BangkokReady

If I understand the terminology correctly, "klingons" would be stool clumping on the rectal pubic hair, which is not what I was talking about. I was explaining that there is still stool within the anus which you still need to clean with toilet paper after using the toilet spray if you do not also scrub.

You can deflect and change the exact point of discussion all you want, it doesn't alter the fact that this will do little to reduce mass shootings and is largely hot air. It will be interesting to see how many rifles capable of doing the exact same damage, but without the scary black metal body, remain available to would be mass shooters after the ban has taken place. I imagine there will be plenty, unless they are banning all semi-automatic rifles, leaving only bolt action.

Then remove their weapon of choice. If anyone had evidence that the name or appearance of the AR-15 played a part in the likelihood of a mass shooting occurring, it would be very interesting. But I would imagine that it's the shooting part that they want to do, rather than using an AR-15. If there is no AR-15, they will simply opt for a different weapon. The Columbine High School massacre took place without the use of any high powered rifles. The two shooters used 9mm and shotguns.

That, or it deceives voters without actually addressing the problem.

Mass shooters don't follow rules, nor do other criminals who intend to use a gun to carry out a crime, so simply having a rule will not stop them. (In fact, it makes it easier for them as there are less guns around to stop them.) I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp.

Not only that, but there'll probably still be a load of "non-scary" guns with wooden stocks that people will be able to use for mass shootings.

That isn't news for anyone. But what does that have to do with whether this ban will reduce school/mass shootings? Sure, but that doesn't change the ineffectiveness of this ban.

No. I simply pointed out that you are wrong. I didn't dislike your answer. It just doesn't make any sense. The fact that airlines are able to keep guns off of their airplanes, means nothing for keeping guns out other businesses. I notice that you have not been able to explain or justify your answer further.

Let me guess, whenever a Thai person does something bad to a foreigner, it's the foreigner's fault and the Thais are always innocent?

Very unlikely that it will do anything in terms of school/mass shootings. A political move.

You think security like an airport could become common in most public places? I guess it would work in terms of keeping the guns out of those areas, but how would it work cost and time wise in somewhere like a mall or a cinema?

It's more about feelings than actual facts. Banning sales of guns that look scary will not stop mass shootings, neither will banning guns from anywhere (unless those places have armed security manning scanners at all access points). It's all politics. Ban nearly all guns or don't bother.

Would this prevent criminals from bringing guns onto these premises, or just the non criminals?

Surely, in the use of the toilet spray, the anus is cleaner than if just paper was used, but the surrounding areas are dirtier? When using paper alone, generally no stool is spread anywhere other than the anus, but in using the spray, stool is necessarily sprayed wherever the water goes.

To do a proper job, you need to use your other hand to scrub. Not sure why this isn't mentioned in the OP. No scrubbing means you still need to use toilet paper to not only dry your butt, but get the last remnants of stool out of your anus. It seems weird to me that there might be people wandering around thinking you just spray and then let the environment do the rest. They must be thinking they have a superiorly clean anus, while in reality it is probably dirtier than if they used just paper.

You are getting 7/11's with Tesco Lotuses . They say "Hello Welcome" at Tesco lotuses and not 7/11's They say "Sawaddee ka chern kaaa!" when anyone enters a 7/11, which means "Hello, welcome!".

This is the problem with "emergency powers". People don't want to give them up once the emergency is over.

The movement was co-opted pretty much from the start. Possibly some groups knew that solely calling for democracy would have too great a chance of causing change, so they stuck anti-monarchy onto to it to make sure it would fail. That or simply groups that dislike the monarchy saw it as an easy way to piggyback into the mele. Either way, not a great move. Baby steps. You're simply not going to get everything you want all at once. Unfortunately I think social media has made people believe that they can change the world overnight.

But alcohol also makes people act very much unlike "the real them". It stimulates behaviour that they would not ordinarily engage in. And not because they would do it normally but inhibitions stop them, but because alcohol changes how they act and how they think, making them do things that are very much not "the real them". So you must surely agree that alcohol is not some magical truth serum and is not guaranteed to show the real anyone? If anyone is capable of doing things they would not normally do, nor have any secret drives to do, when intoxicated, then alcohol is not reliable as an indicator of "the true you".

That's not really how inhibitions work. You make it sound like anyone who is violent when drunk is a smouldering powder keg of psychopathic rage whenever they are sober and are just able to keep their emotions under control through reasoning (I.e. "I have an incredible urge to bash this person, but I won't because I might get in trouble, otherwise I definitely would."), but when they drink their hidden urge to attack people comes out. It simply isn't like that. If you actually read what I wrote, there are a lot more factors at play. It's also incredibly common for people who do something stupid while they are drunk to truly regret it when they are sober. Not in a "Damn, now they know there real me" way, but in a "What was I thinking? I can't believe I acted in such a way. I feel so remorseful". If you actually look at what happens when people drink, there is a lot more going on than simply removal of inhibitions, and this does not actually work in the way that you suggest. There are, of course, some broken people who will become violent when they are drunk, but there are also perfectly normal people who can become aggressive when drunk, or do any number of things that they would not normally do, and very much feel remorse for their actions once they are sober. It simply isn't "the true you" when you are drunk. It's you plus a behaviour altering drug, therefore not the true you. That's the bottom line.

It does not.

How have I contradicted myself?

How are you disappointing me? You just supported what I suggested with another example.

What makes you think that inhibitions are not part of how someone truly is? I don't think you understand what "truly" means. "We've put a chemical into this person's brain which drastically changes how they think and behave. This will show us how they truly are." This is an extremely illogical and paradoxical premise. Alcohol shows you only what someone is like when they have consumed alcohol. There is nothing "true" about this as it is not a normal state. That's why it's called intoxication. Alcohol also does more than lower inhibitions.

I bet whomever was trying to push this angle was severely disappointed to get that response. Someone clearly wants things (fear and control?) to go back to how they were under Delta.