robblok

30 minutes ago, marin said:

I think it might be you this time. If you cant see the difference between Future Forward and all other Thai parties you are not looking hard enough. This years election is different by far than any previous Thai election. Its exactly why the dinosaurs are in a state of panic.

Yes future forward is the most decent party that is around. That is why the PTP does not like them much and does not like it that they are (probably) getting many votes too. The PTP wanted all the votes for themselves now they will have to share with a party that (i like to believe but have been wrong before) has some principles. 

It will be hard to form a government this way future forward will be tainted by the PTP. 

Unless they start checking income i doubt it would happen. Yes your home country could report but most dont do so as they have no clue of knowing if you actually pay taxes in Thailand.

I would not worry too much about this. Also as long as your not targeting the Thai market in most cases they dont care unless they are forced to act. But how the Thais will never find it unless you got a wife or gf that rats you out.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No, I don't see it as a failing. It's necessary if the rich and powerful are to be held to any account at all. Apparently, you think it's better that they can exercise an effective veto over being scrutinized thanks to their wealth and power.

Actually fox news is rich and powerful and can go on without problems. So much for your system working. 

I think that good defamation laws and some of the criminal would be better. I think news agencies should be held to a higher standard. IF you think there are no failings then I think your blinded by patriotism or something.

Just like you criticize the Brit system (also not perfect) but you fail to criticize your own system. My take, both systems are in need of improvement and have their failings.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Well, in the US, there's a thing called the First Amendment that protects speech, particularly in the case of public figures. But let's look at the alternative in the UK. Where the wealthy and the powerful routinely stifle investigations and criticism thanks to the UK's strict libel laws. The case of Robert Maxwell comes to mind. Investigative journalists were reluctant to publish informatoin that he was robbing pension funds to support his extravagant way of living. Thousands of workers owe their impoverishment to him. On balance, the US system can hold the wealthy and powerful to account in a way that the UK and other nations with similar laws can't.

Thankfully in the Netherland we dont have this crap. That is why i am so shocked. No wonder the US is so low in the corruption index compared to Europe. 

But i get it freedom of speech is important but it should not allow freedom to lie. It just breaks your total system down. And no I don't have a good solution. But i find it pretty bad if news ankers lie and polarize a nation and get away with it. 

So id say free speech is definitely failed. I prefer the UK even over the US then because this is case is far worse. 

Anyway i realize there is no perfect system but something like this should not be allowed. 

Your remark about the wealthy.. I mean its fox news that can do what they want because they are wealthy. I think you should at least admit that the system has huge failings. 

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Three quarters of s billion dollars is a pretty big punishment.

 

And it’s not yet over.

 

I know there is a second case against an other voting machine maker.

But Fox news is only being punished as those voting machine makers are claiming losses defamation. But there is no criminal investigation. So it seems that spreading fake news is ok in the USA. I mean these news ankers knew they were spreading lies and are doing it on other topics too and its allowed. 

Its just strange that this is possible we are not talking about some tinfoil hat people spreading false news. But a huge news organization and its all ok. Im just shocked as this really polarizes the US. More so if they bring fake news and its all ok.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

“Now if fox does this are we sure the other side does not do this ?”

It works like this, evidence first teen accusation.

This was just a question because if one side does it and can get away with it why not the other side. Why would one believe anything from news agencies in the US if these things are allowed.

I am not saying is happening I am wondering IF its happening. Because there seems to be no punishment for stuff like this. Im totally shell shocked here after reading a few things about the fox drama.

Lying and knowing your lying. No apologies nothing only a settlement with dominion but they can go on lying on other stuff. Why are lies not being punished in the US ? These things polarize your whole country.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We’ve been telling you about FIX’s lies for long enough.

 

Now that you are unable to deny the fact FOX is a misinformation channel (rightwing accusation/confession Thong anyone?) you switch to trying to paint all news outlets with the disgraceful behavior of FOX.

 

Your switch has been spotted.

Are you not confusing me with someone else ? Never ever in my life supporter Trump. Never ever believed the election fraud. But was shocked by the Dominion settlement and then when looking into it it shows fox can just lie even knowingly and its on to do so in the US.

Now if fox does this are we sure the other side does not do this ? I mean im a non American, just totally shocked that news agencies can spread lies in the US and its not punishable. Just pay some money and go on.  I know this is about fox but how sure are you guys about other news agencies on the democrat side.  Seems the US is in a big mess. 

I was seriously shocked with all the reporting about fox that the guys that spread the news knew they were lying but did it anyway. Not only on the voting but many other things too. If this happens at one organization how about others.  I thought Thailand was bad but never expected it to be this bad in the US too.

1 minute ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Is this another rant on Trump thread?

Not really just shows how bias you are if you read back. But damm the US really is a mess. (on both sides)

1 minute ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Is this another rant on Trump thread?

Not really just shows how bias you are if you read back. But damm the US really is a mess. (on both sides)

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Sorry bruce, i missed your explanation of how these millions pad to the biden family(which the left moved heaven and earth to falsely claim did not happen) by America's adversaries were legitimate.

 I am wondering why the need for denials and orchestrating a disinformation campaign if the family did nothing wrong. I am sure all non qualified non essential Burisma employees got $50k a month for no reason, right?

 This must be the biggest conspiracy theory ever, and it's all collapsing.

You mean how Trump who claims does nothing wrong struggled to make sure his income tax never came public. 

If you think this is bigger as falsifying an election by Trump then its time to take your blinders off. 

Do you guys trust anything that comes out of your media. After the exposures of fox and how they lie and know about it but do it for ratings (see dominion settlement and now other exposures)

How can you guys trust your own media and reports seems like freedom of speech is freedom to lie. Its now known that fox does this. Probably happens on the other side of the political spectrum too. 

What a mess is the US if news agencies can lie. How can you trust anything then. I mean these articles about the laptop. How do we know what is real. 

17 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

But alcohol also makes people act very much unlike "the real them".  It stimulates behaviour that they would not ordinarily engage in.  And not because they would do it normally but inhibitions stop them, but because alcohol changes how they act and how they think, making them do things that are very much not "the real them".

 

So you must surely agree that alcohol is not some magical truth serum and is not guaranteed to show the real anyone?

 

If anyone is capable of doing things they would not normally do, nor have any secret drives to do, when intoxicated, then alcohol is not reliable as an indicator of "the true you".

First of i like our discussion I hope it does not get deleted.

I agree that its not some magical truth serum (mdma is closer to that). But it still reveals a lot of things about people. It is NOT guaranteed to show the real person always. But it can certainly help a lot. Most people always act the same when they drink. It just makes it harder for people to hide their true self. 

If you always get aggressive or become a total <deleted> when drinking that deep down that is who you are. If someone drinks once acts different then normal then it could be that is who they really are. One can only know if they do the same stuff a gain next time they are drunk. Alcohol does NOT change people it just brings out things that are normally hidden. 

Aggressive people get more aggressive, people who are nice dont turn aggressive (only those who fake their niceness). If you are always truly nice then you thinking that someone is hitting on your gf wont make you hit them. Now if your normally aggressive then it might. 

I am a bit confused what do you mean with 

If anyone is capable of doing things they would not normally do, nor have any secret drives to do, when intoxicated, then alcohol is not reliable as an indicator of "the true you".

If you mean they normally dont do it when sober.. then that does not mean a thing. If you mean they dont even do it when they are drunk then yes its not a reliable indicator. 

You got guys who always cheat on their GF's when drunk does that mean that is not their true self ?  I think it just means they dont do it normally as they are held back by inhibitions and social stuff but if it was ok to cheat they would. So their true self is that they are not really loyal.

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

That's not really how inhibitions work.  You make it sound like anyone who is violent when drunk is a smouldering powder keg of psychopathic rage whenever they are sober and are just able to keep their emotions under control through reasoning (I.e. "I have an incredible urge to bash this person, but I won't because I might get in trouble, otherwise I definitely would."), but when they drink their hidden urge to attack people comes out.

 

It simply isn't like that.  If you actually read what I wrote, there are a lot more factors at play.  It's also incredibly common for people who do something stupid while they are drunk to truly regret it when they are sober.  Not in a "Damn, now they know there real me" way, but in a "What was I thinking?  I can't believe I acted in such a way.  I feel so remorseful".

 

If you actually look at what happens when people drink, there is a lot more going on than simply removal of inhibitions, and this does not actually work in the way that you suggest.

 

There are, of course, some broken people who will become violent when they are drunk, but there are also perfectly normal people who can become aggressive when drunk, or do any number of things that they would not normally do, and very much feel remorse for their actions once they are sober.

 

It simply isn't "the true you" when you are drunk.  It's you plus a behaviour altering drug, therefore not the true you.  That's the bottom line.

 

 

I am talking about those broken people who always get aggressive when drunk Not someone who slips up once.

There is a a reasons for the saying " in vino veritas" . Alcohol just makes it harder to hide stuff and act. It shows more of the real you. 

If you read your own stuff you see that indeed it does more things but it removes barriers. Now those barriers are not needed for some people as they are just better by default. Alcohol just brings a lot of things out that are normally hidden. 

A person who is not violent by nature who misinterpret a cue and thinks someone is hitting on his gf will respond different then a person who is already an aggressive person who misinterprets those cues. (it all leads down to the default settings of a person). 

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

So you're suggesting the Thai villagers (drunk at their SK party) weren't 'nice' and showed their true personalities during the attack?

I am suggesting that drunk people who are aggressive are normally aggressive too but have their impulses better under control when not drunk. Just means that those people are aggressive idiots who pretend to be nice.

I don't care if they are Thai or Farang. Aggressive drunk people are the scum of the earth regardless of nationality.

36 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

What makes you think that inhibitions are not part of how someone truly is?  I don't think you understand what "truly" means.

 

"We've put a chemical into this person's brain which drastically changes how they think and behave.  This will show us how they truly are." This is an extremely illogical and paradoxical premise.

 

Alcohol shows you only what someone is like when they have consumed alcohol.  There is nothing "true" about this as it is not a normal state.  That's why it's called intoxication.

 

Alcohol also does more than lower inhibitions.

 

 

It lowers inhibitions so it makes it harder to fake stuff like being nice. So if you are a total <deleted> on alcohol then your just good at hiding it when you dont take it. As it says in your article it removes restrains on impulsive behaviour. Just means that the guy normally wants to do it but know he can't or should not. (AKA faking it) So internally he wants to bash someone his brain in but knows it has consequences but does not. When drinking that filter is gone. 

Now you have other people who are naturally nice and dont need their impulses controlled so they dont get aggressive when drinking because nice is their normal state without their body struggling to control impulses.

That is my take on it.