Fat is a type of crazy

In their rolls they weren't satisfied. Son down in 2 minutes. 

41 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

The Australian Grubbyment gave Novax the go by issuing him a valid visa and have since retracted the visa after some snowflakes had a little cry.The woman tennis player actually played a warmup tournament before her visa issued by the same Grubbymennt and so after retracting Novax's visa decided to retract her visa.Smells a lot like political point scoring.The same Grubbyment said vaccination was the only way out of the pandemic and to flatten the infamous curve, well said curve is looking decidedly unflat with 110,000 infections reported today which coincides with a 90+% national vaccination rate, so instead of reducing infections the stats might indicate that vaccinations have in fact increased the infection rate?Statistics are like that and can be interpreted in many different ways.The reported world leading medical system (as boasted by Scotty from marketing) took elderly covid infected patients from hospitals and placed them back into their aged care homes to infect many other elderly residents hundreds of which died.The medical experts said that Corona viruses don't mutated very quickly, seems they were wrong about that also.The medical experts have gotten so many things wrong it's hard to have any faith in them anymore and the more they say trust us the more I think about people who say trust me I'm from the Grubbyment and I'm here to help. 

Hi Far Flung

I think when they offer a visa it is based on the premise that the information held within it is correct. When they checked it at the airport on arrival it it seems he couldn't back it up. It appears to be Tennis Australia's fault though you think a tennis player like him might check independently. .

Australia went hard on the tougher types of covid of course, particularly when there was no vaccine, or when it was being rolled out. The roll out was slow, and there were bad errors with a few nursing homes out of 100's or 1000's as you say,  but states did a good job keeping people safe. Thanks Dan. I was not impressed with some limits to travel between states though which got a bit silly. 

Now of course it's a weaker but more contagious variant and people have had the chance to get vaccinated and lockdowns are pretty much done and its up to the individual to stay safe. I haven't heard that being vaccinated could increase the infection rate. Heard the opposite. 

The experts have done their best. Vaccines were created.  I heard them in fact say it is normal for it to mutate. They got so much right. Thanks Dr Fauci. 

I think the Australian government has done good in a difficult situation. 

9 minutes ago, Bruno123 said:

Easier to just check page two of this very thread. 

That hotel you note has lots of 1 star reviews on Google. Looks like the hotel just goes after the low hanging fruit i.e. those who can be easily sued in Thailand or those who are likely to react to a threat. Good for these people for making a noise. 

It's a good time for avocado lovers in Australia. The farmers went in big and now there's too many. One dollar. 

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Does believing the "science" not require faith?

Not if you do not believe but keep room for doubt. Keep an open mind.

We all probably fall into a bit of faith in different aspects of life due to human nature, laziness, etc.

On the other hand though, it's best not to let cynicism, or faith in other areas of life, e.g. following a political party or friends advice or loud noises on the internet or love and hate, to stop you accepting what is likely to be correct. Otherwise you can become stuck and it can make you question things to the point of ridiculousness.    

Information from sources that have proven reliability, or where there is evidence that a new source has done the hard work, is likely to be correct and you can rely on that advice.

From time to time a reassessment is required.

Our own judgements of what is likely to be correct are fallible too so just keep an open mind. A bit obvious but there it is. 

This post is not about Tippaporn's theories, but, some old friends were into ideas and theories based on consciousness and form. New Age stuff. Some you might call hippies others just were 'normal' but had a crystal or two and few books. 

It seemed gentler back in the day and not into more extreme stuff. Today new age hippies can be a  bit militant  on covid, 5G, and stuff. 

The old new agers liked books by Dan Millman, Edgar Cayce, Louise Hay and others. More recently there was the book The Secret that looked at the idea of consciousness and conscious thought influencing your life. Dreams as predictions. Wishing and manifesting your life better.

To me it was a bit entertaining but then just seemed like wishful thinking. Because it never got out of first gear of ideas and into second gear with some proof.

Even gentle ideas, that take you away from science and towards a type of faith, can be harmful to critical thinking and focus in my opinion.

With a few government controls, to stop rogue scientists going to far, science has to be for the best. 

20 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Didn't work for China and Aus did it, just exploded later

You could argue it did work for Australia. Kept numbers of cases low before vaccine and for most dangerous strains. Now lots of cases after opening up but 90 per cent vaccinated and omicrom means that so far not too big a deal.

7 minutes ago, swm59nj said:

Retired at age 62 in America.  No issues with retirement income or health insurance.  I didn’t move to Thailand because I disliked  America or couldn’t afford to live there. 
I always wanted to experience living overseas.  All of the places I did want to move to did not have retirement type visas.  So decided to try it out by moving here.  I did visit Bangkok for three months before moving here.  Staying in a hotel.  It seemed ok, so I took the chance and moved here months later.

I have been living here about two years now.  Without going into detail, it’s not for me.  So I will eventually move back to America.  America isn’t perfect.  But it’s better than here. 
 

I would be interested to hear your top 5 things that you like and don't like about living in Thailand. If you feel like saying. I am in a  similar boat but have a few years of work to go. 

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

 

I have stated often that, in my humble opinion, one of science's major failings is in it's complete disregard of any of life's other valid elements other than the purely objective.  It leads to viewing life as purely and mindlessly mechanistic, which it is not.  (One can imagine all sorts of nonsensical and troubling ideas sprouting from that viewpoint.)  Consciousness, which is what we are (anyone care to deny?) has diddly to do with the mechanics of life, in science's view.  Completely, totally, 100% backwards in my opinion.

 

I have seen something similar in the god thread. I guess the question is how can the subjective be acceptable if, in your mind, the objective is not? Why would something be true in your mind or consciousness but not objectively true?

Science doesn't have an opinion on consciousness except what is observable. Observation and objectivity aren't dirty words or a short cut. It's the hard way. 

I think at the end of the day you have theories which may or may not have merit. You  can't prove them correct at this stage either because they are not correct or because our ability to test such concepts isn't there yet. You have to cop it.

But don't blame scientific method. All it is is testing a theory to see if it fits the real world. Surely you theories are part of the real world. How could we accept the concept of subjectivity into science without accepting faith. I am not looking to get into a debate about theories but just to say that it feels like you are fighting science because your theories can't be proven. It's not sciences fault. 

1 hour ago, Adumbration said:

Ok Gazza is a divorced bricklayer with 2 kids.  His wife ran off with an electrician because it is a better class of tradie.

 

Gazza earns 72K pa before tax.

 

So 2 kids 16% child support (assuming kids from same mother).  Then payroll tax circa 25% on 72K.

 

So lets say 43K after tax.

 

Gazza cant work overtime because his tax rate would therefore go up and with child support on top he would get about 35cents on every dollar for his overtime.

 

so... 42.5K less (on your figures) and annual costs:

 

water 1k 

elect 1k

gas 1k

car 1K

internet and phone 1.5K 

 

so 37K

 

Gazza lost his house in divorce and can't afford to buy another because he hasn't got enough for 20% deposit.  Median house price in most cities in Oz is now over 1 million.

 

So he is renting a modest two bedroom bungalow in the burbs (has to have 2 bedrooms or kids are not allowed to stay with him during his custody allotments)

 

Rent 500 per week so 25K pa

 

so 12K

 

Contractors licence to work as brickie 500

Tradies insurance                                  1k5

 

Payments on leased ute 12K

 

So minus 2K a year remaining for Gazza to feed himself, cloth himself, pay for fuel, take care of the kids when he has them.  Buy the kids christmas and birthday presents.  And try to date some fat bushpig....

 

Am I missing anything....

 

Oh yeah health insurance or out of pockets if he gets sick....

 

Fair points there.

Just correct a couple of things.

Tax on $72,000 is 21 per cent or less rather than 25 per cent. He can likely claim a deduction for a significant part if not all of the leased ute and his license and insurance. That would drop his taxable income to lets say $58,000 and the overall tax rate to 18 per cent. He is left with $47,500. $5000 better off in tax and $2200 less in child support. A bit better. 

If he works overtime he should get 49.5 cents in the dollar, 16 cents to his kids and 34.5 to the tax man. That includes medicare levy. Getting half and your kids getting a sixth is a bit better. 

Also you would have had to have spent money on the kids still if married and you don't have to be with your wife.  I do take your point though. 

33 minutes ago, Adumbration said:

Only flaw in your argument here is that the poor chap working in the building industry in Australia will be using 70% of his take home pay to service his mortgage.  And of course he could also be paying child support at a (pre tax) rate of 32% for the first kid and 48% for the second.  Rates 10-15k per year, electricity 2k per quarter, water 1k per quarter.  Car registration and compulsory insurance 2K per year.  And if Gazza the bricklayer wants a girl for the night well that is going to run him 1-2K as well.  Oh and what if Gaz is a smoker....what is a pack of fags in Oz nowadays 50-60 dollars.  I don't smoke but one of my Aussie expats mates does and yesterday he told me he buys black market malaysian smokes by the carton (10 packs..200 fags) for 300baht a carton.

Your figures seem awfully high. No way mortgage should be that high with current interest rates. Though it is tough to buy now. I live in an average house and rates are $3000 which is a bit high because I am in semi bushland and fewer properties to share the rates. Most rates in Melbourne should be about that or are less. Electricity $250 a quarter,  water $250 a quarter, gas $250 a quarter,  car registration and insurance together are about $1100, for 12 months. Smokes are expensive. Big taxes. 

Google says you pay 12 per cent of gross income for one and 16 per cent for two. Sounds not too bad but I suppose after tax it is difficult but it's not a tax it's going to the kids. You hear the opposite in Thailand where father's are dead beat dads and the mother is left with baby and has to certain jobs to get by.  

55 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Been there, done that, but 80+hr a week.  Still had a great quality of life, just little less time to enjoy it.

 

Along with 2 back to back 12 shifts (7pm-7am) at restaurant on the weekends at 15 yrs old together with working 3 nights a week till 1 am.  All illegal, as didn't even have work papers, and when legal, at 16, (not allowed to work more than 4 hrs a day, or past 7pm), nothing changed.  And teachers in HS used to wonder why I fell asleep in class, if I showed up at all.  Doesn't include the child labor laws I broke since about 10 yrs old. 

 

Ups & downs along the way, 30 something yrs old and living in an unfinished basement, and then later, the opposite, paying more income tax than most working people earned, the few times I hit the top 5% tax brackets.

 

Quality of life didn't change, just had more than enough vs barely enough, sometimes living on CCs.

Only difference with more $$$, bit more comfortable living & more toys.

You were probably ambitious and worked hard. As you say more stuff often doesn't mean more happiness. 

I just like to see a society where even those who do a normal job through their life can live a dignified life. That's tough in countries where the wages are often so low and people such as teachers need second jobs.

I am no communist or leftie  but I like that in Australia those workers in the building industry, for example, get paid well and the property developer can still get rich. As compared to Thailand where the property developer has such low costs and the normal workers struggle. That's where I think the free market alone can lack fairness. 

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Anyone who bases their 'quality of life' on income or possession ... doesn't understand what quality means.  

 

The only difference between being a 'have' or 'have not', would be comfort level.

 

More than a few millionaires have off'd themselves ... guess having too much money didn't help their quality of life.

Maybe in places like Australia but the difference between a have or have not in the US or Thailand can mean the difference between going hungry or not. Or the difference between working 60 hour weeks for terrible pay or not. 

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My Thai children appear to have a better life in Thailand, than my English children have in England.

Education is one of the false gods of the western world, beyond the ability to read and write not much point in further education for 90% of the population.

Education is often important to learn how to express yourself. Technical degrees are often worthwhile. In my case my degree was a bit of a waste of time though. I did an economics degree and what we learnt was just common sense such as  supply and demand, a bit of psychology and marketing, nothing much. Economists seem to get it wrong more than 50 per cent of the time. The accounting part was somewhat helpful and it did get me a job. But in three years of economics there wasn't much of substance. 

31 minutes ago, Smithson said:

Average house price in Australia is  $1 million, plus most things fun are frowned upon, especially if the involve risk or are enjoyed by males.

Good if you own property. Shows confidence in the Australian way of life. Lots of good paying jobs if you work hard. 

They'll always be some who frown but just ignore them. Unless your risky behaviour risks others. I think Thai society seems a bit moralistic ..not sure that the average Australian is. 

Sorry if I see an anti Australian comment I have to bite. 

Tonight on the news. 20 degrees celsius in Kodiak Alaska. That is 20 degrees higher than the previous record. Than the RECORD. I know it's lazy and unscientific to pick out such a statistic but gee 20 degrees higher than the record is fairly noteworthy. 

Here is lyrics from a different song from the 80's called Out of the Blue Into the Fire. The band is The The. It is about going with a lady of the night. I don't think the poster is after this. 

I'm a man without a soul...Honey
Who lost it while parading it, in a town full of thieves
Why see I didn't want to be with any people I know.
But god knows, I didn't want to be alone
So I showered down--left my little room
And jumped in my car for protection from hostility
Well it ain't easy to be bold--in an unknown city
I was feeling strong mouthed, but weak willed.
When I ran into the cure...for my ills
Don't tell me what your name is
I want your body, not your mind,
I want a feeling, worth paying for before I say goodbye
But as I was talking, I couldn't look her in the eyes,
I just kept wondering,
How many men unleashed their frustration between her thighs?
Well my adrenalin, was curdling like cream,
As I was being led by the hand.
Through the sound of sirens
And the distant noise of some drunken jazz band,
Through the stench of disinfectant
That "Infected" my head,
Through the darkness of a corridor
And into a strangers bed.
Well I didn't want to hurt your feelings, honey
But I couldn't suppress my own,
I had to pull myself outta this nosedive
By proving something to myself.
She was lying on her back
With her lips parted.
Squealing like a stuffed pig
I was going through the motions
Faking the emotions,
And wriggling around like lizard in a tin.
Trying so hard to cleanse myself,
I was turning into somebody else.
I was trying so hard to please myself,
I was turning into somebody else.
I was trying so hard to be myself
I was turning into somebody else.
Come my love--with your desire
Out of the blue...and into the fire!!

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't have a problem.  I'm not running around with my hair on fire crying that the sky is falling when the weather is so lovely day in and day out.

 

On what basis?  First point:  who afforded you the luxury of being able to make unwarranted claims such that I'm a climate change denier?  Here's how this disingenuous tactic works.  Yes, it is a tactic.

 

Person 1:  When did you stop beating your wife?

Person 2:  WdaF are you on about?  I don't beat my wife.

Person 1:  So you're denying it?

 

Do you understand that you are employing the above tactic every time you call someone a climate change denier?  And do you understand that people don't like to be implied "wife beaters" via false claims?

 

Now, to answer your question re what basis.  How about the continual and utter dismal failure for any of the alarmists' predictions to come true.  Think of this analogy:  if you had an actual job which required you to produce results yet for years, nay decades, you failed to produce even the slightest result do you think you'd still have a job?  O.K., maybe not the best of analogies since in today's Superman Bizarro World of he's a she and she's a he it's incompetence, or any kind of backward thinking that gets rewarded.

 

Or try this analogy.  Perhaps this one will clear some of the mental blockages:  Ever hear of the fable of the boy who cried wolf?

 

Or, are you simply trying to convince me that . . . you just have to believe!  Fair warning:  You know the anti-superstition crowd here will eat you alive if they catch you extolling that line.

 

Man, I thought it was you folks who invoke Russell's teapot and now you're slyly turning the tables and expect me not to notice?  Ya know, we just had that argument on another topic, which I won't mention because it's a tad political.  My memory isn't so short.

 

So you used to be a skeptic and had a change of heart due to all of the "convincing" data.  Let me ask you . . . how trustworthy (reliable) do you figure the numbers to be?  And do you firmly believe in the incorruptibility of science?  Do you believe there's no money in science?  Or, scientists aren't human and therefore never lie?  Just checking on your gullibility level.

 

Ah, I couldn't resist temptation and replied anyway.  You see, when you have two immovable objects opposing each other then there's no place for the energy to flow to other than sarcasm.  No, that's not made up.  It's actual scientific proven theory.  I can't find the citation now but when I do I'll get you the link.

And finally, what happens now?  Well, someone will put up a clever reply putting me in my place and the entire contingent of opposing viewpointers will pile on with likes and thank-yous to prove that logic and reason don't stick to Teflon.

I'll admit not knowing that much about the technical aspects of climate change so I steer away from technical debates. I have seen trends where people say 1 There is no data showing climate change 2 There is but its natural 3 There is but its not the majority of scientists who think it's man made 4 The majority say they think it's man made but they are corrupted by money and other things. 

If I need something fixed at home that I don't understand I might research it a little bit so I don't get ripped off but I'll let the expert do the job. Same with climate change. I haven't got the time or inclination to delve into the realm of possibilities. It's my experience that individual  scientists can be flawed and even corrupted but that other scientists pick them up on it. In this area I'll take the view of the vast majority. This is not a reply to you as such but just to show how others aren't sheep for accepting the huge majority of opinions of the educated and able scientists who have done the hard work that I cannot. 

Delete

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You see, this is why, in my opinion, so many debates are futile.  All three are theories yet all three are taught as fact.  Check.  If they are not proven facts then they are beliefs.  Check.  Yet all one gets is a denial in one form or another.  Check.

 

And your conclusion is that I'm looking for a problem that's not there?  No, I'm looking for some honesty that will never come.

 

Weeellll, yes they are just theories and may not be correct (partial but very weak admission).  But of course they may even be extremely likely (yeah, they're not proven but chances are really, really good that they are fact).

 

How about, "Ya know, you got a good point."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Belief requires a leap of faith. 

Scientific methodologies don't allow this. I am not denying that some may treat a theory as fact or belief because often the evidence is overwhelming. But that's humans getting on with life and not scientific methodology. 

It is religion and some new age spirituality, where subjective feelings and experiences are given credence, and a leap of faith is seemingly acceptable.

Who knows maybe something in that area may become provable and join the science family. But they can't be proven by subjective experience only because, by definition, that's not how scientific theories can be given credence.