tgw

agree, yet I do also think that the company's move was ill advised. I fully support a "we employ all and we serve all" position, inclusion and non-discrimination. but from there to pushing an agenda, there is a leap. although the subject does not offend me in the slightest, I'd be bewildered to find any kind of gender/sex/alternative lifestyle etc. promotion on my milk bottle or pizza box. it's just out of place.

I'd go for a Honda CRV If you like a smaller crossover better, like the Nissan Kick, there's the Honda WRV

yes, they are children, they deserve protection by all adults, especially people they trust. The abuse case is disgusting. I didn't say anything different.

oh the irony. you that demanding to be awarded is rather impolite, do you ?

I wonder what's confusing about my previous post.

it's a disgusting case of underage sex abuse, but not a case of peadophilia, which is a psychiatric disorder that has a precise definition.

if we remove the religious and traditional aspects from the equation, then come other questions, such as why only two people and not three or more if they all feel like marrying? I'm critical vis à vis the institution of marriage already in its traditional form, I think its secular meaning (i.e. civil / legal) has been created based on religion to give a legal basis to what most people practiced. This is shown for example by the existence of different forms of marriage, such as Christian (man and woman) and Islamic (Man and n women). So now there is an evolution to break out of the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage (man and women) and extend it to same sex couples. at the same time, still rejecting the idea of man + n women or why not woman + n men. Same sex marriage also means turning away from the traditional biological family cell. I'd argue the main goal/utility of the institution of marriage was to make the union more secure against threats ("temptation") so that it would give peace of mind and security to the couple to raise their children together and also guarantee "rightful" succession to titles, land ownership and businesses. Security of marriage was ensured by heavy religious penalties for adultery, etc. and binding husband and wife together "forever", with very strong incentives to even endure an unsuccessful marriage. But modern law has chipped away at nearly everything that was protecting marriage. My opinion would be to rather remove marriage from civil law and put it back where it belongs: religion.

if you take a GF to Pattaya and if you both have a good time, then she's a keeper.

expanding on that, wouldn't it be a strange coincidence if NATO didn't declare war but rather conduct a "special military operation" instead ?

well yes, of course ! because then the umbrella might get wet ! those farangs understand nothing.

it's a clean up operation. obviously the police has no serious charges against the club members, but will use anything minor they find to deport them because they want to get rid of the gang.

that depends a lot on how they want to end the war in Ukraine.

that's the principle of insurance. but your criticism is pointless, because a government-regulated travel insurance would not remove other insurance policies nor would it make taking one out for travel compulsory. so if you don't like that package, then you can just ignore it. others might want to take such a package, for example to be covered if they are drunk in a vehicle as a passenger (yes, that exclusion exists in some policies!), or if they are a passenger on a motorcycle without holding a MC license themselves. the list of ridiculous exclusions goes on and on. I, for one, would be glad to see on the booking page of airplane tickets an option "subscribe to standard travel insurance", maybe with options "include motorcyles as passenger" and/or "include motorcycles as driver", and maybe a handful of other options. that's what I would choose for my children/dependents.

I didn't say it would be a compulsory insurance. Just standardized policy coverage, so that every one knows what to be expected.

and that is exactly the problem which should be solved by a government-regulated travel insurance.

if you stay within the insurance company's box of thought, you will argue insurances shouldn't pay for any damages caused by "unreasonable" behaviour. yet, 95% of accidents happen because of unreasonable behaviour. sometimes I stumble because I put my foot on a hole in the pavement my peripheral vision didn't pick up. Clearly it's unreasonable to not double-check pavement when there could be holes. with that kind of reasoning, it's a blank check to insurance companies to refuse coverage. also, it cannot be expected from every traveler to read the fine print of insurance policies, because I'd argue only about 70%-80% of travelers can read, and only 40-50% can understand what's written. therefore, I think governments should regulate, in cooperation with the insurance industry, the creation of one or several "standard travel insurance" policies, where subscribers would know exactly what to expect from in terms of coverage.

proof again that "travel insurances" are in dire need of government regulation

if a travel insurance excludes cover for this kind of accident, then it shouldn't be allowed to be sold.

it's not because they are more numerous to be wrong that they are necessarily right ...

I guess it's not always straightforward to prove. But yes, I already heard about "farangs" winning court cases against women who lied to them. Winning the court case however, doesn't always mean they get their money back, most of the time it will already have been spent/transferred, and in case of real estate, they had to certify the money came from the woman, so...

News Summary: Australian teen died on Koh Tao, we won't tell you how. Family needs money for repatriation. ... yes, it's pretty obvious that a big part all of the story is missing, I wonder why Thai authorities don't say anything more, or why the "Thaiger" wasn't able to slip a thousand or a couple to a police officer or an emergency worker to get the story.

lying is a crime when the lie causes material, financial or reputational damages to others.

does wifey earn a commission in these shops ?

you might want to read what the mother posted on public media

only if the hand is on its own.