BangkokHank

I wanted to laugh at your comment because it's funny. But the right to laugh at funny comments has been taken away from us just because one overly-sensitive forum member considers it to be trolling.

So that's where I went wrong. I am retiring next month at the age of 63, and now I find out that it took me so long because I never smoked weed. I wish I had known this 20 years ago.

Or a woman with a "brother" from a previous marriage.

Not only have I heard of them, I have been to both of those countries.

My 85-year-old father experiences the same thing. (He is not on his death bed though.)

Hm. I wonder if he was vacci, I mean drunk.

I don't think this Chinese woman arranged this after arriving in Bangkok. So there must be a website where it can be done - through some kind of facilitator. And they must have advertised in China. Otherwise how else would she have known about it?

And then to report them for "misinformation" when they beat you in an argument, as you have done to me many times.

And by "far right", do you mean anyone who is not a communist like you?

I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that she would be satisfied with just 500 baht per visit for the long term. That's not much more than free, and if she's half as attractive as you say she is, she could easily find 20-year-old guys who would be willing to have sex with her for free. She knows that the clock is running out for her. This is just an introductory price to get her foot in the door. Later, the price is going to go up - a lot. Keep us posted about how this turns out.

So these people came/were brought to Thailand when they were around 10 years old. Somehow I don't think they came here by their own choice.

The article does not say that there are no prostitutes in Pattaya. It just says that no prostitutes were "found" by the police during their inspection tour. And if you try hard enough not to find something, you won't find it. So technically, and in their own minds, they are not lying. Problem solved - the Thai way.

Do you mean a source that agrees with your opinion? How about if you try to come up with a better idea than just trying to discredit the source when you can't refute a point. Can I just say that your argument is invalid because you support it with links to extreme left-wing sites? Or does that only work for one wing?

That relies more on people being uninformed.

Masks are not useless for everything. But they are useless for preventing the transmission of viruses: https://cnsnews.com/commentary/dr-jim-meehan/surgeon-destroys-myth-if-masks-dont-work-why-do-surgeons-wear-them

Yeah, with me.

You are aware that these "vaccines" don't prevent the transmission of COVID, right? So given that, why should you, or anyone else, care if other people are vaccinated?

The Chinese want to come to Thailand, not because Thailand is cheaper, but because they want to flee China. They know tyranny when they see it.

So, you are willing to listen to logic - on every subject EXCEPT the so-called "holocaust"? I could debunk that sham of a story in just a few paragraphs. But what would be the point, because you have already firmly made up your mind on that - and only that - issue. (Not to mention that I would not be allowed to post my thoughts about that on this forum.) Don't worry though - you're not alone. As it happens, the "holocaust" is the only (alleged) event in human history that is illegal to question - in many countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial But let me ask you: Making it illegal to question something - does that sound like something someone would do if they were confident of their story? To me, it sounds like what people would do if they were afraid of having their lies exposed. And as for your comment about shooting all homosexuals: It's very courageous of you to oppose such a thing, but do you know of anyone who has proposed to do that? If not, then you're just virtue signaling.

Do you really think that this is about combatting environmental degradation? It's about forcing us all into small spaces in a few cities - to make it easier for them to control us. I hope there are not many people in the world who, like you, think this is a good idea.

There are no "collective" rights - only individual human rights. Governments don't grant us these rights. They are ours by nature. If the (one-world) government decided that there were too many people in the world and that to protect the environment - or the "collective" - it needed to eliminate some/most of us by killing us off with a "vaccine", would you consider that to be acceptable? I mean, sometimes we have to sacrifice the rights of some for the collective, right? I would normally say that the government does not have the right to remove you from the planet for the benefit of the rest of us, but since you think it's OK, I would be willing to make an exception to this principle in your case.

Climate deniers? Who denies that there is a climate? I agree that there is a climate, and that it's very likely changing - as it has since the beginning of time. I maintain, however, that there is no "climate emergency", and whatever happens to the climate will be easily manageable by our very adaptive species. I won't wish that climate alarmists like yourself be sent to the moon because, if you are really vaccinated, as you claim to be, then nature will deal with you accordingly - to the benefit of mankind. I also notice that you assume that a world government is coming. I am not the least surprised by that, given that your opinion on just about every topic is anti-freedom/anti-human rights. But I ask you: Is there some reason why you think you will fare better under this one world government than the rest of us? Are you perhaps hoping to get a job in that new world government as their chief propagandist?

But the whole point of the vaccines is that they were supposed to prevent serious illness and death - not to mention the original claim that they would stop the transmission of COVID. So if you can still die from COVID after being vaccinated, and you can die from and be injured by the vaccines, then who in their right mind would get vaccinated voluntarily?

5,000 baht fine? That's more than he would have paid the woman. In fact, for that money, he could have had a hotel room and at least two women. Let that be a lesson to us all.