Fat is a type of crazy

A bit serious. I am planning a holiday in August. Not sure about this existential war and such.

As posts above note, in relation to the previous suggestion of the possible implementation of a hard and fast 183 day rule e.g. Centrelink simply withholding tax after 183 days, this clarifies and confirms that each case is based on it's particular circumstances. Therefore based on this that won't happen. Example 11 shows someone outside Australia for an extended period but they are still deemed a resident. Example 12 is similar to my example above showing for a second time that you can be outside Australia for more than 6 months and be a resident. Depends on the facts. So no worries in that regard.

Democrats would like him to run. Not scared at all. How did he threaten or rein in the corrupt and powerful unless you are talking about trumped up claims about Biden and Hillary. At least if he is going to break the law he could be a tiny bit smart about how he went about it but he really gave authorities no option. He blew it.

The definition of rape I saw is 'Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent. The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.[3]' so I suppose it's somewhere in that spectrum.

That is clearly rape and it seems to be proven given the comments by the shop owner.

Trump won't be seen as he enters by a tunnel and they'll be 100 reporters filming some protesters and getting their amazing insights into why they think Trump's been wronged.

In terms of the recent legal issues, Chris Christie and Niki Hayley are making it clear how they feel about Trump not securing sensitive documents, and others are muted or hedging their bets. There is still a lot of noise from Republican voters about it but not much actually defending him on what he specifically did except from the more extreme. As the facts come out I think it will take the wind out of the sails of broad Republican outrage and Trump will begin to look more and more reckless and silly and guilty. See if he gets much of a protest tomorrow.

Based on other comments I'll give a brief response. It's not that Centrelink systems could not work out who is outside the country for 183 days though my experiences with government systems indicate that the information is available, but it might be a big job to fully coordinate, and automate such information. The focus of my point is, in my opinion, the suggestion that the 183 day rule could be the mechanism to identify expats in Thailand as non residents is unlikely as it is not a workable hard and fast solution to sensibly differentiate between residents and non residents for reasons previously provided. Someone who has been here for years is clearly a non resident of Australia. Whether they bring in some other way to address this is issue possible but I don't see any plans to do so. I appreciate you feel differently and we can agree to disagree.

I take your point that for long term Thai expats it is fairly clear cut. But the argument being made seemed to relate specifically to the 183 day rule and that Centrelink could simply work out who has been outside Australia for 183 days and cut their pension to withhold tax. I don't think that will ever happen as pensioners have a range of different situations where such a decision would be unfair and unworkable. One day they could look at a different way of catching longer terms non-residents but there seems to be nothing specific being discussed. The 183 day rule appears to be primarily discussed in the context of catching residents who want to be non-residents.

My two cents. First one. Sounds inappropriate. I googled it and it said ' Genital reassignment surgery should be reserved for those 18 and older, according to guidelines for the medical care of transgender patients developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH. Sounds more reasonable. Up to the individual once an adult. Second one: Agree if it's happening. Not aware of it happening. Should not be forced into accepting gender fluidity but it doesn't hurt to be polite if possible and not make a big deal of it. And be open minded that it could be a thing maybe. Not heard of people being arrested and probably even being pilloried is rare except online. Third one: Toilets is a bit tricky but I think it can be agreed it is not a major issue of concern e.g. no evidence of attacks. Trans woman in a woman's jail only in my opinion with strong evidence e.g. clear long term evidence of living as a woman. Strict guidelines. Fourth one: Normally parades are once a year. A bit ho hum for me but if it upsets you fair enough. You can believe in rights and at the same time agree that they'll always be difficult issues at the edges that need scrutiny without attributing such issues to the community as a whole.

If I recall you like those big Thai shows with the singers and comedians. Don't they have dress ups and innocent sexual innuendo. Kids in attendance. The sort of innuendo there would not be at this type of thing where there would be strict controls. No sitting on 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.

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.

Would you agree that older gays can remember when things weren't free at all. That in many countries it remains that way. That in western countries there are a fair few that are against gay relationships but much less than before. So though gay rights may seem ho hum it's not exactly the same as thin or blonde people rights. It has not been plain sailing so let them have their day in the sun. Gays as a whole may celebrate a bit differently but most gays are boring and normal as seen by some on this site. If the parents are not happy with kids seeing the parade it is there responsibility to take them away. Do you really want a generic world where everyone is the same and celebrates the same.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. '