exist. The fact that the evidence doesn't exist is no longer a matter of concern to those who don't believe in freedom

There's no evidence that second hand smoke is damaging to other people's health?

I have my doubts about whether you even think freedom for anyone other than yourself is desireable

What do you mean by this?

and if a male I was dating made "it undestood that you would be sharing a room", I would make it understood that I would be nowhere to be found, in a heartbeat. Any kind of controlling behavior is offensive, but that kind of arrogant attitude of entitlement over my body would be toast.

Is suggesting a trip away and saying you will be sharing a room considered controlling behaviour? Why?

The woman is not forced to go on the trip or share the room. The option has been laid out for her to either take or not take. She has been given a choice no?

If a man doesn't have control over his own body then what kind of freedom does he really have?

And were a man to breathe in my second hand smoke in a public place does he have control over his own body? Or am I taking his freedom away?

The government does not have a duty of care towards its citizens.

I disagree, governments should be have a duty it's for citizens health care and protection. It's a care that you have enjoyed in the western world and to a degree enjoy here too.

I also think there should be non smoking bars. I also think there should be smoking bars too. It's then very easy for non smokers to avoid second hand smoke and still enjoy a drink.

I don't understand why that isn't a suitable compromise?

If the majority of people do think that we should have non smoking bars only then the consumer market will force the majority of bar owners to open non smoking bars.

Anyway I see you have asked for the thread to be closed, a fair enough debate I think, thanks.

Now, please tell me which of these actions caused physical damage to the people around me? Smoking does, believe it or not.

You've added a little twist there haven't you? When did I say that illegal activity causes harm to others?

If complying with the law is an option, then there would be anarchy.

Mu Ham drove his mercedes into a group of people - obviously he felt (not thought, brain absent) free to do so. Another famous son killed a policeman. Again, he felt no compulsion to respect the law.

Once we start down the road of deciding which laws we will respect, it becomes a very slippery slope.

The answer is obvious - respect the law.

I was asking if you did anything illegal since you compared anyone that broke the law to a murderer. But it seems you are much like the rest of us and will break the law as and when it suits. The same as the owner of The Office.

As I said, one bar for smokers, one for non smokers. Now how does that harm anyone? A good compromise I would have thought.

This is why earlier I said I fully support The Office, it's because I don't agree with the law in place.

I stand corrected, apologies Ade.

Surprising figures though, 21% for Thailand, 5% for Myanmar.

How to they come to these figures because on my travels around Thailand and they have been extensive I've not seen many people short of food. Gotta be said though I've spent a lot more time around the north western border than north eastern.

"I dreamt when I was a child that if I ever worked here at the Public Health Ministry I would make all the toilets in the country flush toilets," Wan says.

Finally you get a chance to be quoted in a newspaper and.....

“streets full of cars” . Yes those Bangkok streets are certainly full of cars, can't fault you there, possibly a little too full of cars, one could argue. There are some that would go so far as to say that a city roughly the size of London could do with one or two more metro lines.

Which are already planned.

“shops full of things to buy,”. Ah yes I remember walking around Siam Paragon in BKK and seeing loads of shops full, as you say, of things to buy. It almost looked like a shopping centre in the civilised world. Hats of to them! Admittedly you never actually see anyone in those shops buying anything and of course the price of a handbag would be equivalent to ten lifetimes wages of your average Thai.

The average Thai is not who Hermes generally market to. Have you tried MBK, they do a roaring trade.

“well-fed people”. Well apart from the 20% of Thais suffering from malnutrition (http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/hunger_map/map/hungermap_popup/map_popup.html) indeed there are some that are very well fed. Some are positively chubby.

Your link does not give the same information as your post. It does say Cambodia is in the 20% bracket though.

DavidS do you never download music or films? Wear any fake clothing? Bought a drink during an alcohol ban or outside of the legal hours?

I was putting my point across to say that I don't agree with this new law. Your recent points about a bar being empty until they allowed smoking again backs that up I think.

And you also found a non smoking bar that was perfectly suitable for you just 10 yards away so not much of a chore for you either. That's why I say again, smoking and non smoking bars, let the publicans decide.

I think comparing all law breakers to murderers is a bit far though. Everybody breaks the law to some degree.

I fully support The Office allowing having smoking and also DavidS decision to find an alternative non smoking bar. They both serve the same drinks and show the same rugby match, in fact it seems that both the smokers and non smokers would be happy with that solution.

Again I say, let the bars choose whether they are smoking bars or non smoking bars.

Everybody's happy then.

A non-smoker has no impact on a smoker

That's not entirely true, they often disturb me with their complaining whilst I'm trying to have a cigarette.

Read the thread title, it's a joke on his mispelling.

I was going to answer 'kitchen and bedroom'.

Nope, it's absolutely shit. (if it's the place I am thinking of...)

Tunnel was the best bet for a while, but I guess that's closing early too now.

We'll be discussing blacks or whites next.

Perhaps a visit to Kanchanaburi might be an idea? My parents (same age) loved it there and my Dad who's own father served out in Asia during WW2 had his own special interest in the area as well.

I doubt tobacco will ever be against the law. And if it is, you'd better watch out because alcohol will follow.

I'm not sure I agree with you on tobacco. I think we'll continue to see a decline in users & once the number is reduced to the extent that governments are no longer reaping huge amounts of revenue - I think a complete ban does become a possibility. A long way off? yes & in all probability not in our life times.

Yes agreed maybe in the distant future. For sure not in our lifetimes.

As for alcohol, I certainly think we'll see an increase in taxation, afterall, aside form health & social issues, they'll need to plug the gap from the decline in tobacco revenue.

There's plenty of money to be made in other drug sales now though. Look at all the happy happy prozac poppers. Perhaps an alternative drug to alcohol will come about one day?

But maybe more restrictions will come into place for alcohol usage, you may very well find in years to come that you are only allowed 3 pints and a shot of whiskey in an establishment. Or even no public drinking at all.

I think last year Silom was the place to be. A lot of people don't bother with khao san because of all the restrictions about powder and clothes etc. (or at least the restrictions that are talked about but never seem to happen).