orosee

Including a tobacco free product under the tobacco act? Very logical. Is it because it simulates smoking tobacco but without smoke or tobacco? Then I propose to include masturbation under the prostitution act, since it simulates sex without... Well you know what I mean.

Shisha makes sense, but vapes? You know it's about the money, a sin tax on a sin free product.

^^ Mate, I can understand your feeling.

Sadly the OP just worded his OP the wrong way.

Attacked me ... and then lost his audience as a result of the combined negative comments.

I don't think he's a Troll ... he has a long posting history asking the logical questions along the way.

Most likely he hasn't returned because because of the loss of face.

Simply put, I wish he would return, offer a blanket apology, suck it up (now that is being a man) and ask some more advice.

.

'loss of face' on an anonymous internet forum. You make me laugh david48. I did ask you to try and make more intelligent comments. Please make more of an effort- if your able to that is.

cheers

Taking your own advice? Try it?

Most people complain because they don't know the difference between an embassy and a consulate/consular section.

I'm enticed with those who left their country because "the government is too easy on social migrants" and then get furious when they can't get a visa for their Thai girlfriend in 60 minutes no questions asked.

I don't understand all the vitriol towards the OP.

His questions was: I'm having a baby, how much will it cost.? This is a completely appropriate and acceptable question to ask on this forum. Any foreigner, or for that matter any soon to be father living anywhere, for the first time having children wants to know the answer to that question, regardless of how poorly it was/is worded. It is a huge responsibility that comes out all blue and wrinkly, screaming and peeing everywhere. Yes, how much will it cost?

Ask me 20 years from now and I'll have the answer.

Any foreigner asking questions on this forum should also expect a substantial amount of vitriol even with the assistance rigorous moderation.

Well, there was quite a bit more than what you paraphrase. Plus an aggressive reply of the OP further down the page. A lot of the comments here refer to the first post, the "5 Baht per shirt" thing (personally, I found the strictly alternating restaurant bill settling a bit more funny). That, and a possibly unfortunately worded "man-up". Most posts here are from people who read the OP and then nothing else, so repetitive first reactions.

Whether the OP is a troll or not (probably not), some of the replies are actually helpful for others. People posting here seem to have a much more civilized behaviour towards their wives than you normally read about on TV. That alone is worth reading through every page.

A (good) man changes when he holds his children. Let's give the OP a chance :-)

You can budget in advance for children, but do not treat them like your car instalment plan! Every dollar the child needs extra goes out of your own fun budget, so learn to have more fun with the kids, I'm just finding out that that's an equally rewarding pastime (week 7 now and let me tell you, the first 6 weeks were tough!).

OP's total household budget seems to be limited (I figure 300 to 40 thousand baht more or less), that would explain the stingy tone of it.

I'm in Korea where you pay 2-4 times the price (compared to Amazon or Western prices) so my numbers may be off, I just list a few of the major cost producers:

- clothing (get second hand stuff, barely used. Family of your wife perhaps?)

- bottles and nipples (they used to be more fun without a baby). At least 8, and baby needs bigger ones after a few months.

- towels, napkins, blankets, lots of stuff you never thought you'd need

- bottle sterilizer (steam, worth it!)

- diapers. 6 to 8 a day, it's mad!

- formula. Try different brands. You may end up throwing a nearly full can away if baby doesn't respond well

- stroller, rocker, bassinet, toys, all that stuff that shops charge you dearly for

And your wife needs extra care too.

In fact, let her do the calculations. Discuss, but don't force your will.

Now go see the other thread about where baby sleeps.

I find it curious that apart from some insignificant Chiang Mai rag, this report that evokes so much emotion is only being carried by ThaiVisa. The normally reliable Bangkok Post has not touched it neither has ThaiVisa's mate, The Nation from where they usually lift their news items

Could this be nothing more than a cynical marketing ploy and alcoholic scaremongering by the owners of this forum, who clearly know the mentality of many of it's members, to enhance their advertising revenue by virtue of more hits to their website?

"George" is probably watching this thread in delight at the number of banal (but potentially lucrative), misunderstood comments that are being made.

I don't suppose my post will be allowed to remain here for very long!

Now you're getting it ... it's far more profitable to post "rumors" rather than "facts" ... page hits go through the roof (and consequently advertising revenue) when there's some controversy, true or not.

Just look at the pages of replies you see on the "I thought my gf/wife loved me, but she's only after my money" threads ...

I'm sure I wasn't the only one who checked for a "Not the Nation" tag after reading halfway through!

"Promoting alcohol through word of mouth is also illegal, so if a waiter is asked to recommend a particular brand of beer he would be breaking the law if he responds"

I have never been to a French restaurant or in fact any reputable fine dining establishment in Bangkok without relying on the knowledge of wines drawn from a Sommelier when I am at a loss for an eloquent marriage of food and wine. Their ability to match fine wine with a superb meal is ‘strategically on a par with that of the chef de cuisine's ability to bring a certain magic to the table through the food itself.

​For one NOT to have a sommelier at a fine dining establishment should be illegal!

Lets hope the Junta rethink this specific ban.

Sorry don't have the time of day for Sommelier..... I saw a documentary recently that got a group of "supposed" wine experts together and tested them. They dyed the red white and the white red. The poor fools couldn't even identify the simplest of wines..... It's mostly a matter of personal tasted like art, and Sommelier are little more than jumped up salesmen.

OK, yes I agree that advice on what is available in a restaurant is useful, and a basic agreed vocabulary helps, but it seems to me that EVERY Sommelier that I have ever seen or talked to, acts like a bad art critic, using flowery language that has little or no relationship to the subject they are talking about......

Sorry, I should have said IMHO, but not feeling that humble

As far as this new crackdown is concerned, it sounds ridiculous! No old bottles, no posters, no logos on glasses, no "pretties", and no promotional events, not even verbal promotion?! Sounds like the already poor beleagured landlords are gonna have to totally redecorate, replace half their glassware, replace glass fridge doors and all extravagant draught taps ( (promotional obviously).

Thankfully I believe that these will never be properly enforced and will fall by the wayside along with a lot of other similar Monday morning "relevations".

Wow, whatever they used to "dye red wine white", release it as a laundry detergent and make billions off it! I've been looking for such a thing forever!

Seriously, they may have filtered out the red particles but with that, they would have changed the wine's properties as well. Why not just conduct a blindfolded study and tell the test subjects "now you're drinking a red one, now it's white"?

My personal way to select a proper wine for dinner is simple: Find the cheapest wine on the list (not glass, bottle). Now find the wine that's 2 steps up pricewise. If I don't like the country of origin, check again one up or one down. I'm going to have to drink 2/3 of the bottle anyway (women!), so at worst the first 2 glasses will be awful, the rest of the bottle will taste great.

Ours is 7 weeks now and has been sleeping in our bed since day one. It's queen size and after 2 weeks I was sure I could sleep on a tree branch without falling off. If your lucky then mommy has the milk supply attached to her and nobody needs to get up. But while on bed I've never slept more than 2-3 hours in a row and usually 6 hours or less at night.

As others said, tending the baby is no holiday. You'll be better off at work, unless your job is kindergarten teacher. On occasion I fell asleep on the couch only to wake up there 10 hours later. You gotta catch up with sleep. A biz trip with hotel stay is a godsend!

All my preconceptions were wrong. At the start, you can never - never ever - have too many diapers or milk bottles. Get a sterilizer unless you want to boil huge amounts of water twice a day.

If you survive the first 6-8 weeks, things turn better though not back to normal. You'll change, too. Lots of patience and try to agree with mommy as much as possible.

Pretty hard to take police work seriously with news like this. If the spent a few weeks undercover at Panthip Plaza, they might also arrest Khun Somchai for selling a bootleg CD of Windows XP.

Here's the news I want to read then:

"Police arrests pirate DVD seller at Panthip for prostitution!

Fronting as a regular pirate software & movie stall, Khun Somchai aka "Lek" was arrested for offering illicit sexual acts beneath his sales booth. Using 25 undercover operatives blah blah blah... "

Check the date, it's collection week.

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

you do not understand atheism if you need to ask this question. We cannot proof there is no god.We do not say there is no god.We make no assertion.it is therefore not up to prove anything.

And we point at relgions total lack of a single shred of credible evidence and say " i choose not to belive based upon evidence, or lack of.

If you show an athesit evidence he would, or should change.

There are no real athists because if you say there is no God, you become a "anti-atheist" and must show some evidence.

Atheist like me must conceded in the possibility and that I have no idea what happens when I die ( nor any real care)- therefore in fact we're all agnostic.

Agnostics concede the possibilty.

I don't believe in gods, magic or the supernatural. I believe that the universal laws of physics prohibit the existence of such throughout the entire cosmos. Of course neither the atheist nor the anti-theist needs to supply evidence (since this negative can't be proven). Of course they are obliged to change their stance once they've been provide with irrefutable proof of the existence of such a being or force. I'm not holding my breath.

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

I don't see any problem with Pascal's wager.

His words were primarily directed at the church, at a time when being an atheist could cost one his life.

"acting as if" = make believe.

Your example about the wire is flawed. Let's say the wire is connected to a switch.

The Atheist will see the switch in the "off" position and touch the wire.

It's rather the Agnostic who will test the wire for current, because he doesn't know the switch, maybe it has been wired wrong inside, or the "on" and "off" labels are swapped.

The Agnostic will also have tested the wire tester on live current before and after the test to make sure it tests correctly.

The Agnostic knows something is not there when it has been proven that it is not there.

The Atheist will jump to conclusions.

For example, let's say the wire is not connected to anything - the atheist will trust his knowledge and touch the wire. Maybe static electricity will kill him.

Good reply. But in your example, the agnostic would become an Atheist now, after testing.

Ah...

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

Ah Pascal's Wager.

Suppose I am god ( silly idea, but can you prove that I am not?) - Where is the sarcasm symbol?

So I am god, and somebody decides to believe in me because if I truly were god, it would be in that person's best interest to believe in me. Now what would I think of that little egoistic smartass prick? Would I after his death feed him sweet rice with golden spoons, or give him 17 virgins?

Pascal may have been good at maths, he may have invented a programming language (....) , but he was a smartass, not a serious philosopher.

If you were God and could prove it, it would certainly put an end to this discussion. :-)

Although a real God would use Twitter, not ThaiVisa.

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

So far I see two main sides here:

People who know him and judge his character and skills to be good,

People who don't know him and judge his character and skills to be bad.

As B Trink used to say: "Manure - Human nature".

Why do I get the feeling that quite a few "foreign undercover" operatives are posting law & order messages here?

Lice and let live, wasn't that what used to make Thailand so attractive, way way back?

(Edit:That typo is much too charming to correct. You know how it should have spelled.)

So if she had it or not is neither here nor there. why are all country continuing to be put at risk with passenger coming and going on international flights from infected areas. pathetic.

You suggest that people who stay in a country where Ebola has been detected, should be prohibited from traveling home or elsewhere in the world ?

At some point - not now - there may have to be a kind of quarantine for travellers from high risk countries *before* boarding a plane. Although the transmission of ebola is through body fluids only (so it is believed), further outbreaks will eventually mandate that.

Personally I believe that ebola will come to Europe on a ship with a few hundred refugees, most of them infected by Poor hygiene on board, and will immediately spread in holding camps. So Italy to be hit first in this scenario.

Yeah it seems strange that a group of people should come together because of something they don't have (faith). It's like a club for people who don't own a 1997 red Toyota Corolla.

However, I think that groups like these can be of great help for those who are on the threshold to enlightenment. People who have the seed of doubt, growing but not yet strong enough to abandon the religion that their parents raised them to believe in.

Without atheist groups, they only Council they could turn to would be their priest, and that's about as useful as asking your financial adviser about Royal Skandia.

Sure these things can be learned by books or on the Internet, but hearing from live atheists is certainly preferable.

How could they look Japanese? Fail to see how in a baby , you could tell the difference between a Japanese 1 and say a Korean or Chinese 1..........

All the Japanese babies lined up to piss in the same potty.

Korean male babies would miss the potty even if they were sitting in it.

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

Homophobic is a term introduced by gays in an attempt to belittle or pressure anyone that has a different opinion to theirs be it about children or marriage. Everyone is entitled to live their own lives as they see fit, if they prefer their own sex then that is their choice and no-one can take that away from them. One thing they must also accept is that it is physically impossible for them to have their own children by each other, by going into their relationship this needs to be a part of what they want. If they have children through previous hetero relationships then they are able to fulfill their child raising problems but to claim they are entitled to invitro fertilization is a fallacy. This is not the same as hetero couples as they do have the required body parts to have children and are stopped only to a technicality that can be overcome by science, being either both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce. My eldest daughter is gay and I have had many gay friends over the years but I do not believe they have a right to this type of endeavour, it does not make me a "homophobe", just someone with an opinion . Trying to make people out to be something they are not to push your own bias is the problem, if you honestly believe you are entitled then try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible due to not have the correct reproductive organs between them and stop belittling anyone with a different opinion. It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other.

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

yes it was but it has been hijacked by those gays that want to try to shame people into accepting their personal views, just because people disgree it does not make them homophobes, people like you that label people homophobes because they disagree with you are the problem as you help create the animosity between everyone. You say you have accepted you cant have kids with your partner but still keep trying to create conflict, really well done, seems to me you are the bigot here. As for the sky fairy, if you are not aware it takes male semen and female eggs to create babies unless you are telling us that you have discovered a new method, I know of a few couples that have used gay males and gay females to concieve, so there is a way if they really want to go down that path or adoption.

I am not patronizing anyone, you are doing that all by yourself, try thinking rationally instead of with your bias, genuine couples cherish each other or are you in a miserable relationship and need to lash out to convince yourself its good, try looking at yourself before criticizing others. Produce a decent argument instead of your sky fairy crap and I will listen to you, your answer is truly pathetric to say the least.

I think you misread something. The thread was hijacked by a series of people who categorically denied gays the right to parenthood based on fuzzy principles such as "natural order" (but probably meaning "God's will") and "being normal".

Such comments must have a response, if only to show that not everyone subscribes to this path of thinking. One poster basically said that he'd prefer a child raised by a convicted pedophile rather than a normal gay couple. If that's not homophobic, then what is?

As for myself, nature has tried to kill me many times and without the unnatural help of doctors and medicine I would have been dead before the age of 10. So screw nature's "intent", man is a social & technological animal that is not constrained exclusively by natural order anymore. People who see children only as the result of reproduction rather then vessels to be filled with love, might disagree.

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

I would hope that he is like most normal people, including myself, who you refer to as homophobic bigots.

Don't you think that the argument whether a gay man/woman can be a loving parent should be made by a gay person? In fact, I'd value the experienced opinion of a gay parent (and their closest relatives or friends) much higher than those of people who start most of of their own arguments with "I have nothing against gays, but...".

People here seem to think that being gay means having analysis sex 24/7, including during feedings and diaper changes. And yet 99% of all gay people are children of heterosexual relationships ("normal" families). Why not put an end to that?

If people are afraid of homosexual parents, they should fear single straight male parents as well. The problem here is lack of regulation, not the parents' sexual orientation.

Comes in Thailand alone, leaves with a child...

 

Would be interesting to see what documents he produced for the child at immigration.....

Japanese embassy??

I don't think that's too difficult.

 

There's a steady stream of Filipino babies being flown from their workplace countries back to their families on the Philippines. The kids are usually 3-6 months old and there's a pickup service where the mother/father does not even have to fly - someone is paid to accompany the kids from airport to airport. Such a person would often appear at immigration with different children, I think with proper documents/authorizations this would not cause trouble at the checkpoints.

 

Some of these kids' parents are no longer legally in the country, so they can't appear in front of exit immigration. The Phillipines embassy/consulate issues a passport based on a few documents clarifying parenthood for the baby.

 

I don't see why this should not also be possible in Thailand and for exit to Japan. Best case, this was a baby factory for childless Japanese couples, and the guy was the transporter. Probably a bit shady at least, but perhaps not hardcore mafia organ trade. That idea was just for some forgotten politician to push herself into the spotlight.

 

Worst case, well...

 

But since the Japanese consulate must have issued passports all along (a process that can be finished in 2-3 hours), I'm now tending more towards a best-case scenario. Still needs to be carefully investigated at all ends since the appearance of human trafficking is there.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. I myself used 5 different German passports to travel in and out of Thailand well over 50 times.

The report does not state whether:

- each of his 2 passports had different details (name etc.)
- he held both valid passports at the same time

Unless charges are brought forward, this guy can pretty much walk around freely and no government needs to "explain" (this is how & when you use quotes properly) anything.

As shady as this is, nobody should be arrested because "someone on Thaivisa demanded it" :-)

Interesting that now the surrogate mother has become a very rich woman ( by thai standards ) because of donations by those who feel sorry for her, she wants the other child back???

Anyone who has spent a small time in Thailand will see that disabled kids in poor families are good little for other than public begging and are treated with, at best, indifference by other thais.

The whole matter is a very very sad state of affairs, least of all for the children.

Yet another sweeping statement involving the usual Thai bashing - in my BF's village have seen several disabled kids who are looked after by the community with more love and attention than they would get in the West ( with all the social workers etc) no they don't have much- but those children are very much welcome in everyones home and loved more .

Well Peter I don't know you or your boyfriend but there is no way on earth I would let my children enter the home of a male couple.

Please nothing against you guys but the amount of paedophiles in Thailand one has to protect their children. I am not saying you are paedophiles but I wouldn't trust a male couple and I as a parent would have to present at all times my child is in your home to watch over them.

I may have misread but at what point did he offer to look after your kids? Without that offer your statement has no context and may be (mis) read as opportunistic gay bashing.