kwilco

So if a Thai gay person wants to marry a foreigner the law doesn't cover that?

Yes - it would be interesting to see how same sex marriah=ges affect this - but maybe they would keep the same rules for Thai husband or Thai wife?

Why is it a "trick question"? Thai men's spouse have different rights to Thai women's. Do you consider that is OK?

Isn't it about time that men and women had the same rights for their foreign spouses?

wht a re ridiculous question - totally subjective

It really depends on your thinking abilities. Critical thinking is a discipline. Science is based on this discipline but it is still quite possible for even the most erudite to lose track of this. It is also very common for the media to cherry pick and distort what was originally a perfectly rational theory.

clearly not even the smartest person on this thread!

goes to show even the brightst peopole can be total crackpots!

Not sure that is true but it is irrelevant. However the sins of one city don't justify or mitigate the sins of another. Thailand is failing to learn from other people's mistakes. I'm surprised to see the differences in major locations between this year and last year. The concentration of tourism in tourist "hotspots" is far greater than it has ever been - even before Covid. The overall numbers may be slightly less this year, but it looks as l=if they will exceed pre-Covid levels within the next 2 years. The alarming difference is the change in demographics which seems to have led to a massive concentration of the major tourist centres like Phuket, Pattaya and Samui. The outlying areas are being ignored as tourists choose to stay in one or two centres only

Which elephants are these....who owns them and what are they used for? This doesn't seem to be a serious effort to improve the welfare of elephants It seems they will still be chained or caged in place?

They look very emaciated.

why are they breeding elephants???

Unfortunately I was unable to edit the typos - I'm sure that most (??) were able to understand them, but for those who couldn't (probably about you anyway) here is an edited version. "You 'don't seem to realise that what you say is not argument against MMCC. It is however the kind of low brow comment that dominates the denier brigade. Sadly most are too dim to know how dim they are."

You can't reason with people like deniers, they are not capable of reason. All you can do is take the Michael ....they won't get it but it can make you feel better.

You'd onto seem to realise that what you say is not argument against MMCC. It is however the kind of low brow comment that dominates the denier brigade. Sadly most are too dim to know how dim they are.

Are you "entitled to your opinion"? Not really - without reason or evidence it isn't an opinion. There are a few terms that describe an opinion without reason or evidence: Assertion: This is a simple statement that is presented as true, but without any justification. Prejudice: This is a preconceived opinion about something that is not based on reason or experience. It's often negative. Belief without reason: This term emphasizes the lack of justification for the opinion. Hunch: This is a feeling or intuition that something is true, but it's not based on any solid evidence. however climate deniers are slightly different Denialism: often used in a strong sense, referring to the rejection of well-established facts and scientific consensus. It implies a deliberate attempt to disregard evidence, often for emotional or ideological reasons. For example, climate change denialism refers to the rejection of the overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity is causing global warming. Also there is cognitive bias: This is a term that encompasses various mental shortcuts that can lead to biased thinking. Some cognitive biases can make people resistant to new evidence, especially if it challenges their existing beliefs. For instance, confirmation bias describes seeking out information that confirms what they already believe and disregarding information that contradicts it. If someone is simply resistant to new information due to mental shortcuts, "cognitive bias" might be more fitting. But if they are actively rejecting well-established facts, "denialism" is the stronger term. Unfortunately along with the evidence most climate deniers are not familiar with these terms because they are unfamiliar with critical thinking methodology

don't worry there are loads of people who know better than evidence and scientists and it's all a hoax.

The animals shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The problem is that Thailand has neither infrastructure nor regulation to cope with this

THat is not correct

Oh dear God! No! THis government seems to have lost their senses - Thailand use to sell it's natural b=eauty, but now they are concreting it oever. Heaven knows what damage they will do to the already bligghted environment. It's like Spain in the 1970s

Read the posts you are making a fool of yourself.

no you don't!

what this thread is about!

no the rules at present are up in the clouds.