KanchanaburiGuy

. No, the thread was "derailed" by someone making the meaningless observation that "Gays are not a monolith," hoping, I assume, to make themselves look oh-so-smart or oh-so-understanding of the plight of gays: "Look at me, I'm a defender of the cause!" (Shh, even though I did it by declaring that "Gays" are not a thing that I, myself, have acknowledged that NO ONE is! ) Wonder who THAT might have been, eh?

. No, what I know is there's such a thing as collective nouns, and that it's generally considered acceptable to use them if we are describing something that is stereotypically true of that particular group. What I know is, we accept the use of these collective nouns even though we know it will always be inaccurate and unfair to at least some of the people in that group. What I know is... ...It is not necessarily ignorance or bigotry, just because someone chooses to use one of these collective nouns. That for it to become "ignorance or bigotry," one must normally use some kind of superlative like "all" or "none." (Thereby intentionally including those who might otherwise have only been innocently included.) (Note that in your response, you, yourself, had to add the word all to "Saying all gays do this or that..." to make your point. But... did the person you originally responded to use the word "all"... or did you leap to that conclusion, all on your own?) What I'm pretty sure I know is... The statements that got the snooty "Gays are not a monolith" response were merely using a common collective noun, and didn't deserve to be singled-out AS IF what they were saying was "ignorant or bigoted." What I know is... People who can't distinguish between the malicious use of collective nouns and an innocent use of collective nouns... probably should keep their High-and-Mighty comments to themselves. But hey, what do I know.......! 😂

. Who IS a "monolith?" I mean, if you're trying to make a point by saying "Gay people are not a monolith," it doesn't have much meaning if all you're saying is they, too, are not a thing... that no one else is, anyway! So, who IS a "monolith?" Once you've clarified who IS "a monolith"... and once we understand exactly how you've categorised them to justify calling them that... then we can better understand what you mean when you say, "Gay people are NOT a monolith." I mean, If NO ONE can rightly be called "a monolith"... ...then saying "Gay people are not a monolith"... twice... is kind of a meaningless point, don'cha think? So I ask yet again... Who IS "a monolith?"

I had several retail businesses in the U.S. back when writing checks was popular and common. Behind the register, I had this sign: CHECK POLICY: 1) Your check is not cash. You check is CREDIT until it clears the bank. We require the same identification for a check that we'd require from anyone asking us for CREDIT. 2) If you write a check you know will not clear IMMEDIATELY, we consider that nothing but CREATIVE SHOPLIFTING. You are taking something you know you haven't paid for. Those people will be treated accordingly. 3) When a check bounces, we get notified by the bank. So do you. In fact, you normally get notified BEFORE we do! A) Honest mistakes will gladly be forgiven. B) if you notify us of the situation or we only have to contact you ONCE, we will accept it as an honest mistake. C) If we have to contact you more than once to get paid, we will conclude it was NOT an "honest mistake." See #2 above. 4) Next to this sign is our Wall of Shame. Anyone who has to be contacted more than twice to make their check good will have their name and a copy of their bad check posted under the heading "CHECK DEADBEATS." This will be done regardless of the amount of the check. ***************** If you feel it is okay to take things from our store without paying for them, we feel we are under no obligation to protect you from your friends and neighbors knowing about it. We take pride in trying to do the best job we can for our customers. People who knowingly write us bad checks are not "customers." There's another word for what they are!

Part 1: Marriage is a legal contract between two people; a contract that is acknowledged and accepted by the government. It could also be between 3 or 4 or 5 (or more) if we wanted, but... in this culture... we haven't accepted that idea. Yet. This contract basically says that the rights and obligations of one... become the rights and obligations of both. It's more complex than that, of course, and there are numerous exceptions. But that's the gist of it. Because this contract is acknowledged and accepted by the government, it is also acknowledged and accepted by others; people and organisations like hospitals, insurance companies, landlords, banks and other lenders, etc. Many others. In this regard, marriage is not "just a piece of paper." It is a contactual commitment that has numerous and far reaching implications; not just for the two parties so committed, but also for those who interact with them. Part 2: Marriage is a declaration made by two people that they intend to be committed and dedicated to each other for the rest of their lives. It is a declaration made to friends and family... and the world. It is an affirmation: "We believe the love we feel now is strong enough to last forever." Marriage is not just a legal commitment; it is also an emotional commitment---one witnessed by the government, as well as your friends and family, either directly or indirectly. (Because you might easily break your legal contract, but may not easily break the emotional commitment you've made to your friends and family!) ***************** Marriage is not "just a piece of paper." ****************** In my opinion: If two people want to and are willing to legally bind themselves together in the way that "being married" does....... I can't see any reason to deny that, regardless of the gender/sex pairing involved: male/male, male/female, female/female. And if we're JUST talking about a legal commitment, then who cares what you call it? Is this a "Marriage?" Should we call them "Married?" Sure, SO WHAT! Don't we all know the saying, "if it waddles like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck........ it's a duck!"? Haven't we all heard the Shakespeare line "A rose any other name would smell as sweet?" I just don't understand people tripping over the word "Marriage/Married"........ when most seem to be okay with letting them have all the things that being married consists of........ EXCEPT THE NAME! And if the commitment they are making is MORE than just the "legal" commitment? If they are making the emotional commitment? A commitment they are shouting out to their friends, their family... and the world? Well sorry, if you're a person who celebrates MARRIAGE... why would you do anything but celebrate THAT marriage? Why would someone insist they call their declaration something stupid like a "Civil Union"... when the word MARRIAGE... works just fine? If the only thing you're tripping over is the TERMINOLOGY......... LET IT GO! 😂 ************ Should they make "Same-sex Marriage" legal? Absolutely! There is simply no GOOD reason not to!

The concern is....... Chinese tourists are afraid to return to Thailand because they fear that Thailand is not safe for them. So the Thai government's *ahem* "solution" is to CONFIRM that it's not safe to return to Thailand....... .........by effectively admitting that Thailand's Police Force is INCAPABLE of making Thailand safe......... ........so they need to bring in CHINESE police officers, to make up the difference. So, Chinese Tourists fear returning to Thailand because they fear they won't be safe......... ........and the Thai government's answer is to CONFIRM the validity of their fear! "We can't handle the risk ourselves, so we've asked for help from another country! From YOUR country!" Brilliant! This policing idea is a big red banner admitting...... "Thailand isn't safe for Chinese Tourists!" If you want to calm the fears of Chinese Tourists? ....... The first order of business is, "Don't do things that confirm their fears!" Duh!

You could get nailed for import duties on clothes in your suitcase, if they weren't already-used, personal clothing. They just don't look that closely at the airport because if how it would bog down the line. When it comes by courier, though, they've got all the time in the world! 😂 Wasn't it last year or the year before that a woman got nailed 55,000 baht(?) for the things she had in her suitcases? Some of that, if I recall, was higher-end, designer clothing. https://thethaiger.com/news/national/thai-woman-fined-54000-baht-at-airport-after-entering-country-with-designer-brands

Lol Actually, everyone paying the same percentage is NOT fair tax. It isn't, because we don't get paid in percentages, we get paid in DOLLARS. There's nothing "fair" about one guy paying $7,000 in tax, and another guy paying the tax equivalent of 1,000 people ($7,000,000)....... just because it happens to be 15% of earnings, in both cases. The fact remains, one American Citizen paid only $7,000, while another American Citizen paid $7,000,000! Nothing "fair" about that! Calling that "fair" would require a very distorted view of what the word "fair" means. I mean, would you accept that measure of "fair" in ANY OTHER transaction in your life? ------ Three people in line at the market buying the same gallon of milk. One person pays $1, the second person pay $4, the last person pays $167.50, because the computer says "he can afford it!" Nope, I don't think you'd ever call that "fair" at the supermarket........ and it's deceptive to call it "fair" with taxes! I can think of only TWO methods I think deserve the description "fair"........and neither of them is actually possible! 1) Take the amount the government spends each year and divide by the population (332 million, at present.) That's each person's "fair share" of what the government spends. 2023 = $19,594, according to one website. (Six people go out to dinner, divide the check by six!) 2) Calculate each person's ACTUAL burden on government resources....... cars, houses, road usage, services usage, planes, protection costs (military/local), business's consumption of resources, et cetera. "This is what YOU cost us....... This is what YOU owe!" (Six people go out to dinner, but ONE GUY orders two beers, two shots, wine with dinner, lobster and a fillet, and creme brulee for dessert. Check gets divvied up according to what you ate: "You had the lobster and the booze, so......") Of course, it should be pretty obvious why neither of these is actually possible. But I don't think there's any way to call either of them "unfair." "Your Share" being the exact same amount that every other American Citizen pays........ or....... "Your Share" being what you, the indivual, actually cost us! Every other "fair" tax scheme I've ever seen requires some great contortions around what the word "fair" means! The bottom line is...... There's really no such thing as a "fair" tax scheme. It simply does not exist! So we really ought to drop the word "fair" out of these discussions, altogether! 😂 Cheers!

. I wonder about your own paycheck. Are you okay with the idea of you doing the work, but someone else getting your paycheck? In today's world of online shopping, this happens a lot. A person goes into a store shopping. The store is paying rent, electric, insurance. They have a salesperson to answer questions and help you make the best choice. They spent a lot of money to inventory the product so you can inspect it, try it, hold it, and decide if it's going to be the right one for you. All these things cost money. Then, now that the customer KNOWS it's what they want, they go online and buy it from Lazada or Shopee, etc, for 200 baht less (cheaper, of course, because they didn't have to spend all that money to sell that item!) One person does all the work and spends all the money, but some other person gets the paycheck! Are you okay with that idea? Would you LIKE being the guy who did all the work, only to have your paycheck go to someone else? It's a competitive world and this is one of the realities of it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't SUCK! So why would you think that high-earners should earn a big paycheck....... only to have a huge chunk of it taken away and given to someone else? If it's not okay to take YOUR paycheck and give it to someone else......... why would you think it's okay to take THEIR paycheck........ and do just that? Just because someone decided "they have enough?" How about if someone thinks ~YOU~ have "enough?" Being charitable is a marvellous thing; a thing to be encouraged and praised! Confiscation......... ISN'T!

"I'm sorry, you can't trade back your submarine." "Why?" "Because it doesn't have an engine." "It doesn't have an engine because you never gave us an engine." "Right. And that's why you can't trade it back. It has no engine." "We..... can't...... wait...... what?" "That's right." "But rather than a submarine we can't use, we'd rather have a frigate we can use. Can we trade it for a frigate? You can then complete the submarine yourselves for your own use." "We don't want that submarine. It doesn't have an engine." "But what about a frigate?" "A frigate, you say? You'd like to have a frigate?" "Yes, we would!" "Well........ we might have a frigate we could exchange for your submarine. We might be able to work that out." "Really?" "Yes, of course! We might be able to do this! The frigate is perfect except for one thing: It doesn't have a hull........"

Had a Canadian friend who has since died. When I met him 11 years ago, he had already been in Thailand for 10 years. He said he had asked quite a few regular Thai people how much a person had to have to be considered "rich" in Thailand. He said the answer was almost always about the same: 5 million baht. Doesn't seem like a whole lot to my Western eyes. But when you've got millions and millions of people getting by on less than 10,000 baht a month......... 5 million baht probably seems unimaginable! So I'll stick with 5 million as a workable number for describing "rich" from the average Thai person's point of view.

First, Don't think there was anything fraudulent about claiming the value at $360. If it had been lost or destroyed, that's what it would have cost him to replace it. So that's a fair measure of its "value." (Its like a book: As a stack of A5 paper, it has very little value. But if those pages are printed with a first edition of Oliver Twist...... it's going to have great value. Expecting Customs to treat those pages as "paper" was deceptive. It's what written on those pages that determines its value........ not just the paper itself.) That's also a fair value for tax: if it had been lost or destroyed, that's what he would have expected them to use as a valuation for compensation. If the compensation is going to be based on that, it's reasonable that the tax be based on that, also. Second, sometimes you just have look at the practical side of things, when things like this happen. Ignoring shipping charges, this document was already important enough to be worth $360 to him. If someone had said to him, "Sorry, we thought it was going to be $360, but it turns out it'll be $410, instead"........ (current cost + 1650 baht [~$50])........ would he have still done it? Or would he have said, nah, it's important enough to spend $360......... but NOT important enough to spend $410? Face it: if he'd've been willing to spend the $410 if he'd known about it beforehand......... if the transaction was, in fact, important enough to spend THAT much......... then it's really kinda silly to cry about it now, just because he learned that that was the REAL COST........ after the fact! So that's the PRACTICAL question: Would he've have still done it if the cost had been $410 instead of $360? I'll bet he would have! And if he would have, what really is there to complain about? He WISHES it could have been a little cheaper....... but it didn't work out that way. But if it's STILL within the range of what he would have been willing to spend, anyway, then......... so what? 😂

Wow, the exchange rate must have tanked hard! Claimed value of the pen was "US $5." Headline on this thread says it was only a "10 baht pen." 5 bucks US only buys 10 baht worth, these days? My goodness, thing have changed! *wink*

I don't know Thailand details that well. Is there a way for him to find out if she's taken out a life insurance policy on him? Considering the story, I'll bet she has. And I'll bet if he makes too many waves trying to collect what he's been cheated out of....... she'll collect on that, too! No reason to think she'd stop at grand larceny and fraud, right?

Pretty disappointed that the article didn't say anything about the need to fix Thailand's culture of corruption. They listed a number of changes that could be beneficial, but ignore the fact that few of them can be successful where corruption is systemic. Take education, for example: Does anyone think the education system is interested in educating its students well enough that they start to understand how corrupt the system is, and how poor the education they've received has been? No, the Thai education system maintains itself almost entirely on keeping its students from getting too smart! The first rule: Don't question the teacher; don't question the rules: don't question authority......... EVER! How can a system with a vested interest in keeping its students dumb........ ever be expected to produce the high calibre students that some of the proposed changes require? How can a system hope to produce INNOVATORS........ when independent thought is grilled out of them and/or punished, year after year? I find it amazing that the article talks about all these changes........ yet says nothing about the one thing that is almost guaranteed to keep them from succeeding A Developing Economy can afford a certain amount of corruption as a cost of doing business. But if Thailand wants to be able to get over those next hurdles......... most of those many, many layers of corruption have got to go!

The ballots I have filled out always had a place for writing-in my choice. So I've ~ALWAYS~ had a chance to put the person I want on the ballot. If I...... or anyone else...... want to appear on a pre-printed ballot, all I have to do is meet the extremely easy qualifications, and register as a candidate. Frankly, the question, "When did you last get to pick the candidates on the ballot forms" is silly in the extreme. The people who stepped-up to run for a certain office DO appear on the ballot. If they....... (or I)..... DID NOT step up? Then our names WON'T be on the ballot. (I should clarify, though, that I'm talking about United States politics, not Thailand. That's where I'm from; those are the only politics I'm qualified to discuss. I never get involved in Thai politics----I don't even try. I'm nowhere near well-informed enough to discuss Thai politics intelligently: Different country..... Different Constitution....... Different culture........ Different politics....... Different history......... A Monarchy......... And....... A situation that's way too fluid and unstable. ***Checking my watch*** "What time is the next coup, again?" ????)

The Royal Thai Embassy in Israel discontinued doing extraneous jobs and has been focused almost exclusively on helping Thai people in Israel ----- Those who want to stay and those who want to leave. There was no need to set up special phone numbers or websites, because THE EMBASSY was doing all that, already. Note the "evacuation request" screenshot I took from the thai embassy website. It is dated Oct 8.

. Of course, this all depends on the form of government. In a Representative Republic, the "social contract" is that you, as a citizen, will have a say in who represents you. But that's effectively where your "say" ends. In a Representative Republic, we elect people to make decisions for us. And our "social contract" in that arrangement is that we will abide by what they decide. WE get to decide who will make the decisions. THEY get to decide what those decisions will be. Nothing in that "social contract" says we then get to decide for ourselves willy-nilly what rules we will follow, and what rules we won't! So no, that "social contract" you're describing is one you'd apparently like to have for yourself. But it's NOT the one you have with a Representative form of government!

"What is a Thai life worth to the government?" The problem here is, it's not really a valid question. It's a rhetorical question, only. No matter what the answer is, it will be wrong in the eyes of some, and right in the eyes of others. It's a lot like asking "What is the meaning of life?" It's a question that can never be answered because it's the wrong question! Asking "What is the meaning of life?" makes about as much sense as asking, "What is the meaning of a chair?" or "What is the meaning of a refrigerator?" Purpose They serve a purpose. They don't have "meaning." It is not the job of government to put a baht value on the lives of it's citizens. That is not what government is for. That's not their purpose. Government's job is to concern itself with the needs of populations, not individuals. So, the correct answer to the , "What is a Thai life worth to the government?" is...... "Sorry, that's the wrong question." It's not now...... and never has been........ the role of government to define the worth of an individual.

It is a fair standard to hold a person o party to their pledges if they get wholly elected in the election. But if gaining the premiership requires putting together a coalition of many parties to gain control, it is NOT a fair standard to try to hold them to all the promises made while campaigning. Winner-takes-all gets to shape policy the way he or she wants. Winner-by-coalition has to show some love to those groups and parties who ultimately made success possible. So OF COURSE the policies being laid out in the Real World........ do not mirror the pledges made during the campaign! Of course they don't! Winner-by-coalition means that policies will ultimately reflect and represent that coalition, NOT just the desires of the one "winner." So, to a headline that says that policies do not reflect the pledges made during a campaign? THAT, I say, deserves a big ol' "DUH!"

Well now...... All in all, it seems like a sensible approach. After all Trade is always supposed to be Value for Value. In this case, it's being suggested that it work on two levels, not just one: • We give you money for goods, and you give us money for goods. • We promise to give you a certain level of purchases, and you promise give us a certain level of purchases, in exchange. And it may seem the suggested numbers are unbalanced, but we have to remember......... We'd be buying things from them that have a very narrow focus, while they'd be buying things from us that have a broad, more universal, population-wide focus and appeal. Our acquisitions from them go into only a few hands. Their acquisitions from us can go into many, many hands! And the idea of additional procurement doesn't upset me too much, if the procurement is done for the right reasons. For example, it was noted upthread that there many different types, styles, and brands of weapons currently being used. If the proposed "procurement" was intended to phase out the confusion and disparity and supply the military with a narrower range of more universally adaptable weaponry........ that would be a good thing! (Imagine: A continuing soldier needs to re-arm himself from a fallen soldier, but finds, "Damn, he got entirely different weaponry!" NOT GOOD! That would be something worth fixing!) So, new procurement isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing! (Then, all that phased-out, unnecessarily confusing weaponry could be sold on the second-hand marketplace, recouping some of the new-procurement investment, making the exchange not just a win-win, but a win-win-win!) * * * * * Yes, I understand both the opportunity for..... and history of..... corruption. (WHO gets to sell the phased-out weapons, for example? Who get the money and/or the "commission?") But those are reason to try to force them to do things "correctly," above-board, and transparently........ NOT reasons to not do them! Sorry, for all the snide comments made upthread, the fact is, if this is done in the right way for the right reasons......... it's actually a very good idea! Sorry, but with tensions increasing between the United States and China, and China pushing out tentacles into both shipping lanes and land routes.......... (and eyeing Taiwan with renewed glee!)........ Thailand improving it's readiness, preparedness, and capabilities....... is a sound and sensible measure! Remember: It takes two to make peace, but only one to make war! So even if Thailand wants to try to stay neutral......... she still must be able to ENFORCE her neutrality! Any less? Well..... you're just asking her to become the new France and Poland from WW2! (Which is to say: Easily overrun!) • New procurement? Yes. If it's done the right way and for the right reasons. • Using New Procurement as a win-win (win-win-win?) way to boost exports and increase economic activity? Sorry, but for all the cynicism being expressed....... (some, of course, justified!)......it really IS a good idea! Cheers!

That may be true. But the other side of it is......... How many think Yingluck staying in charge would have been a good idea? As far as I can see from 2014........ Having a coup....... bad! NOT having a coup........ bad! Sure, there's something to be said for those who have been elected. We're supposed to respect that. But when those who have been elected are provably criminal and corrupt......... what is there to respect? MUST a country allow a criminal to run roughshod over the country......... tapping into and sapping its resources......... just because they managed to get elected? Personally, I think the evidence from 2014 is indisputable........ There ~WERE NO~ "good choices!"

Hey, I'll have you know I was the #1 Chess player in the fictional world I created. I defeated the AI Chess Champion by pushing a my black pawn to the eighth rank. Upon achieving the eighth rank, I was allowed to choose a piece to put on the board. The piece I chose was a second White King. (After all, I've never seen a rule that says I ~CAN'T~ choose to place one of my opponents pieces on the board, when my pawn reaches the eighth rank!) The two King's got into a power struggle and my opponent's defenses broke down. I then sat back until one King killed the other, and I swooped in for the checkmate! Thus, I became the #1 Chess Player on my fictional planet, Sun Tzu! So, don't even think about underestimating me again, if, you know, thinking ever becomes your thing. Cheers!

Kanchanaburi.

WE'RE NUMBER NINE! WE'RE NUMBER NINE! Nah, just doesn't sound right when you chant it. ---------------- ---------------- I always got a kick out of restaurants proudly displaying a plaque from their local Camber of Commerce or newspaper, saying "Best Mexican Restaurant of 2019!" -- Reader's Poll. I always wanted to say to them, "That's great mate, but who's the best THIS YEAR? Where are THEY?" (HINT: Any "Best Of" plaque that's older than last year......... take it down! That sad, solitary 2015 "Best Of" plaque just reminds me that you HAVEN'T won it in the last 8 years! ????) ----------------- ----------------- WE'RE NUMBER NINE! WE'RE NUMBER NINE! ---------------- ---------------- Nope, still not doing it for me! Lol