BangkokReady

I read the OP. But, seriously, do you honestly look at that photograph and see a baseball bat next to Bragg's head?

Possibly hinting that people might riot if he is "falsely charged". Not necessarily threatening anything. The baseball bat clearly isn't next to Bragg's head. Whether you like Trump or not, and whether you agree that he should say such things or not, it's interesting to see the level of misrepresenting of facts that the media does when it comes to Trump, along with how easily people who hate Trump accept lies uncritically and repeat them as fact.

Is that really your perception of the photograph? I'm intrigued as, when I look at the photograph, I see a picture of Trump holding a baseball bat, I see a picture of Bragg standing at a media lectern, but the baseball bat really couldn't be further from Bragg's head. The bat is actually closer to Trump's head than it is to Bragg's. The bat certainly isn't next to Bragg's head. Do you genuinely believe that the baseball bat is next to Bragg's head? Do you not know what "next to" means? Or are you lying? I know lying about Trump is pretty much a national past-time in the US, but it seems so weird to me that people do it so blatantly. "Here's a photo of Trump without a baseball bat next to someone's head, but I'm going to lie and tell people that the photo shows Trump with a baseball bat next to someone's head because it makes Trump sound worse." It's just so bizarre.

How did he injure the three that he didn't shoot? Or do they mean shot 6, killed 3 and injured 3? Such bad reporting.

But they could have come down on either side of it. It is. They could have been "woke" and allowed it, saying that "trans women are real women" and anyone who is complaining is simply "transphobic", but they didn't. They took the "non-woke" route and protected women.

I think they were more triggered by the "anti-woke" agenda of the previous posters, so they wanted to strike back at this. Hence their point unwound over the course of the discussion.

I think he means 95% of girls. What's the point of comments like this? You seem to just want to sh*t on other users. Yeah, there might be some who use working girls because they're ugly and old. Who cares? If your life is so perfect, why do you need to put others down?

"Good looking men with good social skills find it easy to have sex with promiscuous women" just doesn't feel like anything particularly ground-breaking. ????‍♂️ It sounds more like you're simply trying to insult other forum users.

I'm getting serious Patrick Batemen (American Psycho) vibes from this guy... ????

Exactly what I say. I can't believe anyone trusts a place with such lax safety standards to do something so dangerous. Most pavements have several trip hazards in just one section, and they super easy to see and quick to fix. People just don't bother. I'd even think twice before going into a nightclub, given their reputation for catching fire and having escape routes blocked.

A more Thai response you couldn't get. Except maybe suing the guy.

Brings new meaning to the phrase "bucket list". Any one of a number of unforgettable activities in Thailand that might lead to you kicking the bucket.

The problem is that this line of thinking, and the method that it might take to make it work, have more than a hint of a revolutionary Marxist feel to it. A politician could of course get voted in on a "take the rich people's money and give it to the poor" ticket, when there are so many more poor people than there are rich people, but I just don't see that as being workable. We've also seen how badly things can go with schemes to fund vote-buying. That's likely why there are so many coups in Thailand and why developing countries so rarely function well as a democracy.

What do you think the alternative could be? Suppose that the people are allowed to truly vote for whomever they want, and the majority of poor farmers vote for someone who will make things difficult for the wealthy elite. What would happen then? Suppose, for sake of argument, the rest of Thailand votes for someone who decides to heavily tax the wealthy elite who earn most of the money in Bangkok and then distribute the tax income amongst the poor in the provinces. This obviously isn't fair and it could have catastrophic consequences for the economy, but it could easily be voted for by a poor majority who have little understanding of economics. There isn't a democracy in the world where the elite don't have some say in how the country is run.

Some people call this ability to make far better decisions after orgasm "post-nut clarity".

It's also worth pointing out that this is a misunderstanding of the original phrase. "An eye for an eye" doesn't mean that it's right to inflict on someone something similar to what they have done. It means that no one should be punished more than what they have done to others. I.e. If someone has taken another's eye, they should only lose an eye themselves, not two eyes, a nose and their left foot.

But wouldn't that mean that some people had already taken people's eyes? As in, each case of "an eye for an eye" a guilty party would have taken someone's eye, so steering away from "an eye for an eye" would simply leave a load of people having had their eyes attacked. I wouldn't put too much stock in Gandhi anyway. He was apparently quite an unpleasant person.

I'm not sure why someone would engage with someone they dislike in such a negative way. If you already don't like them, chances are they don't particularly like you, so any kind of joke or criticism is not going to go over well.

Some people live to their 90s or 100s. ????‍♂️

It's very poor writing, but the author means something like "events that attracted international attention". So still things happening in Thailand, but that made it to the international news.

It's an interesting question. Masturbation isn't really the same as sex. It's more about simply pleasing yourself, of course, with a lot less effort and no pressure to satisfy another person. Perhaps some people can use sex in the same way as they do masturbation, although I'm not sure how satisfying it is for the other person. I suppose it depends how the other person views sex. If you had sex with someone simply to satisfy your urge, with no concern for their pleasure, it might not be great for them. "Hey, I'm feeling like I want an orgasm. Come here!" Pump, pump, pump, climax, done. "Thanks babe." Is that good for her? Can someone even have sex with someone without thinking about pleasing them? Or maybe someone can ask their partner for a hand job whenever they want? Just ask for a helping hand each morning while you sip your morning coffee? Is that reasonable? No stress or pressure for you and you get your relief, but is it going to make your partner feel a little like a sex worker? Another issue is the use of pornography, or perhaps fantasy, which I believe is about satisfying a guy's need for a bit of variety, which he obviously cannot get in a committed relationship. Would you feel OK about having a quicky with no concern for the satisfaction of your partner while thinking of someone else? Or would they be willing to give you some relief while you watched pornography? Kind of like a human fleshlight? Or do married men only ever find their wife attractive and never have sexual thoughts about any other women? I suppose it all has to do with what you are happy with. What if you got to the point in your relationship where you only have sex a couple of times a week, but you wanted an orgasm every day, or if you got bored but did not want to stray? What if you're significant other didn't want you to masturbate but still made things less than satisfactory in the bedroom? Seems like more questions than answers on this one. Perhaps everyone is different.

At the end of the day, they still have the biology of a man. It seems kind of logical that they will still be fairly masculine, even though they would like to be perceived as being feminine. When you see a video of a trans woman losing their <deleted>, they sound very much like a man losing their <deleted>, as apposed to a woman. Also they can be quite forward sexually. I think let them live how they want, but women and children should still be allowed their own space. It's just safer that way.

"A pig is anyone who identifies as a pig."

Just not part of Thai culture.

Haha. A concept that doesn't exist in Thailand.