BangkokReady

It's more about Thai culture. If students in Thai schools actually had proper lessons in what they are learning, were properly assessed, and weren't simply allowed to copy and cheat their way through schools without being able to fail, I'm sure that Thais would be far better educated. The problem lies in the fake and corrupt elements of Thai culture, as these permeate everything.

It's basically their business model. I believe a claim handler's primary job is to find a way to avoid paying.

You're welcome to think it's nuts. But that doesn't give anyone the right to attack someone.

I think if someone is trying to take your gun, kicking or hitting you in the head with a skateboard, or pointing a gun at you, it's reasonable to assume that death or great bodily harm is on the cards.

Same to you then.

You're welcome to hold that opinion, just as long as you don't use that opinion as justification for someone to be attacked.

I'm afraid I don't have time to go through the entire Rittenhouse trial. I'm pretty sure the prosecution claimed things happened which footage and testimony refuted. If you don't believe, I have no problem with that. ????‍♂️ I encourage you to look into the trial a little more though, if you genuinely believe that what the prosecution presented was true, and the judge and jury conspired to let Rittenhouse off without proper evidence (or whatever you think happened).

It doesn't really matter if it's "OK" or not. You can't attack someone for doing something you simply "don't like". That's the important bit.

Well, the prosecution said a lot of things that weren't true and were refuted by the evidence presented by the defence. I wouldn't take "the prosecution claimed X" as any kind of evidence, personally. It's better if you can present the evidence and be able to honestly say "this shows X", or even let the evidence speak for itself, which I believe most of the footage of Rittenhouse being attacked and defending himself did.

Sure, if he hadn't been there he would not have had to kill anyone. But that doesn't make it his fault. The people that chose to attack him did not have to. They weren't in any danger and Rittenhouse wasn't posing a threat to anyone. There were simply some very bad people there who saw Rittenhouse as being someone they wanted to harm. Not because he threatened them, or they were in any danger, but because they were bad people and they saw him as the enemy. That isn't his fault and he had a right to defend himself.

Regardless of your opinion on it being morally wrong or wrong "common sense" wise, it wasn't legally wrong and it didn't give anyone the right to try to kill him.

It really shouldn't be. Saying "someone said it so it must have happened, even though a court of law refused to believe them" is terrible in terms of proving something or providing evidence. The prosecutor was pretty much giving their opinion of what the evidence showed, and it wasn't believed. I don't think the court believed that and neither do I. The evidence supported Rittenhouse's version of events. He wasn't doing anything wrong when he was targeted by violent protesters. He had no choice but to defend himself and he did so legally.

Is there evidence of Rittenhouse pointing a gun at anyone before they attacked him? It wasn't Rittenhouse's fault that people decided to attack him because they saw him as a "baddie".

It's not nit-picking. Your research and analysis leaves a lot to be desired.

It shows that you're rushing and going off half cocked, when you should be taking your time, looking carefully at things, and being objective. Take your time and be a lot more sure before providing evidence that you think supports what you are saying.

Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, was left partly paralyzed after a white police officer shot him seven times in the back outside an apartment complex in Kenosha, Wis., on Aug. 23, 2020. The shooting, which happened in front of three of Mr. Blake’s children, was captured by a neighbor in a video that circulated widely and rapidly on social media. Outrage spread quickly, rekindling the nationwide protests for racial justice that had followed the deaths of George Floyd, Elijah McClain, Breonna Taylor and other Black Americans after encounters with the police. https://www.nytimes.com/article/jacob-blake-shooting-kenosha.html Edited 1 hour ago by ozimoron "So you don't believe the riots were over the killing of Black man, huh? Well here is a news article showing that a Black man was shot and paralysed. There, I've proved the killing occurred!" ????‍♂️

Beer and prostitutes is "culture", right?

You speak fluent Mexican?

They like it, they're used to it, they think they deserve it, they're scared to leave, they don't think they can do better.

This also in no way proves racism in the selection process. 1. Because people may simply be caving to social pressure and not agree with any of it. 2. Because you could easily say that the diversity programs help people who don't have a chance to get through the selection process due to other challenges related to race, not people who are being rejected because of racism. You have in no way proved racism in the selection process.

Correlation does not prove causation. You don't know that just because there are disproportionately less of a certain race in a certain job that it is down to racism of the recruiters.

Sure, there are many advantages that Vietnam has over Thailand. In fact, it's kind of the case that they directly relate to each other. What I mean is, you get this sense of unity and togetherness in Thailand that you don't find so much in Vietnam, but, this means that if things do get a bit sketchy you might be safer in Vietnam because it's less likely that the whole room/street are going to immediately side with the local and bash your head in. They push and shove a lot more in Vietnam, but you feel like you can push and shove back. This unity is very nice to observe in Thailand, but you are often not part of it as a foreigner, just a spectator. In Vietnam, you are less likely to see this same unity, which can be a shame, but you are more likely to be accepted and judged a little more individuality than in Thailand. I've spent time in both Vietnam and Thailand post-covid, and I really got the feeling that in Vietnam they think "wow, a foreigner, welcome back!", but in Thailand it's still a little "ew, a foreigner, it's a shame you had to return". They're certainly more open to foreigners and foreign ways of thinking in Vietnam. Definitely more intellectually curious. They also seem to want to have access to foreigners due to the education system that we have been through. I can't imagine that ever being the case in Thailand, even with the state of the Thai education system as it is. And yes, even Vietnamese men want to chat with foreigners! I suppose one factor in this is that they don't have the same sex industry in Vietnam, so they don't assume a foreigner is a sex tourist, more likely a business person or teacher (and they apricate foreign teachers a lot more in Vietnam). Some other things I preferred Thailand for were treatment of women, even though Thailand is pretty sexist, you don't see quite the same level of disrespect for women you see in Vietnam. The petty crime in Vietnam (due to communism) is kind of annoying, and it makes Vietnamese people quite suspicious of each other. But at least it isn't reserved for foreigners. Anyone could get robbed or scammed in Vietnam. One thing about the scamminess in each country, is that in Thailand they use flattery, deception and kindness, whereas in Vietnam it's a little more overt. You can spot someone being sneaky a lot easier in Vietnam (in my opinion), while in Thailand it's a lot more subtle and you might not even realise that you were being manipulated until a lot later. I think the Thai version is a little easier to handle short-term, but can grate a little once you pick up on it. I think this could all suggest that Thailand makes an easier stay for a holiday or retirement, but Vietnam might be easier to build a new life in. Yeah, I think due to the culture and the way Westerners are perceived, you're certainly more likely to find something more genuine in Vietnam. Not to mention have access to a far higher social level. I think the "wow a Westerner" vs "ew a Westerner" holds true for dating especially (IMO). They're both very interesting places to stay, each with some pros and some cons.

It doesn't happen on the same scale in Thailand.

Who is saying that? Interesting article, but they seem to avoid mentioning the fact that Thailand has a lot of repeat business, while a lot of people visit Vietnam once and choose not to visit again because of scamming and rude locals.

Come on. They're not that bad here. I feel we should at least be able to acknowledge that [redacted by moderators]. And I've always though that the moderation team need to [redacted by moderators], at least when it comes to [redacted by moderators].