Fat is a type of crazy

14 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

When women entered the workforce en masse due to the exceptional calamity that was world war two this opened the door to women flooding into the work world. It looked innocent at first, however, this came at a price.

 

Pair bonding was not invented by women. Before the advent of pair bonding both women and men were wildly promiscuous. You can still see this in chimpanzee and Bonobo society today. Promiscuity was the starting point. However, the problem with this was that only a small select group of men, the victors in male on male competition, then had unlimited access to mating with women. Until the less successful males figured something out, that they could trade provisioning for sexual access. After providing provisioning to a female the male could however find that another male swooped in and "stole" a pregnancy. Obviously that was a wasted investment, so the male required the female to be faithful to him. The female agreed in return for provisioning. This trading provisioning for sexual access can also be witnessed in chimpanzee and Bonobo society. Thus was pair bonding born.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/109/25/9923

 

However, with the advent of women entering the work place and the welfare state it was clear that women no longer needed to provide sexual access in return for provisioning. The work place or the welfare state now did that. Finding a male now was no longer a matter of life or death, but merely of decrease or increase of luxuries, a better wardrobe or tv perhaps.

 

Hence the terminal decline of pair bonding in our current time, with some women, usually feminists, now refusing to pair bond altogether and refusing to have children, whilst others merely use it for material gain and swiftly abandon the male once his economic value has been extracted.

 

If we had never introduced women into the workforce the crisis in pair-bonding may have been averted and possibly would never have happened. Women also would be much happier this way, for even if radical feminists who live alone think it's wonderful, if you ask them a few decades later they're just bitter lonely people. However, above all the unhappiness of many men would have been avoided.

 

Now women have very little reason to stay faithful to a man, unless they have kids and economic necessity, which is very often not the case anymore.

 

 

Your comments on this and on happiness being based on overcoming something are interesting. I can admit that I am not that attracted to many Western women for a range of reasons. 

Surely though you are not arguing that women's rights and freedoms should be curtailed. That taking away their freedoms and making them dependent on men is a good thing. 

The bottom line for me is that happiness comes down to freedom.  I know it sounds a bit obvious and cliched but I can't see why women can't find happiness through freedom too. 

It must have sucked being a full time housewife if you have some smarts , for some but not all, and must suck wearing a burqa etc. If there is some natural balance between men and women it'll probably happen over time.   If they are getting smarter and freer maybe we have to do the same. Give them a reason to want and need us. 

52 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Yes, we men fell for the "equality" lie line hook and sinker. We did not understand then that feminism was not about equality. It was about ego. Pankhurst did not want equality to vote, she was a social psyocopath and narcissist with a pathological ego. Feminism is about ego.

 

If in Asia they spoil the boy, in the West they spoil the daughter. We've created a generation of massively entitled feminist monsters. Their preferred work is to lecture in gender studies, newspapers, tv studios, about the insufferable suffering of the poor feminist.

 

The problem is men still take them seriously. Even after they have the vote, childcare at taxpayer expense, more money spent on medical care than men, the criminal and family justice systems tailored to their advantage to the extent that a woman can kill a man by burning him alive and walk away with 3 years because of battered woman syndrome.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiranjit_Ahluwalia

 

This woman who killed her husband by burning him alive is now a media celebrity in feminist circles in the UK.

 

So it is clear. Feminists want to shape society, all our institutions, the law in particular, viciously in their favour, at the expense of men. It is not about equality. It is about an ego-trip and selfish advantage.

 

Whilst it is indeed a part of happiness to avoid feminists in LOS, they do exist here as well, and whilst we can escape the evil of feminism here by and large, we are already seeing an influx of western feminists into Thailand to educate the "sisters" further on how to help the feminist cause succeed in Thailand. Only Thai men and Thai patriarchy can save us.

But you no doubt agree that women should have every opportunity that they want to work and live how they wish. You would agree too that in the past women weren't given the opportunities in Western countries that they should have. You would agree too that the way women have to live in islamic and other countries is not fair. So you are a type of feminist. You can argue for women's rights and argue that the type of issues you raise above are not fair. 

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't know why you claim I'm confused. Please explain.

You put a confused face on his post 

The best flight I recall was my girlfriend and I returning from my first trip to Thailand and Burma in 1985. We flew back late December 24 and the Qantas plane was close to empty so we were plied with champagne and tasty titbits all the way home. 

7 minutes ago, giddyup said:

I'm not sure when you call internationally it goes to Sydney. I think it goes to a call centre, could be in Mumbai, because quite often get Indian accents. Also, it's supposedly a 24 hour help line.

Good point. I guess they'll have maximum staff from 8:00 am or 9:00 am but more demand too. I have just found it's much easier to get through at that time.  

Normally the best time to call is first thing when most staff are there: 8am Sydney time. So if you can get up at 5am might be a good time to call. 

27 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

With the ever shifting sands of Politics leadership etc, the changing of policies and regs on a whim of the latest apppointed "boss" the inconsistency from region to region  and even by office.

How can you possibly plan anything of any distance, you cant !

Throw in  the mix the pandemic and you have a total "Lord knows" .

Who new just 2 years ago we would be in a country decimated by the regime and the pandemic.

The immigration could change and any regs you think you have planned for are obsolete.

 

Hypothetically, Retirement changes to 2m , compulsory health care, any or all would mean hasta la vista to large portion of the expats, or a thriving business for agents depending on your viewpoint.

 

"What if" is just a crazy game of speculation, the best you can plan for is the next 12 months and anything beyond that, roll the dice, and anyone who has spent anytime in Thailand would know this and probably  has the T-shirt too.

 

Guessing, frankly,  quite pointless IMHO

It's hardly crazy speculation as it is not 'what if' but when if you are a  man of a certain age. Sure, you don't have to dwell on it, but knowing your options is helpful. For example Australia has many non expensive options for elderly care on a budget which might make returning to Australia sensible. For those with more money private health insurance cost is not based on age and there are limited waiting periods.  Lifestyle might be better too. Being 85 in Thailand might be good but might be terrible. 

The fact that they may throw you out in the meantime is a different topic in my opinion. 

47 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The Afghans don't want to fight for their freedom. The Army of 300,000 strong what just laid down their guns and walked away. The president of Afghanistan just walked away, those people aren't capable of being free. 

 

 

Isn't your comment an argument in favour of Joseph Biden? If your propping up a government that apparently the army and the majority of people have no passion for then what is the solution: just stay there or go.

Sure.. they got it wrong in execution.. I think it would have been messy in any case .. but he had the guts to take action and not just spend spend spend for another 20 years. The only other solution, other than same same, is possibly an all out war, but it appears the Taliban have a lot of support through Afghanistan, or they wouldn't be as strong as they are. Would you back an all out war?

It is terrible to see the Taliban back. In a year though we may look back and say Joe got it right. The  fact that the execution was poor may be remembered less than the fact of ending a 20 year war.  

1 hour ago, possum1931 said:

Lets just say that they are nowhere in the same hurry for this Cvirus to end as we ordinary people.

I agree that politicians aren't always the best of us but I really can't see why they would think there's a benefit in keeping it going. There may be odd politician who gets a bit extra from some scam but broadly I can't see it. Just the opposite. They want to look like triumphant heroes sending it back from whence it came. More scams and money changing hands in a good economy if you want to look at the cynical side. 

19 minutes ago, 1FinickyOne said:

when nothing is better that should tell you something

It's just nice to have total freedom to do your thing for a time. Still do things but up to yourself. 

When I travelled too, I used to do adventurous stuff, but my girlfriend and I, for much of the second half of the 2010's, had been happy to go to Koh Chang and spent two or three weeks, two times a year,  just taking it easy.  That's why I think my transition to retirement won't be too hard. 

I have some similar feelings about the last 18 months. 

The fact that I have been able to get out of bed at 7am and start work at 7:01 am and not have all the office bureaucracy and politics and small talk to deal with has been a godsend. No transport too. At 3:00 turn off computer. Done. 

I have been separated from my Thai girlfriend for that time but, truth be told, I haven't minded that as much as I thought I might. Being with her is fantastic except when it's not.

I live in an area near forest so I can get exercise and fresh air during lockdowns. Feel bad for those in apartments. Still can talk to friends and see them if lockdown allows. But sometimes not being able to go to social events e.g. 21 st birthday parties of kids of friends, boring dinner parties and some family stuff isn't so bad too. 

If you ask me what happened in 2016 I couldn't tell you but 2020 will remain memorable, and now 2021, a time for solitude that turned out to be better than I thought. 

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Hollywood stars have $100m. Giving away $1m is nothing.

Still. Better than nothing and if they give fans probably tend to give too. 

28 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

I miss Thailand.

18 months since my girlfriend left Australia. 2 years since been in Thailand. Could be why I hang around here a bit. Talk to my girlfriend on line but not the same of course. Hang in there.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If God can create the universe, I'm pretty certain that a big stone would be no problem.

In case it seemed like I said a whole lot of nothing, if someone said to god, ' Make a stone heavier than you can carry' God called say

' You dont understand my nature since by definition the initial premise has to be I can lift any stone.  If you said "Fly faster than you can fly" I can reject the premise since I can fly as fast as I wish so it doesn't make sense. Your question has a limit that does not exist therefore the proposition is not sound'. 

3 hours ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

I ran across this catch-22 in a book this morning, it reminded me of this thread:  "Can God make a stone so big that He cannot lift it?"

It comes down to the definition of god. If a god is by definition all powerful with no limitations then the human who made the statement has erred in logic as by definition god can make any stone and lift it.

God can make a stone as big as he chooses. God can lift that or any stone.

If a god can be defined as non human but with limitations then God could possibly make a stone so big he couldn't lift. They are two different skills - making stones and lifting stones. 

It is about the definition of God. 

39 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

There is now, and has never been, Democracy.

It is just another tool to tell the Sheeple to keep them in line and obey

Australia

Not perfect, there is influence by the powerful, rich, and the media, but pretty good. Free and fair elections. You seem to be aiming for absolutes so you become disappointed.

Same with people.

Most I think have some natural moderation process to keep us between too good and too bad. There are exceptions, and some of those are the high profile leaders who get the headlines, while your neighbours, friends, and family and most people on this site are fairly goodish  people. 

Things such as drugs, money,  and power can intoxicate and throw us off track towards taking actions that hurt, or hinder others, but the sign that people are not too bad are the societal controls in place to either help us or punish us when we go to far. In countries like Australia. 

You can do your thing each day. That's a sign people aren't too bad where you are. 

37 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Stopping the publication is a Ban on Free Speech.

I may not agree with you, but I will stand up for your right to say it.

This goes for any subject - and I mean ANY

You can not draw lines - you either have Free Speech - or you don't

 

Facebook in Myanmar let free speech reign. Not for ethical reasons but because they didn't want the cost of moderation. Chatter started about the Rohingya and that they were responsible for this and that. As usual there is a tiny bit of truth but then constant lies and exaggerations led to a full blown massacre, and those that could, had to flee to the neighboring country. That's despite them having a history in the country for 100's of years. It is widely accepted that facebook added to it by letting lies, fear, and hate spread so much faster and get out of control than it would otherwise. That's an example where I think free speech has to be moderated and it can apply to certain similar situations.

What if Jim Jones could have got on Facebook and told people around the world to drink the Kool aid. 

For covid there are possibilities, ideas, half truths, exaggerations and out right lies.  Yes it is hard to define which is which but not impossible - most things should be left alone but outright lies by powerful and influential people should at least have a warning sign. 

These are just examples where some moderation may be appropriate if lives are at stake. 

It's an interesting topic as to if people who believe in god, i.e. who have faith, are more akin to those who are suspicious of power to a strong degree, e.g. many on Asean Now who believe in conspiracies about elections, covid and or climate change etc , or those that accept the consensus of science and are more likely to comply with such consensus.

I am more like the latter and see the former as extrapolating way beyond what they actually know, and on basing their opinions on feelings, and on joining dots for which there is no evidence. This is similar to a belief in god where faith means you start with a belief and work back from there.

Others might say I am like a sheep who needs to question things more, and look behind the scenes, and that this is similar to a belief in god where I am making a leap in faith.

To that I would say that life in general probably requires some leap of faith from time to time but that no leap is required for following the consensus if you have an open mind.

Starting with the premise of things being all due to power, corruption, and lies is a leap of faith that human nature is bad and that nothing is as it seems - a type of paranoia. 

So we all probably think we have an open mind but stick to our positions. I would like to think following science and not being unnecessarily cynical about each and every decision made by the educated and powerful, while still hopefully keeping an open mind, requires the least leap of faith. 

51 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

No $ runs it. They use religion to motivate people. They use fear. Fear of god. Athiests use fear too, earth ending climate con, you will die covid. Its all a big $ con really. Cancer kills far more they dont ban junk food or smokes. $ rules. $ gives power. Humans are scum at the top.

Is belief in god really like actions taken to stop the spread of a disease? I am interested who benefits from the so called covid con in Australia. And how do those that benefit influence government decision making?  You seem pretty sure so you should be able to provide a clear and articulate response. 

Sydney shut down a bit late and they have 10 times the cases of Melbourne. Thanks Dan. Imagine if no lockdowns in Sydney. Lots in hospital right now. 

The causation between junk food and cancer, compared to  covid and illness, is just a bit weaker. Also if  you eat junk food and drink beer it doesn't affect me. Except taxes in hospitals. That's the reason they don't ban it. They give people a choice.

Hard to give people a choice with covid because your actions affect others.

I said I'll stop talking covid because it's boring. After this.  

26 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I appreciate it, but yes, it's a bit hopeful to think that "self interest can be consistent with the interest of society ".

...Actually, that was supposed to be the goal of Christianity..

Why? Many countries doing OK with this thinking.

My idea is self interest through being informed and thinking it through for yourself. Not indoctrination leading to no logic and common sense. Just a cultish belief in  heaven and hell and tribalism leading to wars and dodgy crusades and not letting other cultures be. Priests acting badly. A bit of charity too. Put it on the scale and the bad outweighs the good because it's based on a fantasy and control and not on human nature. It's all been said before. 

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Fair analysis, but with religion disappearing from the mind of ordinary folks, it's already happening in western countries, will there be some "power-vacuum" which needs to be filled ?

And, taking for granted that unifying people is good for everyone, or at least for the majority, what will be the main unifying factor ?

Surely we're going to see some interesting changes in the society in the next few years. 

 

 

Religion can often be a good thing for a sense of community and many do help people in practical terms. It also adds to the 'us' and 'them' mentality. So what if god and religion is gone. 

It would be nice to think it could be love to bring us together but self interest might be enough. As Morrissey said 'If it's not love then it's the bomb that will keep us together'.

As we become aware that there is not likely to be a god, and if there is, they are not protecting us,  the importance of self control becomes necessary. This is since now we are able to destroy ourselves with bombs, or climate change, or a slow disintegration of society or whatever.  

Human nature seems to be to protect ourselves and our tribe. It could be that we are not so bad and that, without a god, it can still feel good to help our tribe and others even if it doesn't lead to heaven. 

It might help if our leaders can send the message, and have policies that back it up,  that self interest can be consistent with the interest of society, and that our tribe is now bigger than just your family, political party or religion whether we like it or not.

The economic and social policies could act as a carrot and stick to ideally lead to the conclusion that the world is, if not totally fair, a place where if you work hard you can give you and your tribe a decent and free life, and can assist those who can't fend for themselves.

The outcome being  that you can benefit yourself and that this is consistent with not destroying what others have created.

It might sound a bit hopeful but in my opinion an imperfect form of the above exists in many countries like Australia and New Zealand. 

56 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I don't really like fanatics too.

But, do you really think that, if it was possible to erase religion propaganda from the haters' mind, fanaticism and extremism will cease to exist ?

Or even more, would evil disappear from this planet if any religious belief could be erased ?

You would still have the odd charismatic leader pushing people astray but it would be a lot less. It is shocking sometimes just how much people can be influenced by stuff on the internet and if the tool of extreme religion was gone it would make  a huge difference. Religion has the advantage of uniting people and controlling them as a force whereas a lot of conspiracy lunacy is disjointed and often involves some sad guy separate in his little world.  

I think this topic is mixing two concepts that can be similar but not the same.

You can be narcissistic, i.e.  admire oneself and one's appearance, and still be aware and sympathetic and helpful to others e.g. Hollywood stars helping in Haiti might fit this category where you might say there is a mixed motive. 

On the other hand in terms of caring for others you might have, at one extreme,  psychopaths, and at the other, people who are just cold, apathetic, uncaring, cold and just indifferent.

I think it comes down to the nurture nature thing.

Some are just born cold. I think most people feel good  helping others but some don't. 

On the nurture side it can relate to how  successful you have been in the past at fulfilling your objectives of helping others and what treatment you got in return. You may lose confidence in what you can achieve. You may have helped others and they burned you in return.

I think in the end we are all after something which is a bit greedy which is to feel good.

I enjoyed the works of Ayn Rand, not because of the right wing politics, but because she reminds us that the final motivation is to benefit ourselves even if it is just to feel good. Selfishness can be a good thing if you can believe in yourself and that you are a good person. That could be getting a bit narcissistic though. 

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Dear friends (atheists, believers and everything in between)

I know there's no need to announce it and it is really a bit cringeworthy tbh, but this will be my last post on this thread. Leaving without a goodbye would not be right either, especially after 2+ years contributing to this thread.

It was a fun rollercoaster. ???? I always tried to reply politely to posters who gave me the same level of respect. Those who were out seeking only confrontation I usually ignored, but at times couldn't help myself dishing out in equal manner. lol I'm especially glad that I could eventually find an amicable level of conversation with my nemesis. 55 (you know who you are)

This thread was a great way of sharpening my intellectual tools and more importantly, steered me back to the regular practice of meditation. Now, more then ever, I'm convinced that no amount of intellectual debating can equal direct experience. Now it's time to focus on other things in life.

That being said, I hope you all find what you are seeking and that it will make you more complete. It doesn't matter whether you believe or not, one day we will all face our last breath and what will matter at that point is only how much we were able to love and be loved. 

So long, and thanks for all the fish. ???? 

Live long and prosper. ????

Hope to see your thoughts and ideas on other topics. Best wishes.