BangkokReady

The pressures to generate content... ????

Just to confirm, this is a post which mentions another post and some of the comments? What is new about this?

You would have thought that at the very least this particular unit would know a little about the effects of different drugs.

It's an interesting point. If Epstein was really killed to stop him talking, did he know so much more than her? Or is she in danger too?

No. The only gripe of younger conservatives is the alphabet gang wanting to have influence over what people do and how they think. Hardly anyone cares about race anymore (apart from those who stand to gain from it).

Not exactly. It had positive connotations when being "woke" was seen as a good thing. Now people realise how destructive being "woke" is, so it has become a negative term.

It can be used in a derogatory way.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if she did win. It's almost a win-win situation. If she wins and improves Thailand, great, if she wins and things don't improve, it will silence a lot of Thaksin supporters who say that if he was in charge everything would be better. Many people view it as "If Thaksin was in charge, we would get more money", because that is what has happened in the past, but that money obviously has to come from somewhere and the coffers aren't exactly full right now.

Isn't it likely that a foreigner who stays in Thailand for one year on a "paid for" visa actually contributes more to the economy than a tourist who visits for two weeks? I'm not sure how you cannot see the valid contribution that a person makes simply by renting an apartment, buying food and travelling around. ED visas, Muay Thai visas, it doesn't really matter. They're making a contribution and as long as they generally follow the law, Thailand is better off for having them.

It's more a case of "free extra money from foreigners is expected because they are perceived as rich and the locals resent it", since tipping isn't a normal thing in SEA. We should at least call it what it is, whether we like to do it or not.

Oh, I did not know that. Sorry.

OK. I think I know the reply. I'll answer when I can. Not ducking anything. I'm obviously limited as to how much time I can spend responding. "Calling you out" makes it sound kind of undignified. A solid question.

No, I mean someone else asked the exact same question.

I can't keep writing the same thing multiple times. I appreciate you're writing one comment to one other user, but I have about four people each replying to everything I write and it's taking ages to reply. I'm pretty sure I answered this above. Can you take a look?

I don't suppose there is one. Of course the government could pay.

The court order means the man is made to give up a proportion of his income, therefore he is not free to do what he wishes with that proportion of his physical labour, therefore he has no bodily autonomy over that (for example) 33% of his physical labour. So 33% of the strain on his body does not go to his own benefit. That was the original scenario, but Placeholder had a pretty good answer to it where he claimed that the government would need to directly control the person's body for it to genuinely be an impingement of the man's bodily autonomy.

No, but if there isn't a court ordering a man to surrender a proportion of his labour, it doesn't relate to my hypothetical scenario.

Not even slightly. You didn't know what I was talking about from the start of your comments to me.

But, as I said, if Mr Smith has to work for his money, and the government says he has to give some of that money away, then some of that work is gone. That 33% of his labour is not his own. Well, it's a hypothetical situation and I'm saying if it is like this then it could be similar to that... OK. That's an interesting point! Probably the first one I've seen in this whole post in response to my hypothetical. If I have to say "effectively, in certain circumstances, etc." it certainly weakens the argument. If the comparison cannot be exact, then it doesn't really hold up to anywhere near the level it should. Good.

I'm afraid you're not making any sense. I explained my point in the previous reply, if you want to ignore what I'm actually saying and then respond to your own weird interpretation of one isolated and out of context comment, I guess you're free to do that, but I don't have much to say to it. What I wrote to you just now is the initial point I made and what I have been discussing, anything else is your misinterpretation. If you don't want to engage with the actual points I have made, I'm not sure we're even having a discussion.

Hardly. This is what I have been discussing. Simple as that. Perhaps you don't know about it, but people need to work to support themselves, and a court can make you give part of your income to support the child. That's it. I haven't said anything like that.

That's your opinion. I disagree. It's the basis of everything I have said, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly nonsense, given how many responses you have made. Working for 18 years obviously has an effect on someone's body. There's no way you can talk your way out of that. It really isn't even opinion.

What does that have to do with a court compelling a man to work impinging on his bodily autonomy? Really think about it this time. Let's try a bit more of an example. Mr Smith has a one night stand with Ms Jones. Ms Jones becomes pregnant. Mr Smith is the father. Ms Jones chooses to carry the baby to term, give birth and keep the baby. Mr Smith does not want her to, he does not want to be a father, he does not want to have a baby with Ms. Jones. Ms Jones has the baby. She asks Mr Smith if he will help with financial support. Mr Smith says he will not. Ms Jones sues Mr Smith for child support. Ms Jones wins and now Mr Smith has to pay 33% of his income to Ms Jones every Month for 18 years. Now, 33% of the resulting money from Mr Smith's labour is being taken from him, therefore 33% of Mr Smith's physical effort is no longer his own to use however he wants and no longer provides any financial reward. Even though Mr Smith wants this 33% of his physical labour to be for himself it is now being taken from him. His bodily autonomy in relation to 33% of his physical effort (work) is being impinged upon for the next 18 years. He has no control over this 33% of his physical effort, it is done for someone else, compelled by law. How does "but women work too" have any effect on this?

So 18 years of work has no effect on a man? Where's the jump?

You seriously believe that 18 years of work has no effect on a man's body?