BangkokReady

It's weird. I guess an instinct. I'm not sure about the law, but when people swerve to avoid a recklessly driven motorcycle and hit an object or another car, it just seems like they're endangering themselves and others in order to protect the reckless motorcycle rider. Slamming on the breaks seems like the best idea. Edit: After watching the video a number of times, it appears that he brakes hard and one of the wheels locks up. He skids into the oncoming traffic, rather than steering.

I recall this source is often used as very credible by the extreme left liberals on this forum, I wonder what they gonna argue this time. Hacked by Fox? Presumably it's now a right-wing, Nazi, White Supremacist, conspiracy theory news outlet, and no one needs to listen to anything they say.

Does that mean it isn't true?

Preach it sister! Don't let society hold you down and pen you in! You too can enter a competition where you are judged solely by your looks (plus a ton of makeup)! ????

Why not just let them enter? Then, if they aren't attractive enough to make it through the first round, so be it. It's vacuous junk-food TV either way. Or do you mean, even if it was a smoking-hot (married) 19-year-old, she should still not be allowed?

More likely it will simply keep happening. Safety just isn't a thing in Thailand.

Very difficult to blame the manufacturers or installers of something that was installed so long ago. Surely after just a few years it becomes that responsibility of the people who manage the safety and upkeep of the airport. Or were the manufacturers meant to build something that would run safely for 30 years without maintenance or checking?

You posted, I posted, we're both making similar effort to discuss the matter. No worries here. The point is, that when it comes to men having sex with other men, if they claim to be heterosexual, it doesn't really affect the percentages that much, as they're having sex with other men. Even with bisexuals, if the stats suggest that gay men (or men who have sex with men) get it more often that other people, it's likely to be the sex with men that leads to more cases in bisexual men. The self-identification doesn't really change the fact that the virus(?) is occurring more in men who have sex with men, than with other people.

But you copied it from a linked source and suggested it affected a claim made by another user? You must think it relevant in some way.

Two of my favourites: "A Thai would never do something like this for no reason. The foreigner must have done something to antagonise him." Or "Thais can sense someone's character just by looking at them, so if they treat you badly, it's because you're a bad person."

Customer complaints department, Thai style.

"send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee."

Probably no helmet. Unfortunately this can turn an incident that would result in a few scratches into death.

Bit of a (false) sweeping generalisation. Is it false if it is what he has experienced?

So ignore the self-identification and focus on the behaviour?

You would understand if a man said he was heterosexual but has sex with other men? That seems pretty unclear to me.

How would people feel unwelcome or singled out if the Krungsri bank wasn't decorated with Pride decorations?

I think that would be a case of "We didn't mean that progressive!". It's certainly interesting how much support there is for equality when it's LGBT, but not so much when it's foreigners.

I actually agree with you here. It's best to post a specific link, copy and paste the relevant passage(s), and add an explanation of why it supports your position.

Which one is that?

Wouldn't that suggest that there is something wrong with the option to self-identify? If one person says that it's a homosexual thing (or whatever) and then they share evidence, but that can be contradicted with "but some of the men who have sex with other men say they aren't homosexual", it makes it kind of a pointless diversion, since we would still consider them to generally be in the ball park of gay men. I mean, if it's a "man on man" thing, then it's a "man on man" thing. The waters are simply being muddied with semantics and self-perception.

I'm afraid it sounds like there is nothing to talk about inside the bar environment either...

It's not projection. If you say something bad about a minority or "protected class", even if it is true, it's very likely that you will get any number of "ist" or "phobic" labels thrown at you.

An alarming one at that!

Nobody cares about alcohol, but weed is dangerous. Cigarettes are OK, but vapes need to be banned. where's the connection? Follow the money?