Fat is a type of crazy

5 minutes ago, proton said:

Tell me this, why do these LGBT transvestite story tellers only target little kiddies to entertain? you never hear about them going into mental hospitals, or old people homes, it's always impressionable vulnerable children they want sitting on their knees.

As far as I know it's not really a thing. Someone probably thought it up for a bit of fun. A bit like pantomime. In other words I don't think there is some international network of drag story tellers. It probably happened a few times and the media got onto it. Is there an example of it happening and a child was lead astray after story time, following a path of boiled lollies or something, into the lair of a drag queen. Not that I have heard of. Don't believe the hype. Its a big nothing. 

25 minutes ago, ignore it said:

Yeah,

Fat bearded trannies doing drag story hour in Thai primary schools.

When this is on your mind do you ever feel sucked in by the media. So many things to concern you but you worry about this. They had a protest at a library in my country of Australia recently and it made it seem so silly. Someone dressed up for effect telling kids an entertaining story. 30 minutes. It's over. No talk of sexuality or trans issues - a bit of fun for all. No one had to or was influenced to attend. Silly protest in my opinion egged on by watching Fox News 1000 miles away. 

Jesus Christ Superstar. Genius. I don't care for much of his work after that. 

Just now, bignok said:

The Southern Democrats founded the KKK. Please let's deal in facts for once.

In a clearly different era when what Democrats and Republicans represent has little similarity to today. 

On 6/11/2023 at 1:05 PM, Yeah rightio said:

Shock horror; yes I've edited your post; so as not to subject anyone else having to read your version of 'War&Peace' to get to your supposition of what others may or may not do.

John Smith may not just let it end at whatever Centrelink tells him and do some of the other options you've given.

If John's brother James gets his pension paid direct into a Thai bank account from the RBA and they try to pull the rubbish you're spouting, he may very well turn his personal situation into a nightmare for the bureaucracy; just through short irregular travel movements back to Oz. 

Unless of course your vision of 183 days must be in one single block.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat.

You have a very low opinion of your fellow Australians if you believe your John Smith analogy re the High Court & MP letter option and wholly accepting what Centrelink will tell them and are being quite disingenuous regarding protesting in Bangkok. Or is that simply a poor attempt at baiting?

 

A cornerstone of your argument is that the 183 day rule is workable and can make sense and could be applied without discretion. I have said this before but your 10 posts make me want to say it one more time. So Bill retires, keeps his home in Australia, likes to spend time with his family, is a member of the local bowls club, but finally lives his dream of travelling around the world with his wife. They travel to 6 countries for 184 days and returns to his normal life. It makes no sense for him to be treated as a non-resident. There are many other scenarios of a similar nature. Therefore a 183 hard and fast rule is most unlikely for this situation.

9 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

He will try and roll back all of the laws allowing lives to be equal, we will end up back in the era before Dr. Martin Luther King if they have there way.  All of these new laws and rights were fought for by the people who want the US to have equality for all and the freedoms to go with that equality.  Yes there should be laws in place which prohibit certain things.  Racism, Bigotry and Anti LGBTQ rhetoric and laws have no place in the US let alone the world.

I think that's a bit much. I am no fan of De Santis but I can't see actions or treatments of blacks and others as that extreme or leading back to the pre Martin Luther King times.  The laws relating to LGBT stuff are a concern in terms of some books and teachers having to be careful about what they say but in my opinion you can disagree with his take on things without suggesting he is sending LGBT people back to some 1950's world where they have no rights at all. 

14 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not for my children, being taught inclusion and non discrimination has benefited them immensely. The time spent is not a 2 year block by the way, its just a few lessons within their whole school life on this. That's all it takes to learn to be non prejudice. 

That's a good thing. Hard though to explain the details of this story to kids beyond making some generic statement about being respectful to others, and letting people be who they are, and that gender and sexuality are still not fully understood. The facts of this case: change in gender during life while keeping sexuality, basis of decision for surgery and ongoing relationship with a woman after surgery, are hard to explain with authority. 

The education could include not only about acceptance and respect and openness but that human psychology is complicated and that sometimes people make mistakes and bad decisions and may draw conclusions about themselves that may not be correct. Not saying it applies to this case. 

I was looking for a present for a girfriend back in the day and looking at the perfume stand and a friend said don't go cheap, better to give one nice gift rather than multiple cheaper gifts, get the Chanel No 5. I did and it went well. My current flame likes CK which is much cheaper at some stores in Australia than Thailand so we are both happy. 

4 minutes ago, Justme2012 said:

You’re partially correct… we don’t know her physical status (based in this article) But the fact that both claim to be women shouldn’t be anyone else’s business.
  I happen to have read a lot about them both and her transition is complete as far as medical science allows in todays world. She wasn’t simply claiming to be a woman but her journey had been over 20 years 

it’s sad that some people feel threatened by the Transgender community… in the USA they represent less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the population! Incredible that such a minority had received top billing in the politics in the USA ! Wow such paranoia ????????????????????

I agree that it is no one's business and that they should live how they wish without harassment and good luck to them both. I also agree that American politics and the American media in particular, not so in Australia for example, give it an undue prominence.

However, discussion or debate can be for other reasons, than feeling threatened by them: it can be about understanding where they are coming from, discussing what it means to redefine something with an adjusted definition e.g. based on feelings rather than anatomy or similar, and it can be to deal with tricky situations like dealing with trans people in sport. I think your post is mainly correct but to end with five laughing faces is what people don't like - it suggests everything is simple and clear cut and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant or full of hate when that's not the case. 

27 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Woke is always negative.

A second reason woke gets a bad name is social media is so in our face now that we are constantly faced with reappraising whether we are good or bad or what we should think on many issues we never thought about. I have said before many so called woke types are, say, university students who are looking to do the right thing, and have a say, but they are young and sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong. Before they were in their own little world but now their views are magnified by social media and we are bombarded by these moral dilemmas that don't affect our actual lives and it can get tedious. 

18 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Woke is always negative.

Woke in a positive context for me is to wake up to the injustices faced by you or others and to take action and bring awareness to and speak up on the behalf of others.

Throughout history there have been injustices, of course, but to focus on say the era from the 50's to the 70's huge leaps and bounds were made in social justice by good and brave and woke people. One problem is the injustices in 2023 on things like black rights, women rights and gay rights are now much more subtle, and someone genuinely attempting to do the right thing for the right reasons can be seen as woke in a negative context. That's because fighting for these types of rights can seem redundant when many battles have already been won. 

Just now, Jingthing said:

That's not a definition.

You're only talking about an example. 

 

Definition then. 3 minute attempt. Woke in a negative context can be holding and advocating an opinion not based on a logical appraisal of the objective facts but based primarily on how you wish to be perceived by others. 

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Define woke.

A definition of woke in a negative context, for this situation, could be those who accept and strongly defend someone's description of their  identity as a man or woman, where the motive for doing so is to fit in or to a certain part of society, or to seem clever or cool, or to gain a benefit rather than by the use of reason and logic. 

The alternative might be to say

'It could be that this human with a penis or who previously had a penis, may meet a certain definition of gender if that definition is based on how they feel, and science may show there is a basis for this one day, on the other hand it is not unreasonable for others to dispute that gender is based simply on feelings and apparently in this case feelings for only a relatively short period in their life given the facts of their previous life. However, each person should be able to live how they like but where personal preferences clash with the needs and wants of the broader society e.g. toilets, sports, there should be a polite and reasoned discussion to come to a fair and sensible solution. '

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The civil war is because the justice system is irredeemably destroyed by the double standards necessary to persecute Trump while sheilding his rivals.

They'll be no civil war. I think there is a turning point. They'll always be core Trump supporters but bit by bit people will realise that Trump really did do the wrong thing and that deserves punishment. As Trump professes his innocence on stage most will see it is hot air, maybe they'll see it's always been hot air, and  yawn and realise he is a spent force. It won't happen overnight but it will happen. 

As a child I watched Dick Emery and he set the tone of what a man bag might represent

Hello Honky Tonks

1 minute ago, earlinclaifornia said:

I read one article that said interesting enough all of their reactions by current Republicans are all political and not one reacted that Trump did anything wrong.

That being said Fox' legal expert response is quite different:

Fox News' top legal commentator says the indictment against Trump is 'extremely damning'

Fox News Legal Commentator Calls Trump Indictment 'Extremely Damning' (businessinsider.com)

24 hours is a long time in politics. I think it will be a different kettle of fish today when they see the extent of the charges and the potential crimes. 

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

"Follow your passion."

If you do pull it off, life is great. If you don't pull it off, you end up broke, waste years of your life.

So not sure if it's the best or worst advice. 

Depends. 

The guy who made the Lord of the Rings movie mortgaged his house I think and had family members all chip in their life savings for him to make that film ... and it paid off.  

But for most people, maybe it's best to stick to your crappy job. 

 

Like to be remembered ... most people will not be remembered after they go

If you want to be remembered, do something charitable for someone.

Only a few people you really help out will remember you.

Unless you become famous for sth. 

But some people even trash talk Mother Teresa. 

 

3 He saved the frogs

15 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Who says that the other Republicans now running for the presidential nominee must defend Trump.  Where do you come up with this comment.  In the past many would throw the other candidates under the bus, and then continue with more and more comments to disenfranchise that opponent.  It is called mudslinging and by throwing Trump under the bus and then placing him in the also ran column they distance themselves from him and show how they are a better candidate.  It works on both sides, or should I say on all sides of political parties.

Fair point but if they see him as a goner i.e.  see the writing on the wall that he is finally untenable as a nominee, they can show full support for him, complain about the weaponisation of Biden's Justice Department,  hint that if they win they will pardon him, thereby gathering the support of his base.

You pays your money and takes your chances. It was a high risk bet and it didn't pay off. Cop it. 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Not sure why he's running. He has zero chance of being nominated. Hasn't he been humiliate enough already?

It seems he has a bit of a chance if Trump's problem's catch fire, and Desantis falls over, then all the others seem on a similar footing. Maybe running can be quite lucrative too with Pac's and influence peddling and taking your supporters to help some other candidate if you don't get sufficient support. And you might get lucky and be up against Biden in 2024. 

9 minutes ago, FarAway said:

 

I guess you wanted to write "You are not allowed to hate", huh?

 

And no, I do not necessarily hate them. I think they are lost souls and I wish all the best to them, that they may advance from their sexual illness. Being anything but non-heterosexual is abnormal and none of these individuals would even be alive if ANY of their 100s of ancestors would have been homosexual or trans or whatever.

They are going against the order and law of nature and again, I find it utterly disgusting to just look at them, not even wanna think about what they did to their body. 

These people need treatment, not support of their illness.

You said being anything but non-heterosexual is abnormal. That means heterosexuals are abnormal. Tee hee.

If I were to turn my mind to gay sex, trans sex, old people sex, old and young people sex, ugly people sex, even in many cases beautiful people sex etc etc the thought is not appealing and may be sickening. Look at them and look in the mirror. So whether it is normal or part of nature's plan or whatever doesn't have to be to do with whether it appeals to you. The issue could be bigger than your feelings and be about the fact of the actuality of the diversity of people that shows itself through history. 

Is the aim of EVERYTHING reproduction? There are 1000's of things people can do that lessen the chances of future people being born and non heterosexual sex is one. 

Your apparent conclusion that all gays and trans people are necessarily mentally ill or act against nature, based on these types of ideas, seems a bit iffy and if you can present a more coherent argument it might be worth further discussion. 

If I have this right it is a human with a penis that had a wife and kids and now has a relationship with a new woman but that human feels like they are a woman who likes to have sex with a woman. It does push the boundaries of credibility if you look at it but best to let people call themselves what they like and as long as no authority is saying by law I have to say that I concur that someone who says they are a thing, are necessarily that thing and that it must be accepted by all and sundry, then who cares.