BangkokReady

Do you mean where with AIDs the person dies from something else but it is the disease that weakens the immune system and causes the death? Because "death with covid" does not mean that the patient died from something else that they became vulnerable to due to covid. It's more that they died of something and they also happened to test positive for covid, as I understand it.

Without context they are meaningless.

You think there are foreigners in Thailand who were here before corruption began?

I was responding to someone mentioning anticorruption measures that already exist, so this as a response does not really make sense. That's one opinion on the subject. Another might be that people are operating within a broken system.

Do those measures actually stop the corruption though? As far as I am aware, it is still ongoing. It's hard to make a claim that the reason a procedure is in place is to prevent corruption that is very much continuing.

Are you sure that isn't down to the culture of corruption that permeates every level of Thai society?

Pretty much, yes. Probably worse.

Is it the "not having the correct visa" that seems to infuriate some people, or is it the "living the dream" part?

Isn't defamation unrelated to whether something is true or not though?

Seems like it would have been mentioned if so. Everyone knows about it and it has been going on forever. If he wanted to do something about it, he could have done at any point in the past. The difference here is Chuwit making a big fuss about it and it being Chinese organised crime doing it on a large scale. Chuwit has bought a lot of attention to it. Should he do the same for elderly Western retirees, who knows?

Why? What harm could some elderly pensioners living in Thailand without 800,000K in the bank possibly do to you? Or do you just like to see bad things happen to other people? They have the money to "stay", just not for the visa requirements (or at least they don't want to commit it to a Thai bank account).

Or just get a normal dog and treat it normally? Also better not to have a dangerous dog, since all the training in the world cannot rule out something like a tumour or other unpredictable issue; making any dog turn, with a dangerous dog causing way, way more damage than a normal dog. I'm aware that some dangerous dogs have that moniker. But they're also the dogs that kill and disfigure the most children, so it's more than a little misleading.

If dangerous dogs were banned, and people turned to non-dangerous dogs for pets, where would the problem be? Bear in mind that while you maybe need to imagine that these dogs are tortured into monsters to act this way, the reality is that they are treated the same as any other dog, but they have an innnate danger due to their genetics.

It would be interesting to see who could get to it first, but not something I would want to try. Someone with a gun of their own and nothing to lose though...

I guess I do have to say more. ???? The point is, you don't need to have an intimate knowledge of something to know how dangerous it is.

"You've never owned a gun, why are you saying that children shouldn't be allowed to have one?" "You aren't an expert of venomous snakes, where do you get off saying that people shouldn't sleep with one in their bed?" "You've never even driven a car, how can you possibly believe that anyone could ever be harmed while driving one." Do I need to say more?

Nice idea, but unless she's holding it when customers come in, or there's someone out the back with it peeking out, anyone who robs the place can just tell her not to move, bonk her on the head, or go for it themselves.

There is one argument: In order for us to have enough food to eat, we have to produce it in a way that means a lot of it is wasted. ????‍♂️

No. Some people were bickering and the psychotic dog that is bred to kill went and attacked them. The old woman tried to stop the attack and it attacked her as well. I'm sure if there were some kids for it to attack, it would have killed them. The problem is with the dog bred to kill attacking people, not some people living a normal life doing what everyone does. The dog thought it was a burglary? Come on.

Ah, they hadn't carried out the years of special training and constant careful handling that is apparently required to stop these dogs from killing people. How silly of them. Clearly their fault, not the fact that the dog is bred to kill at all... /s

Where is the BLM Riots Committee?

Not false at all. I cited what he said. This is his explanation about the situation as it is now, as he sees it. This is part of the warning he is giving. What is happening now is the context for what may happen in the future. He's hardly going to be warning about the past, that's already happened. You can't cut out part of what someone said and pretend he didn't say anything else. This is called talking something out of context, and that is false.

I know that you can't provide any evidence to support your claim. Is that any help?

I assumed you basically didn't know how the phrase works. "A fellow X" indicates that the speaker believes that he too is an example of whatever the X is. So I thought you had probably made an error, but I had no way of knowing what you meant. You would need to write "A fellow [nationality]" and then go on to describe them.

But you aren't even willing to provide any kind of evidence to support your claim? I think you will have a long wait.