BangkokReady

Are they on UNESCO yet?

And I guess also before they got KFC and high fructose corn syrup... ????

Are you saying people were attracted to the hotels because they could see prostitutes plying their trade? As in they like to see them chatting with guys, picking them up and going off to have sex? Or they like to see the women for their looks? Sorry if this is a stupid question or you're being sarcastic, I know little about Pattaya.

As I said, it depends on the drugs and on the girl. In some cases the girls are pressured into it by circumstances or family, so it can be incredibly harmful for them. And, of course, men can easily cheat with prostitutes and wreck their families, or become so addicted to them that they cannot form normal relationships. So there are plenty of negatives. Equally, in some cases the drugs are weed, ecstasy or coke and the dealers only really cater to partiers. Not everyone who takes recreational drugs moves on to things like heroine. In fact, I'd go as far to say that most people who indulge in "party drugs" don't go onto heroine. Either way, both are quite seedy, and while I appreciate consenting adults should be able to do what they want, it's fair for people to say that they don't want it on the beach.

Presumably hoped that the head-on collision would do the job and used the bridge as a back-up. Fair enough someone wants to end it, but don't involve other people. What if the guy in the truck was injured or someone else was involved?

Maybe don't let them do that in the first place? You could easily say that they have to be X feet from the ground or they get taken down.

Sounds great, but can they do it? I mean, I realise that the senate can choose a different PM, but does that stop them from using their majority to legislate?

Can you point it out to me please? Personally, I don't think they should. Certainly as things are now.

No, there are plenty of low-level drug dealers who don't cost people their lives. It's easy to compare drug-dealers to prostitutes. Both could be considered to offer something that doesn't really harm anyone (depending on the drug or the girl), but we'd rather not come into contact with them.

I guess even if they do nothing wrong, they're still prostitutes looking for customers, which not everyone likes to see. Similar with drug dealers. They might be perfectly nice people, and perhaps no fuss or harm is caused, but they're still drug dealers and people don't really want to see a load of them congregating everywhere. I suppose it's the associated atmosphere of criminality and vice in a place that they would rather have a "family image".

Glad to see the foreigner was not affected by the ordeal... (Boom-boom!)

A time of progressivism and freedom of speech is truly approaching. Soon, foreigners will be free to openly and publicly criticise Thailand and Thai people with no fear of any kind of consequences. ✊

If it was in response to the statements, possibly yes, but this isn't how it was used. The users were discussing Chuwit's behaviour and character. In order to be an ad hominem, the user would need to be saying something like we shouldn't listen to what he said/it isn't true due to something about him personally.

He wants to, fairly ironically, prevent you from criticising Chuwit, because he likes what he is saying. As he is doing with me. It's so funny when these nutty ideologues end up being total hypocrites and trying to silence people sharing their opinion using claims of "free speech" as a method to put them off commenting.

If there is an error in translation on an English language news site, that isn't my fault. Perhaps you can provide a more accurate translation? No. I'm pointing out that the headline makes a claim that is clearly not supported by any evidence, neither in the article, nor anywhere else. You're being ridiculous because you don't like what I have written. What has that got to do with the accuracy of the headline? So you cannot explain it? OK. Fair enough. At least you can admit when you are wrong. But in future you probably shouldn't make claims that you can in no way back up with evidence.

The article is evidence of the claim made in the article? That's very convenient. Can you explain how the article is evidence of 27 million voices being inspired by Chuwit?

I understand that claim, but there is zero evidence of that in the article. Unless you can point to some?

Feel free to point out what I am missing...

The orangutan probably doesn't view it as sexual at all and is simply doing what it has been trained to do. Not exactly cheating, but not a sign of good character either, IMO. If a woman is happy to allow her breasts to be groped in a photograph, she wouldn't be the one for me.

Even with this miracle of support, some other reason will likely be found that they cannot take power.

I don't see any evidence of this in the article.

They didn't say what they were used for though. Perhaps it was a balloon animal show that went wrong...

How so?

Did she perhaps say "giving" as in she gave them some cyanide, but what they did with it was up to them?

You want proof that something didn't happen?