fredwiggy

The dogs aren't valued past puppy stage. This is why there are so many wandering free and making babies. A Thai's thinking that all life is sacred is hypocritical as they eat meat daily. They won't kill flies that are landing on their food but will poison dogs that they get bored with. I see animals abused all the time , even within my daughter's extended family here, and I'm almost 100% positive that a cousin living with them 1/2 kilo away, has been the one who has poisoned at least 7 dogs and 4 cats that have called my place home, and another 15 plus that lived at their house, while animals living next door on all sides have lived on with no problems. Life isn't sacred here as it is in the west.

What is right or wrong has no borders. It's the same everywhere. The difference between a first world country and a third world is putting some bad practices to bed and adopting ones more positive and healthy. Some are eager for a positive change and some hold onto outdated customs because they're still old school thinking.

Tigers usually don't attack humans unless they are injured. They live peacefully around humans for generations until this happens. Bears also live very close to humans where they exist, many times without the people even knowing they're around. It's when they are either injured or lose their fear of humans by humans feeding them that they can attack, along with protecting cubs. When a dog attacks humans, they should be put down, as they have been raised not to respect them, or been abused by them. The attitude here about not killing animals is a hypocritical one, as they eat animals daily. This case was a different one since the dog didn't actually kill the monk but might have been starving because he was inside 2 days and decided to bite the monk. It's happened before with other dogs and cats.

I sold guns for years before I moved here, in Texas. Read countless hunting magazines. There are quite a few that use it as an alternate. Myself as soon as I get back.

If you don't hunt, you don't understand much about it. Yes, there are many, many hunters who use a pistol, many I personally know. If you look at the sales of Thompson Centers and like pistols you'll see. Some Thompson owners are target shooters. Many carry sidearms when hunting bears for protection. Carrying guns doesn't make you more of a man. You either are or you aren't . A pistol is just another way of hunting, like a bow, crossbow, rifle, spear or shotgun.

Almost 3 million hunt in the US alone with pistols. There isn't any hunting in Thailand because there is little conservation here.

Pistol hunting is very popular, and more sporting then with a rifle. I will buy a Thompson Contender to hunt with when I move back home. Always wanted one but never got around to it. Not all pistols are good for hunting. Only certain types like the Thompson Center and others. Taking a few words from my statement isn't valid unless you use the rest.................. or target shooter.

I replied to you, answering why he would want all the guns and ammo. Yes, all gun owners should be responsible, and most actually are, with regards to hunters and target shooters, but there's always some that ruin if for others and leave their guns out where people who aren't can access them.

A couple of pistols and some ammunition isn't out of the ordinary for a hunter or target shooter. What he did with them was wrong and makes other gun owners get lumped into a category which they don't deserve. I had more guns and ammo but I'm a hunter, and responsible with them. Nut cases evolve from bad childhoods, and it has nothing to do with being a gun owner.

It's always best to not comment unless you know the facts and not just go by assumptions. Your statement ............"They have their own little club houses in almost all districts and towns around Thailand. If not there, they many time can be seen drinking at one of the officers wife´s som tam shop. Not unusual at all."............ This sounds like you have knowledge about almost all districts and towns around Thailand. You haven't, because you would have to have seen this behavior happen in almost 76 provinces and thousands of towns and cities. 6 or 7 provinces leaves you only a few instances of this behavior, and how would you know if they're drinking in an officer's wife's som tam shop, unless you knew this personally? These are assumptions, just like thinking I have to go back on my meds, and I don't take any meds besides parecetamol occasionally. Generalizing is what any do that assume about others without having all the facts. Like saying all Brits are fat drunks that cause problems here, or all Indians are dirty or all Thais are cheaters. These blanket statements show ignorance and prejudice and they don't work. I could say your avatar shows a man that appears to be a nutcase, but that would be assuming on my part. This is small definition about such statements.........................Blanket statements are never useful. They are nebulous and often send the wrong message. They seed doubt and mistrust and are usually intended to make a grand point about how right the person making the statement might be. They tend to be self-serving even when outwardly it doesn’t appear that way. In other words, we make blanket statements because we want to make a point that makes us look right and therefore look good in the position we are taking..........................What you saw, a few times, surely could be real, but it makes it sound like this happens everywhere, all the time, and it doesn't. And like I said, I know about officials here and in other countries, and have seen it happen a few times myself, so it does happen, sometimes.

Don't believe anything you hear and half of what you see, is always a good way to think. Until it's factual of course. Like what many others see here and think it's what goes on all over the country. I've personally seen police drinking at a police box a few times, right next to my girlfriends house, because we were drinking with them, but that's only one out of three times I've seen them drinking on duty. I'm sure it happens a lot as they are their own police force but I don't think it's all the time , everywhere.

Where do you find this information , or do you drive around to all the precincts and see this for yourself? I don't stick up for the officials here by any means, as I know what goes on , but.

Collateral damage from burning takes quite a while before it kills, just like legal cigarettes. And it isn't easy to prove the respiratory damage was done specifically by the burning. They can stop burning immediately here if the penalties came immediately and took cash from those who burn things. Losing money, especially if you're not well off, is a good teacher, especially if the second offense means more cash lost. The same goes for traffic offenses regarding not wearing helmets or letting the under aged drive.If this was Singapore, more would stay away from drugs but seeing it's a place where cash talks and gets many off the hook, this will continue indefinitely. The first thing that has to happen to make changes is complaining about the problem. if enough people are "allowed" to complain, and they are heard, and the official in charge could lose their job if they ignore the people, then things might change. Also if it personally affects them,as in seeing a relative die from respiratory ailment brought on by burning. Looking at how little care is put towards drivers , students and women who are assaulted, things won't change anytime soon.

I'm as far from naive as you are from actually knowing what goes on in the US. If you think I don't know what has been going on in the US since Kennedy was in office, it's you that's the naive one. I lived in Texas 32 years , and saw firsthand what goes on with immigrants, in person, and with the stories of many immigration officers I knew, who I sold guns to. I hunted in south Texas for years, and saw them coming in, daily, and knew many Hispanics that had family that were transients, going back and forth,and these officers did also. Do you actually think I'm not aware of the governments hidden agenda? Your theories are part conspiracy, and that's naive also. They can look into anyone's records anytime they want, and have for many years. Part of this is to protect citizens, and part is intrusion for whatever reasons they can come up with. My reply is such that they are needed to stop terrorism, any way they see fit. Would you rather they stop this activity and let 911 continue to happen in the US? I don't watch podcasts but listen to everything I can on what makes America happen, that which I'm interested in, or what's needed to protect others. If you think the wall was necessary, it's you that needs to research what makes Trump tick, because I knew decades ago. Some people believe everything they read, as I see in your case. And if you think I trust the government you're wrong. I know what they do, and are capable of doing, and much of it is invasive for no reason. Some of it is to get information on terrorism within it's borders, and this can make them go too far.A necessary part evil? maybe, but they're needed.

One man's opinion, and wrong. We all have free will in countries that aren't a dictatorship, and even then in private. While free will given by God is a good thing, as we aren't sheep, it lets some think they can do whatever they want without consequences. Of course he also believes evolution is true.

True, and I see young girls, toddlers even, shaking their booties like older women do, on camera here, and they think it's somehow cute.

I'm not sure they think about these individuals like men in western prisons do. In the US, if you target kids, you are in for a very hard time in prison, especially if they know why you're there. People in the west look at children with more love, protection and care then they do here.

Try to research more before you post things that have nothing to do with what's being said. I'm not prejudiced against anyone besides the mentally ill that use others for gain.

There are many laws that were made by disturbed individuals worldwide, and some make no sense at all. Just because you can legally have sex with a 16 year old doesn't mean you have to. This is one reason the world is so out of control and dying every year. Personal feelings ar why some people attack younger girls and think it's okay. it isn't. They are targeted because they cannot get older women to be with, especially without paying, so resort to using whatever means they can to gain pleasure for themselves. The fact that there are thousands of these type of "men" is another reason we have so many problems. Morality isn't a bad thing. It's what separates us from animals.

I agree with much said, but I don't know where you get your information from, as other countries are the ones responsible for more trafficking and under age sex targeting than the US. Thailand is a major hub for this, and will continue to be until there are harsher penalties for trafficking. I agree on punishing these perverts, and who is responsible for attracting these girls into this sick trade.................https://igg-geo.org/en/2020/10/03/underage-prostitution-in-thailand-the-consequence-of-a-mass-sex-tourism/

How are they intruding on the lives of innocent Americans? They find , and stop terrorists. Isn't this what they're supposed to do, protecting others from extremists who kill innocents? What exactly are these agencies? The waste of billions is building a wall that stops very little from entering, and making more weapons than we'll ever need.

That age is for teens having consensual sex with teens in most cases, or less then 3 years difference. Doesn't make it right and others use it as an excuse to target young girls.

My personal feelings are from morality and looking at women as humans and not objects to use, and a person's brain isn't fully developed until their mid 20's, so rational thinking pales when they are still teens. Someone who makes a law that okays children having sex with adults is a very disturbed individual, and we have many of them in power.No doubt I'm a hypocrite? Another assumption. I've never been with any under aged girl in my life, and never will. It's called integrity and morals. People who say such things usually have something to hide and deflect.

Anyone besides teens who targets a 16 year old for sex is a disturbed individual, should know better, and should be punished harshly. You let them get a fine or suspended sentence they'll do it again and again. The consent age under 18 is from disturbed officials who are thinking as a pedophile does. I haven't heard of anyone being prosecuted for nude photos of legal aged girls, although in some countries anything goes as far as the justice system is concerned. Idiots in power makes many wrong things happen.

The American justice system, no matter the troubles, is decades ahead of what goes on here. Human trafficking and sex crimes against minors aren't relatively serious crimes. They are as high on the list as you can go besides murder, and the damage they cause is almost as bad. They should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice with the highest punishment that's allowed. That's the only way they will lower the amount. Any sex crimes are worthy of resources. You let animals that do these crimes off the hook or with a slap on the wrist they surely will do them again. Put them away for years and they'll think harder before trying them again. The only thing that's true is that some are punished for minor crimes, like stealing and damage to property, harshly when others who do violent crimes are given much the same sentences. There was a time not long ago where people were jailed for 20 or more years for possessing marijuana, a drug which should have been legal all along, and some who intentionally kill others, a human life, are given 5 years. That's disturbed thinking by judges and prosecutors and they are the ones who need punishment. What sex crimes do you think aren't warranting punishment?