BangkokReady

No one would be at fault in this scenario. That's your opinion and you're free to express it. I think people should have the right to choose not to be soaked if they wish, but personally I would simply prepare myself for the eventuality of being hit by water.

Anybody's eyes. You can think it's stupid or you can think it's the best thing ever. Up to you. Sure, some people like it. Some people don't. I advise staying indoors through Songkran, to avoid selfish people that don't care about whether you want to take part or not. If you're a tourist and your holiday happens to be during Songkran, I'm not sure that is practical. How do you "willingly attend" something that happens everywhere anyway?

Clearly not. Please read the comments you reply to before replying.

It's not the same at all. The tomato festival (which actually takes place in Spain) involves one fight that lasts for an hour in the town square. It isn't days long and people only get pelted with tomatoes if they willingly attend. Agreed, but what does this have to do with describing the tradition as stupid?

????

A nice idea, but I can't imagine many Thai people stopping to think about how a foreigner might feel about being pelted with water before doing so. It would be interesting to see a Thailand where it happened though. "Maybe we should think about how foreign people feel about things that to us seem fun but to them might feel like assault." It might make the place a bit boring and less cheerful. An annoying thing to happen, but not a proportionate response from the Turk. Perhaps both Thais and foreigners alike need to be reminded of what will happen in the festival and how different people will feel differently about it.

It's tough for Thai people to go from a high level of subsidisation protecting them from price/cost rises for decades to normal annual increases, but some things have to come to an end.

Constantly for 40 years, or once 40 years ago?

Is the guy the meteorological version of the virus expert?

No. If he misunderstood then it isn't false, it's simply incorrect. He has to be knowingly lying for it to be a false claim.

The point is, without evidence to refute it, the newspaper cannot know that it is a false claim. I'm sure left-wingers equally need to have this pointed out to them. All the more reason not to make the claim. I think they would need to prove she didn't if they wanted to say that it was a false claim. A false claim is different to a false belief. It implies deliberate deception, which is difficult to prove. Hopefully they will just look at the evidence and will have been screened for Trump Derangement Syndrome during selection.

Absolutely.

You'd need to have proof that she didn't enjoy being sexually assaulted. It doesn't sound like they have that.

Can you quote the relevant please? I can't see the article.

No. The newspaper said it was a false claim. I'm wondering if they have proof that it is false. It sounds difficult to know whether she enjoyed being sexually assaulted or not.

Interesting. Perhaps he meant it as in she enjoys people sexually assaulting her. A weird thing to say, but not quite an admission of guilt. I wonder how they know that it was a false claim? They have proof that it is not true?

So did Trump admit to the assault but claim that she enjoyed it (as this sentence suggests) or was he saying it was consensual and she enjoyed it? The former seems unlikely, and, if it isn't true, I'm surprised they would write it.

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.