Fat is a type of crazy

Thai food has in the past been pretty bad in Australia. Too sweet and mild. A bit like a lot of tourist restaurants in Thailand. They would say 'That's what people want'. Now it's getting better but you need to be careful. 

This was made in February 2020. Didn't watch it in full but tried to get the gist of it. He says pensions unfunded. The S&P 500 achieved a record closing high of 3386 on February 19, 2020 around the time of this. It is now 4,791 or 41 per cent higher. So pensions will be better funded. He says property market would be stable or go go down. Wrong. He says tech stocks overvalued. They have increased significantly since that time.

Maybe his points are a ticking time bomb for the future. Who knows. 

I have a defined benefit thanks to being an older public servant but most from about 2003 in Australia are not - you just pick your investment and what you get is what you get. So it's not a big problem here. 

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Fermented drinks have been around a lot longer than science.

As others have pointed out, except for those who ate overripe fruit and got drunk, any human intervention in making it happen involves science.

You may be right that those who got through childhood lived a similar life till now but to state the obvious what a crappy life it was for most. Back breaking work, terrible food and living conditions, one bad year and no food, horrible diseases wiping out your neighborhood.

Thanks smart people and science.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice post.

My quote doesn't accuse atheism or bring it into the mix.  I concur completely with you that one needn't have a belief in God or any religion to recognise love and kindness.  To say that these values emanate from the core of our being, though, would undoubtedly by considered an anti-scientific claim.  So, from whence do they come?

 

I'll mention again that I am not religious so I feel no need to come to it's defense.  I agree that both science, as an institution, and all religions hold many ideas, way too many to list, which are diametrically opposed.  I would vehemently disagree with the notion that atheists are more capable at discerning reality, whether one wants to qualify it as "know reality" or "true reality."  Both have, in my humble opinion, their share of erroneous beliefs which act as impediments to seeing "true reality" with any degree of great clarity.

 

If you would allow me I would alter your one statement for the sake of accuracy.

"They use science and dismiss superstition." to read "They use the God of science and dismiss the God of superstition."

And since neither of these are my "Gods" I am most likely at odds with the majority here.  I defend both when either are unfairly disparaged and I will blast both where they are unreasonably inflated.

And finally I'll add that despite the fact that science (as an institution - the last time I'll make this distinction for the sake of Skeptic since he can't get it from context) was the instrument which conceives, designs, and creates weapons of mass destruction religion plays a hand as well.  Scientists are not as free from the tenets of religious belief as they might profess to be.  I doubt that there isn't a one of them who does not believe in "right" or "wrong."  The irony.

I think those concepts come from a combination of nature, nurture and life experience and can be consistent with science.

Right and wrong is probably based on the human condition and the fact that we want security and to be treated reasonably. I am sure prior to the 10 commandments people didn't think it was right to steal or be with your neighbour's wife. Same for kindness. Love can seem more complicated and probably has a stronger biological origin that is not fully understood. Just a part of the human condition to keep the species going.

Atheist's can accept the limitations of current knowledge and not say it must be god or some etherial thing. 

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Why the confused look when confronted with the truth, Skeptic.  Weapons of mass destruction were birthed by amoral science who realised they had the power to annihilate the entire planet if they so chose.  Well, they couldn't resist temptation (hey, maybe it was the miniature devil on their shoulders whispering in their ears).  They decided not to go nuclear (excuse the pun) and just drop a few big ones and create some really nifty toys for the militaries of the world.

Say it ain't true, Skeptic.

Atheism doesn't mean amoral. You don't need god to see logic in love and being kind. Religion does mean a form of morality but it is one based on a premise of acceptance of predefined rules not open to science, and sometimes that my faith is better than a different faith and often therefore that one life is worth more than another. Religion often is more passionate and conflicting because it can limit free will and people's natures. 

Therefore, though both could be involved in the theoretical and practical creation of nuclear weapons one might argue atheists are, on balance, more capable as they see and act on known reality more clearly. They use science and dismiss superstition.

The religious though may be more likely to justify their use based on a less logical response to life, that is more likely to have decision making based on concepts such as faith, fear and revenge,  and on having an us and them mentality. To be fair some religions by their nature would dismiss the use of nuclear weapons out of hand.

In reality human thinking in general can be flawed and not necessarily designed to handle nuclear weapons.

On 12/24/2021 at 3:30 PM, BritManToo said:

I would have preferred to keep the 20% of my wage I paid for that.

Nobody gave me anything I didn't work and pay for.

And the government always took/redistributed more than was fair.

17 hours ago, seedy said:

What stops you from accessing your pension deposits from here ?

The fact that it is 'Against the Law' ?

It's your $$$

It may be that Age pensions are different for UK as compared to Australia and New Zealand. Tax paid through your life is not a factor in how much age pension you get. I have a friend who's a good artist and musician but been on the dole for pretty much forty years. Lazy sod. He is 56 but when he gets to 67 he'll get the same aged pension as others.  The pension is not your dollars set aside from contributions. 

Individuals and employers make payments to superannuation which, for public servants on the old schemes like me, can be called a pension if we take it as a fortnightly payment but it is not the government Aged Pension. 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I can't think of one instance when they did though.

Who puts the money in your bank each two weeks. Must be fairies. 

31 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There's a lot to unpack with what you've just written, Fat.  Not wanting the smaller details to distract from the underpinning issue, which gives birth to all the variations of a belief's manifestations, wouldn't you agree that underneath so many of these types of questions what we are really questioning is free will?  The ability of and the right for a person to choose, for himself, despite perceived good or ill outcomes?

 

And further, how it all works with all individuals together making free choices for themselves where the choice of one can seemingly impinge upon the choice of another?

 

Would you agree that we are dealing with the basic issue of free will here?

Last post on this I promise. 

Do you concur that corporations limited free will by their long reach, and by bamboozling youth, to make smoking seem good and sexy. Probably. 

Getting rid of packaging say, and adding grisly images,  could be seen as a step too far on corporation's rights but I like the fact that someone says 'Corporations are using free speech and free will arguments as a cynical weapon to sell an addictive poison to our youth and we are going to fight back. Joe Camel is banned but you can sell them in a white box with a horrifying picture '. 

Banning smoking is a step too far I guess.  It's not going to kill you in the short term, or have terrible consequences for society, except a higher health care bill. 
Limiting free will and free markets is not ideal but inaction based on philosophical purity can have bad consequences due to there not being a level playing field between rich and poor and corporations and individuals. Sometimes government bodies can actually help society become fairer and healthier and better.

Disclaimer: I am a bureaucrat. 

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

From the Knickerbocker magazine of Sept. 1842 (can't determine the author):

 

"You can neither legislate a man into virtue nor vice. You cannot legislate a class up or down. Their salvation must come from themselves. It is an inward revolution that is needed, not an outward."

 

The author of the above quote from 179 years ago understood perfectly well what I wrote, as I understand what he wrote.  Attempting to legislate behaviour, with a design to protect ones self from ones self, appears to be a good idea on the surface.  One needs to think much more deeply about it to gain the understanding of an immutable truth;  you cannot protect people from themselves.

Those who do not understand this are free to make democratic policy choices which would attempt to defy this truth.  They will then deal with the resultant problems and once the problems become too large to ignore the questions will then be asked which will lead to the truth being exposed.  At which point the policy will be reversed or rescinded.

This last statement can be summed up by Any Rand:

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

The reality is that no one has the power to protect people from themselves.  One can ignore this fact or reality, go against it, and implement, via legislation, all sorts of laws to protect people from themselves in literally endless ways.  Going against reality is certain to produce one effect . . . problems.  Problems are the telltale of all policies that avoid. or attempt to counter reality.

 

In my opinion philosophy can get in the way of reality and do gooders can do good.

Ayn Rand had good things to say but in her free market world  there is no equality between a large corporation selling an addictive product and a 15 year old kid.

You might hark back to 1970 when movie and sports stars were free to advertise smoking, where governments didn't force companies to tell the truth on smoking, or provide a counter argument to the health effects or help people quit.  

That changed. The do gooders then went further by hiding cigarettes on shop counters and had clear packaging with horrible images, taking away the power of Marlboro red or Benson and Hedges gold. Taxes were increased. All a bit controversial but the outcome was a huge decrease in smoking. 

Banning may be a step to far but I have a theory that smoking is simply not that appealing like other drugs, and ongoing use is more about addiction than pleasure, and it is a poison that won't be missed. Could be wrong. 

You might say next will be fatty food etc  but I think there is still some common sense and the freedom of the ballot box will do the trick. 

These arguments can apply to covid too but I won't go there. 

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't blame anyone for wanting to eradicate what they deem to be a damaging vice.  And on it's surface it sure seems to be a great idea to do so via legislation.  But once you start thinking about it much more deeply you find out that not only is it a not-so-good idea but one that is practically unworkable and may bring unexpected outcomes which themselves are quite damaging.

 

Considering just a single aspect of what you would be asking for would be the opening of a Pandora's Box.  For first it will be cigarettes.  Then it will be alcohol and fast food, as BritManToo suggested.  After that it will be 16 oz. or greater soft drinks, as proposed by then Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City in 2013.

For one the list will never end.  And who are those who will be lobbying with shrieking voices for their own personal pet peeves to be added to the list, for reasons which may be connected to hidden or sinister agendas (profit)?  For another, in a world where one man's good is another's evil and vice versa who is going to be anointed to the lofty position of final judge and arbitrator to declare what's best for all where there is no best for all?

 

That, my friend, is only the first of the difficulties to be encountered by traveling down that path.

Not everything is possible in this world.  And one of those things is the idea that you can protect people from themselves.  No one has that power.  And for good reason which you may or may not understand, nor should they.

 

It's a good point but I think in a healthy democracy like New Zealand the people can speak and if enough people are against it it will be overturned. Smoking doesn't seem like a habit where people look back and say 'gee those years of smoking were fun. Hate to have missed out on that.' I could be wrong. I have close family members who likely died from the habit. It actually takes guts to fight big tobacco. Australia had to fight hard to get the clear packaging and then other's followed. 

There tends to be a move to, and then away, from limits based on health issues. Sugar taxes don't seem to be popular. There was a push to add taxes to wine as Australians can buy half  decent wine cheaply.  People can and do have a good time with Australian wine and don't want to pay tax because a few people can't control themselves. It's a bit subjective but a healthy ballot box hopefully keeps the politician's a little bit honest and careful. 

46 minutes ago, ppatrick said:

Thanks for the info. I was wondering what SHA Plus mean and found the answer in your reply. So the hotels that advertise SHA Plus mean that they have PCR tests and airport transfer for quarantine stay? I'm vaccinated. Unless I test positive, I should be allowed to wonder the island ???? My destination is Bangkok though.

To be honest I get a bit confused too. I have a booking for Phuket for February and I am not sure if I'll use it. All the hoops, and the risk of being near an infected person and getting quarantined,  and wearing masks everywhere might not make it a fun holiday. It was a cheap ticket so I'll just see what happens. 

I think in your case if you are landing in Phuket you had to stay at an SHA Plus  hotel for 7 days and then you could go to Bangkok. At one point they changed it to 5 days. Hopefully someone can explain clearly how it works for you now. 

You can look at those hotels on Tripadvisor and other sites such as Agoda with reviews included of course. Most big sites tell you if the hotel is SHA Plus. 

When you search on Agoda it will ask if you want to  'Book stays for vaccinated travelers with inclusive PCR tests and airport transfer or all-inclusive quarantine stays for non-vaccinated travelers.'

So then the search will include only those appropriate hotels. 

I assume you are aware you are not quarantined in your hotel as such, if you don't test positive, so you'll want a hotel that meets your needs e.g. near shops, beach, etc.

21 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Those are not examples. 

 

Are you not able to provide even one real world example of conservatives trying to find simple answers for complex problems? There are so many you must be able to come up with at least one without having to link to what someone else thinks. 

 

Here's an example:

Complex problem: Too many poor people

Simple solution: Give people money 

 

 

The problem as I see is you run the risk of taking something from the obscure, or noisy, part of the left and tarring the Democrats with the same brush. 

Complex problem: Too many poor people

Simple solution: There are no poor people or just give them money

Right wing solution: Lower taxes, economy thrives, poor become not poor.

Left wing solution: Support business but offer real support including financial support, skills training etc.

Truth may be in the middle. Not sure who said there are no poor. Trickle down economics often sees money not trickle down and the poor stay poor. 

Complex problem: Climate change

Simple solution: Eliminate fossil fuels

The right has tended towards no action. Inaction is not a solution. The left has a range of solutions such as policies that promote alternatives. Few policies talk of eliminating fossil fuels straight away but look to reduce by incentives and penalties to promote low carbon alternatives.  To actually do something. 

Complex problem: Inner city youths are unable do math at grade level

Simple solution: Eliminate math as a requirement for graduation 

Need to see context. A helping hand can be practical and is not always  a bad thing.  This could be a policy of a university that is far left and not representative of  most Democrats. 

Complex problem: A disproportionate number of black men in prison

Simple solution: Defund the police

Defund the Police was a stupid name for a real problem.  Democrats have clearly rejected the literal idea of defunding the police.  

In summary, in my opinion:

the far left  tend to be naive, often young and idealistic, some good ideas that can be impractical and taken too far.

the far right tend to be cold, artless, lacking in nuance, fighting those with knowledge and education just because, sometimes straight out ignorant and proud of it.

Meanwhile most Democrats, and sadly fewer and fewer Republicans, are not at the extreme and have reasonable solutions to real problems. 

I read the mainstream media. I like to think I can think and call stuff out if it is too biased. Some stuff a bit left and stuff a bit right. Those media that have a record of fact checking. 

Some stuff is called 'left' when to me it is just fair and reasonable e.g. it might be seen as anti right wing politicians but not just because of politics or economics but the illogical and sometimes anti democratic stands they take. Left politicians can be illogical too of course. 

It is interesting to read new perspectives but the less fact checking the less seriously they are taken. 

11 minutes ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

If that's a sincere question I'll answer sincerely. We shut down completely for most of this year, but fully reopened a couple of months ago due to increased demand from the government sector (much of our business is servicing government offices locally and regionally, they like our nice meeting facilities). Also, all of the inventory we put onto OTAs is sold already for New Year.

 

One of the reasons we survive is we're debt free and have the support of a much larger parent company. Our family business is a large construction company HQd in Bangkok and this sector has not been affected much by covid (beyond the swathes of construction workers we employ being Covid pools)

 

We are 'Preferred Partners' on Agoda/Booking and you are correct in your assumption that there are strict criteria to participate. The comparison to Amazon doesn't really work. If a customer turns up without a passport and we turn them away, Agoda etc etc will stay on our side. If the customer wants to get all 'legal' (usually Americans) they can go get all 'legal' if they want, it's their time they're losing.

 

I see what you're doing, I guess I'll bite. I'll be ambiguous so you don't try to ID us, but we're more than 3 stars. In the 7 years we worked with Booking.com, our guest score has been >=9.0 and I don't think it ever dropped below 8.5 on Agoda. What do you think I'm doing so wrong???

We don't work with Expedia/Hotels.com, not worth it for us.

 

 

 

Just out of interest why is Hotels.com not so good as compared to the others. I assume they charge the hotel more. I have liked them because they price match other websites then have a stay 10 get one free so you get a further 9 per cent off. They have kept my credits going over covid whereas the Agoda ones expired. Hotels.com has  a better call centre than Agoda too but otherwise Agoda is good. Agoda tends to be cheaper before price match. 

I have found sometimes there is a discount for single travel and it normally relates to if it has a decent breakfast but often the price is the same for 1 or 2. For what it's worth, I put my girlfriends name on the booking at the first hotel in a trip, so there's no issues if I get  there at a different time. 

30 minutes ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

Fifty years in my home country became a bit boring and bland. Once retired, it's nice to get out and experience something different.

That's my thinking. I have lived and worked within a 50 km radius all my life. Travelled a bit but good to actually live somewhere a bit fun. I don't want to play lawn bowls or pokies and drink at the RSL.  

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Truly an affectation, as you say.

However, if one needed an affectation, then why would one choose such a difficult-to-maintain affectation, such as has Boris.

 

IF his hair were in curls, then would it not be more easily maintained, each day?

 

But, in order to get the same unkempt look, day after day, with each hair arranged in exactly the same way, this must require a great deal of effort.

 

It is one thing to wake up in the morning with unkempt hair. But then, after showering in the morning, and drying one's hair, then to try to put it back in place, in an unkempt way, as if one had just risen from bed, ....think of the time this must require.

 

Have you ever read any essays written by Mark Twain?

Obviously, you have, and pardon my asking.

 

Clemens was famous for poking fun at pomposity.

 

Do you think Boris uses some sort of gel?

 

If one wishes to serve in government, one should be tall and have good hair.

 

Has there ever been a bald US president?

 

Also, has there ever been a female US president, even though most females are not bald?

 

So many interesting questions, and so few qualified enough to answer them.

 

One more question is... will women, fairly soon, supplant men in the leadership roles in most important sectors of society and education?

 

yes...they will....

 

Does this mean that we might begin to find peace in our world, when women take over?

 

Difficult to say.

 

I pray for peace.

I pray for a piece of a--s.

My prayers, on both accounts, will never be answered.

 

Fortunately, life is short.

No need to dwell on such things, for long.

I think maybe it's his way of seeming a bit more down to earth or 'charming' given his fairly up market heritage. Or maybe not.

It interests me that Twain went to my city of Melbourne Australia. Be good to know what he made of it. Have to read it up. 

Eisenhower was bald. Few bald Presidents probably because appearance is too important sadly.

If I get too cynical of America it is good to remember what they did in World War 2 that helped Australia. Eisenhower of course, eventually as General of the Army,  helped fund Australia's defence. 

Watched a fascinating thing on youtube last night on the Battle of Midway that showed the sacrifice made and victory against the odds. 

I don't follow UK politics but I get the feeling that, if he is bad, he's normal bad, as against Republican, crazy, do anything for a vote, bad. So I don't mind if that sort of conservative right wing party is in power as compared to the right fascist leaning parties in other countries. 

His hair does seem like an affectation and the fact that he spends so much time to make it look unkempt says something about the his vanity. Most politicians are probably a bit the same. 

I consider myself a feminist if that means letting women do their thing. 

Men can and do cop it in different ways as you say. So I guess I am a masculinist too. 

I had a marriage with a thai girl that was up and down. The feeling of love and romance can fade fast and it when it does things got nasty.  The simple fact was that having a pre nup meant she got little in the separation. 

We are better friends now than much of our marriage. 

Once I got that ball and chain off my leg I thought it's going to take a hell of a lot to want to remarry and I have just had girlfriends since. 

I actually like living alone and seeing girls sometimes.  It's a bit tough on the current long term girlfriend but I am just honest with her and she comes to Australia and I go there. 

I like control of my life and finances and so I probably have a bit in common with your concept. I am no doubt missing some things that go with marriage but I am OK with that. When my girlfriend has her odd serious tantrum I thank Lord Jesus that I am not a married man.