wildewillie89

1 minute ago, David Walden said:

Oh I haven't been bitten in 75 years, the stick I carry makes sure of that.  Only 2 or 3 % of untrained, undisciplined feral mongrel soi dogs in Thailand will attack humans.  It is really a piece of cake to fix this problem, Cha-am local govt seems to have no policy on this subject.  Just because you have not been attacked it does not mean the problem is non-existing.  The options is for me to give up my 7 km walk in Thailand each morning like I have done for 42 years or fight back.  In just about in all Western countries out of control dogs are treated as feral.  And treated as such.  In my state in Australia W.A. if your dog gets out and bites a person the fine will be about Aus $10,000 plus any civil action, it could cost you everything you have got and more .  Just getting out and sitting on the road verge and the Ranger catches it will cost you $1000 to get it back.  If it is not claimed within 10 days anybody who pays the fine plus the boarding costs ($60 a day) can have title to it (the law).  This likely to be $1500.  If not claimed in 10 days it is put down.

                           TIT

 

 

 

It doesn't work that easily because most municipalities do not have the power to fine people themselves. If the dog is owned it is a police matter, and as so many cases go on, the police just get sick and tired of it so it becomes a non-issue. Even, if by chance, it becomes a municipality issue, the fine needs to be approved by the official and the Mayor and then sent to the police to be acted on. Unfortunately as everyone knows everyone, the Mayor will lose a lot of votes if fine someone over something that most in the community consider relatively minor. 

In Australia it is more of a local government issue. Local governments, in most municipalities in Thailand, only deal with dogs that do not have owners (government buildings/temples/strays/ferals etc). 

It may be a piece of cake for us to fix, but for Thailand, would take a full restructure of many laws. Naturally, that is a little more complex .Not to mention the different religious and some social variables that continuously enter the debate. 

I also sometimes walk with a stick, however, as more and more dogs are now imports there are some breeds moving into my area where a stick will just not cut it. Luckily, as many dogs work off fear, rather than confident aggression, for now, the sticks are still a useful tool. In a few years when these imports have bred with the locals, a greater reliance will be on my dogs over sticks I think.

5 hours ago, Been there done that said:

I think my wife is faithful but sometimes you wonder after reading all this

I think that is the problem, you read too much of this. Read it sure, but remember and be level headed enough to realise most of it is a load of rubbish. 

Surely, you have an understanding with someone who you make a decision to 'marry'. You also know their daily schedule, and you would hopefully know their friends (who you would consider your friends also). Unless my 7 month pregnant Mrs is doing it in the office with her 2 secretaries watching, and surrounding departments looking through the windows, it would be quite difficult not to trust her. We lunch together, look after the house/kids together, work not too far from each other, and will just use whatever phone is closer as we mix in the same circles anyway.

It is not uncommon for her to randomly drop into my workplace, or me into hers (all our respective colleagues are each others friends anyway).  If I want to do anything (alone time), she goes to her parents house down the road.

Just focus on your life, be smart, but don't let others bitterness question your own direction. 

1 hour ago, TheBrain said:

Yes, give them coked bones with chocolate or sugar.

http://veterinaryclinic.com/chocolate/calc.html

Takes a lot of chocolate to have any real effect on dogs. 

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I’ve heard that for 50 years, probably had 20 dogs, never had an issue. The dogs like them, and would likely dig them out of the trash anyway.

Lot of things I shouldn’t do, not giving dogs cooked bones is pretty far down on the list.

 

That argument is like saying I have smoked all my life and have never gotten cancer. However, doctors, or vets in this case, see it on a pretty common basis. Common enough to tell people not to do it anyway. But if you are willing to pay the medical costs then that is up to you. 

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Cooked bones of course. If they want raw bones, let the catch their own chickens.

He never actually gets close enough to actually hit them...that’s why I think it great fun for the dogs.

 

Should never feed cooked bones to dogs. As when they are cooked and chewed on they can splinter the insides. More often than not it is okay, but vets see it all the time and it is why they don't recommend it. Unless you are happy to pay for the surgery of course...

19 hours ago, fry30 said:

Thanks for your advice Morch, we didn't intend to become a fixture and we never implied it but if already on this forum people jump on this conclusion I guess than this neighborhood could think the same. Just the fact that our garden is clean when they are living in middle of their trash could be an insult to their way of life. Whatever we will keep doing what we have being doing this last 2 years and just say nothing, in few day their wrath will pass.

However beside me complaining or blowing off some steam what I really want to know is how bad this smoke could be for my children, I know it's very difficult to assess. I searched a bit on google and it seems that wood smoke is carcinogen too but from which concentration it becomes a concern?

Regarding the improvement in the awareness of pollution it seems it won't happen before long around here, my wife told me that in Issan they are more and more careful and used the speaker to inform everyone of the danger of wood fumes.

When I first moved to Isaan, I put an immediate stop to the big fires in my immediate area. So people burning off a good rai behind the house. I don't mind the small fires so much, but the few neighbours I have now know I will go over and confront them about it. So they now burn off their small fires either at night time (windows shut) or in a different place that is protected from hitting our house. 

I cannot speak Thai but with the basic Thai I can speak with some hand signals, I just implied I have a baby, and them burning off is dangerous. So implied it is similar to smoking next to my baby (obviously not as high risk, but risk all the same). It was a 'sorry, sorry, sorry'. Also when I walk the dogs I will inform people of the risks, once the Mrs was with me and she told the monk to go and put the fire out, which he was forced to do. 

Yes, the loud speaker informs them of the risks, and it also reinforces the knowledge that the local officials should have told them. How they can use what they burn off in other ways, so things like making fertilizer, mulch etc. The villagers have been taught about the health risks, and more beneficial way of doing things for a good few years now, so it purely comes down to laziness on their part. 

The problem also is the laws, the way they are written it is hard for the local Mayor to do things. Yes, the public health officials want to act on it, but cannot fine people without the Mayors approval, and he wants the peoples votes so will generally decide not to fine them. As everyone are cousins, you piss off one person and suddenly you lose a hundred votes lol. However, if it particularly bad, collect the evidence and take the local officials and neighbours to the tribunal. The tribunal will enforce the fine.

5 hours ago, swissie said:

Is this a good place and time to ask? I have always wondered:
What is the reason (the reasons), that people decide to wear Tatoo's?
- This is a serious question and not meant in a deregatory way.
A cause, a reason, a conviction must be underlying.
The much quoted, "most Tatoo's were installed after a heavy night of drinking" may occur, but rather the exeption, me thinks.
Cheers.

I am sure everyone has a specific reason that is personal to them. Some do it for, like I say, more personal things (family, membership, achievements, culture, all things that are based around some sort of close group context), then their may be reasons based around art. Then you have your reasons based around fashion or drunken/drug related nights. Even as a form of addiction, so rather than alcohol abuse, tattoos can be a substitute for what the person may consider healing when going through rough times. Also on the flip side of that, many people will get a tattoo to potentially help motivate them once they have passed tough times. Then obviously other situations like prison tats (example birds on the neck), fighting related tats (birds on the hands) etc etc. 

The point is that it is not so clear cut, and it is not just the rougher jobs or sections of communities that have them anymore. But I can see why people on this forum complain, they even complain about the clothes men wear. So in terms of where is the human race heading, I would say down hill very fast if people (like the OP) are seriously worrying themselves about things like this.  

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Every morning on a daily basis I go to work.

If I have bones from the night before I throw them out the wine in front of the neighbors house.

The dogs all love me

My wife says that sometimes the crotchety guy next door runs out with a stick, chases the dogs off and picks up the bones.

I always think about what great fun it must be for the dogs...


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I'm hoping not cooked bones. Won't be much fun for the dogs when they splinter their insides. 

If cooked, I would do exactly the same as the neighbour. Why not throw them in front of your house, rather than the dogs having to live in fear of being hit by a stick just for a bone? 

25 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

"How is recommending erring on the side of caution fear mongering or encouraging people to kill?"

 

How else it be likely to be read?

 

Very few people have no fear of spiders whatsoever, so will automatically keep their distance.

 

So posting "Err on the side of caution with any spider" is either irrelevant or encouraging people to kill all spiders IMO.

I think if you have a complex with ways of doing things, then yeah, you may read it that way. 

However, it is literally what the authorities recommend. The first comment thought it was something it probably isn't and then went on to say something like, don't worry, if it bites you it will just irritate, which naturally has the potential to lead people to be quite relaxed around it. 

If you can 100% identify the spider and know the risks then some people will take the chance and not care how careful their actions are as they have performed a risk analysis. Coming from Australia, and being surrounded by spiders, I am probably one of those people.  

However, in this situation, where no one can identify it then you must err on the side of caution. That is assume the worst in terms of potential venom. Doesn't mean kill it, it means err on the side of caution/be careful. 

49 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So why post the earlier fear-mongering post?

 

It only encourages people to kill all spiders - in case they may be one of the 'tiny percentage' with a life-threatening allergic reaction.

'Even if a spider had weak venom, follow it with the same precaution as a funnel-web spider bite. A spider bite reaction can differ from person to person, potentially leading to an anaphylactic reaction which can be life threatening. Refer to ‘What is Anaphylaxis?’ for more information about this condition. In all spider bite cases, please seek medical assistance as soon as you can'.  (Australian Wide First Aid, 2017).

How is recommending erring on the side of caution fear mongering or encouraging people to kill?

Considering the spider in the picture looks nothing like a Huntsman (I do not know if/different sub species) and no one has identified it, then erring on the side of caution with any spider is a smart thing to do. 

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Presumably only a tiny percentage of the population are seriously allergic to the bite of a Huntsman spider?

 

I see them quite frequently in my bathroom and bedroom, and agree with a previous poster that they are 'quite scary looking'!

 

But they scurry off in the opposite direction when they see me - which suits both of us v well.

 

Funny how we get used to things.  A couple of decades ago (whilst on a holiday), there was an enormous spider next to the toilet when I arrived home late at night - and I was so scared I went outside for a pee/turned the bathroom light off, whilst leaving the bedroom light on and spent most of the night awake .  Nowadays, I'm barely bothered when seeing Huntsman spiders. 

Yes, would be a tiny percentage. I am from Australia, so slept with Huntsmans on a daily basis, every time you open a letter box one runs up your arm. Very interesting watching them have territorial battles in the house on the ceilings actually. 

I just knew, as when I was young my mum brought in the washing from the line before school. We were in a rush so she quickly chucked on her jeans, put her hands in her pockets as you do with jeans and one bit her. Called the poisons hotline to double check they aren't poisonous. They asked when it bit her, and replied, 'oh you would be dead by now'. 

Negotiate the price. Embassy aren't going to pay it for him. 

It is not like people are not warned about how to behave when they travel. Do the things you have to do in the privacy of your home, not whilst on holiday. It is what it is here. Morally wrong, yes - a lot of the time. But, looking at the bigger picture, at the end of the day you always pay for your stupidity. In this case, stupidity cost 48k. If can get it down a bit, then it really it isn't all that bad. Hopefully will learn and everyone will move on with life. 

Err on the side of caution with any spider. A Huntsman even can cause a life threatening anaphylaxis reaction if someone is allergic. Usually you do not know you are allergic until it is too late though lol

Just now, Been there done that said:

Its just ugly mate and really out of hand where on the body they put their tattoos.

 

I have to look at it, in total amazement often.

Many things in the world are ugly. I think you came unstuck when you talked about looking within themselves. Surely, it is something you may have to look into yourself if you cannot walk down the street without having some sort of emotional outburst at the sight of a tattoo 

Surely it says more about the person who has a problem with what other people do with their bodies, than the actual person with the tattoos. Shouldn't they be looking within themselves? Why have they let life get to a point where they let  an image or another person get to them? 

Many countries in the world do not discriminate against people with tattoos in the workforce, as if they do, it can end up in a civil matter. 

13 hours ago, Hiro357 said:

I 

I understand that perfectly. But my posts contains no maliciousness of any kind. At least that's my intention. My main purpose here is to help this girl.

So seeing that you have some experience, what would you recommend she do about the abuse she has received?

Tell me that isn't a serious question. 

25 minutes ago, Hiro357 said:

You are really thick. 

1.By BS I mean beating around the bush. But the truth I meant was what really happened to my friend.

2.I stated multiple times that I agree with the consensus that violence is a deal breaker. But I'm not the one who needs to make a decision.

3.What is the point of any discussion about cultures if people like you always brush it off as generalizing?

 

Some people here are overly cynical. Maybe it's an age thing. 

Read the threads about Thai women. 30 pages in and no point or consensus. Just bashing. Just a view from one family circumstance that has been generalised to mean the whole country is the same. It is why you cannot make generalisations in study, as they are worthless. Incredibly restrictive viewpoints. Broaden your mind and go and speak to the local authorities, workplaces, whatever re violence in Thailand. Just last month the assistant head village wife came to my family for help as she was beaten. Her husband now must give her the house she lives in and half his salary or lose his job. 

It is not always dealt with by police, as that law is relatively recent. Just like Japan, the police used to never get involved in domestic violence issues. But new laws give them that right, and even if the woman does not go to the police, there are still other options available like above. 

It is not acceptable, in modern Thai law, or culture if you want to call it that, to beat partners. Like the post that you agreed with previously. 

The same subject directed at Thai women usually results in a generalisation that all Thai girls lie and only want you for your money. That the good girls only date Thai men and not farang. Also that the rich, or hi so, will only date Thai men also. We have all seen such posts. 

Then we read this thread and it generalises Thai men are useless. I wonder why the good or rich choose them then if we are to believe other generalisations, it's not like they are in a poverty situation and will take the crap just to make their lives better. Maybe because every person is different, so we can't take a specific example and apply it to everyone. Just like we can't say all Thai girls want us for our money. 

Generalising only extends so far, that is why it is thought best not to do it as it just ends up looking stupid. Not a fear of offending people, it just doesn't give any sort of accuracy. Learn the specific person!

41 minutes ago, Ruffian Dick said:

I don't see anyone calling Japanese flawless or even better than Thais.

People get abused everywhere. Some statistics which I assume are from the US:

1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
https://ncadv.org/statistics

 

I think Hiro is trying to understand his friend's predicament.

And the only way to do that is to learn each guy in the relevant context. As everyone is different. Not make a generalisation from one situation and apply to the whole country. The OP hasn't even shown  signs of acknowledging any positive things about Thai men. Which suggests he had preconceived thoughts which are not open to change. So why bother with the thread to begin with? Just to try and ignorantly confirm these thoughts based on incredibly restricted experiences members have had with the odd Thai guy?

7 hours ago, Hiro357 said:

When you simply things that way, yes, no girls should go back to domestic abuse. But it's not that simple is it?

Unless the abuse is due to an external thing like alcohol, drugs, medication, and will stop when the person gets help, then yes, it is very simple. From what I see on a day to day basis here, if a woman gets beaten by her husband, the community either tell her to go to the police, the family drag her away from him, or depending on his job, she will go and make a deal to receive half his salary or he will lose his job. 

Every person has different values depending on their family circumstances, education, environment etc. No one can give advice you are looking for with extremely limited information about the pros or cons of dating a Thai man, as we do not know him or his background. This forum will paint Thai men pretty bad generally as they just hear one side of a story from their wives/gfs who will say anything to date a farang (depending also on their background). I know a lot of Thai men who fit that description, but I know more who I would happily accept even my sisters dating as they are fantastic guys. 

Maybe the guy just likes your dog? Is it an interesting breed that Thai wouldn't have seen before? We have a few people come and one guy in particular bothers switching of his motorbike on the other side of the road and just watches our dogs. Before he stopped on our side of the road but he got too close to the gate so the dogs let him know (dogs are taller than Thai men when they stand up). Sometimes he brings his kid to watch them too. Usually when I feed them. 

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

Yet it can't be a religions thing... as most Thai people, even though they say they are Buddhist, all eat meat... so why not eat dog?

 

When I need to find a vegetarian restaurant they are very hard to find outside the city, and usually very small and few customers.  In the city there are very limited choices.

 

I think they like the dogs so much because the late king also loved dogs, and people got the idea from there.

 

Seems like from the laws the OP posted people could be as cruel as they like to any animal, so long as they just said it was for religious reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thai will pick and choose aspects of religion when it suits them. Just like every religious person does. 

Before the trucks were out in force, and a lot of Buddhists didn't care. But a lot did care too so they put a stop to it and toughened the laws re cruelty. Maybe they didn't have the money to reach their religious goals so used the dogs lol, who knows? But religion was a justification.

The OPs laws may well be there, I haven't looked them up. But, yes, they seem to offer an incredible amount of scope. What he doesn't realise is that each department has many different laws that may override such laws, or that usually an official has to pass off on these actions. So a normal person may not fit into these laws sometimes and thus be punished by police. 

I think the vast majority of Thai are just not bothered by the dogs as they kick them away. A lot aren't educated enough to understand their own religion, or even how to make complaints. 

Many Thai seem to purely see dogs as guard dogs, not companions, I wouldn't say many actually like or love dogs. I also think they just have bigger issues to worry about within their own family context. That's what separates first and third world, we can afford to care for our animals. 

10 hours ago, TheBrain said:

Soi dog issue has no connection to religion. Japan and Korea are Buddhist too, but they eat dogs and dispose them in gaz chambers. I tend to think some one in goverment or parliament like to feed soy dogs and let them roam streets, and this person just do not care about everything else.

Bit of a stretch. Thai is over 90% Buddhist, where as the counties you mention are 30% and 15%. Not really comparable. 

There is no big conspiracy about the issue, a group of Buddhist animal lovers campaigned against things like the dog trucks etc, with good intentions, but just no understanding of future ramifications.

For the third time, where is the 80% rabies figure from? It is hard to believe any example you post if you cannot substantiate that claim. 

26 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I read only part of this thread but it seems some people think even 10,000B a month is too much. Is it?

There is a big difference between surviving and living. Yes, it should be possible to survive of 6,000B a month up country if there is no rent to pay. But who wants to live like that? One guy complained about her "fancy coffee" for 30B per day. Are you serious? I live in Bangkok and often enough I go for a coffee which cost currently 85B in ABP. And maybe I even eat a cookie with cost maybe another 60-80B. And when my girlfriend is with me she also has a cappuccino. Is that luxury? I don't think so. If you have kids and they ask you to buy ice-cream for them do you do that? Or is that luxury they are only allowed to get maybe once a week or once a month?

I think everybody who recommends any amounts in this thread should ask himself how much he spends himself on coffee, snacks, drinks, etc. And then ask yourself if your beloved wife/girlfriend should just be able to survive or if you want that she can also buy a snack or an "expensive" coffee if she feels like it.

Obviously we can only give our wife/gf what we can afford. But everybody who truly loves her should be willing to pay more than just the amount to survive.

Would never do it, but if someone is willing to give someone money, then a year of expensive coffees and biscuits all add up. So why not just spend that money on improving the house, investing in some transport, putting money aside for any future health concerns. If she already has all that then why does she need money in the first place - she can just go and work to buy her own coffees.

Many Thai are pretty happy with the basic lifestyle, especially if that's all they know. Surely those after more are ones who could afford it themselves previously, or are just out to use. Maybe that's why some guys put limits on how much they give. Men shouldn't pay for pure laziness of their wives/gfs not working even a part time job.