BAF

interesting Japanese ruling. so what makes Japan a 1st world country according to BAF? according to BAF, Japan is a 1st world country because they have shown that they are able to "mix" their culture with enough "westerness". puhlease.

When I told you that you can clean your ass with the 3 HDI's socio-economic criteria and that you have to look at the complex of hundreds of different socio-political indicators to begin to understand what distinguishes a NIC from a 1st world country YOU picked up the area of the women's rights (and you have been sounding like a d@mn feminist activist right until the moment I threw in your face the reality that it's exactly the other way around in regard to Italy and South Korea and then these "issues" have suddenly become "imagined measures of superiority"...).

So, following this approach of the women's rights perspective, go research and study (I have provided you the sources) the history of the changes that Japan has been seeing in this area...

The concept and the practice of women's equality and women's rights have originated in the West and are being assimilated by the Japan society under pressures that largely come from outside their own culture ie the West and "its" (Western founded, Western inspired, Western supported and largely Western led) istitutions and organizations.

And exactly like this is something which has had a huge impact on the real life of millions of Japanese significantly changing them for the better (provided equality is a good thing for you), other Western inspired changes have had an impact on other aspects of the Japanese society, other Western inspired changes on the Japanese economic life and other Western inspired changes on the Japanese political life.

While I could mention thousands of such changes in Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Singapore, I am hard pressed to think of Japan inspired changes that have had significant impact, and have actually led to big changes in, our social, economic and political life and costumes.

I am hard pressed to think of South Korean inspired changes that have had significant impact, and have actually led to big changes in, our social, economic and political life and costumes.

I am hard pressed to think of Thai inspired changes that have had significant impact, and have actually led to big changes in, our social, economic and political life and costumes.

I am hard pressed to think of Singaporean inspired changes that have had significant impact, and have actually led to big changes in, our social, economic and political life and costumes.

BAF, you have pointed to some issues raised by DAW pertaining to women's rights in S Korea as if they are the defining difference in the argument so far.

Since you aren't a lower income Korean woman I guess you can afford the luxury to regard these "issues" as secondary details but, thedude, I seem to remember that until a few posts ago these very same "issues" were so important, to you, to make you prefer South Korea over Italy (two countries you have, admittedly, never set foot in) just because of the edge that you think South Korea had in this very area.

Are these the only issues dividing S Korea from the 1st world?

No, this is merely the one you chose yourself to bring on when I was introducing to you the socio-political differences between the two countries.

What other social-political issues separate S Korea from the 1st world?

BAF to steveromagnino, post #132 "For a start you could look in the area of the human rights (as I was hinting), from the protection granted by the law to the minorities to the rights granted to foreigners, and the political maturity of a country where the first civilian head of state (after the last military backed dictator) in a long time has been elected in december of 1992 under a brand new, finally democratic constitution..."

Are you asking me to do again the work for you like I have been dragged to do in the case of the women's rights?

Sorry thedude, I am not here to impart you a free education with my free time, especially given the vastness of the matter (which you clearly do not realize).

At what point will an eastern NIC country be deemed western enough to assume 1st world status?

When they will be the ones helping and not the ones helped? When they will be the ones pressing others on "issues" like the women's rights and not the ones pressed? When they will be the ones leading reforms, modernizations and advancement in the international institutions and organizations and not the ones following or being dragged about?

Do you think there is a particular international organization or "easy" and "easy to find" steveromagnino's link/stat/website which will announce the world "hey, from today on South Korea is officially a 1st world country"?

Do you think this is a children's play we are talking about?

Countries are continually "examined" (and "rated") by a plethora of international bodies, institutions and organizations for the most diverse purposes like research, study, compare, aid and cooperate.

For example, for the specific subject you raised (women's rights) I have just pointed one of them to you (the most authoritative in this particular area, the one whose reports, conclusions and recommendations are received and followed up on by the examined countries' governments themselves, if they are amongst the signers of the CEDAW -and BTW South Korea is-)

You have not answered this, and i suspect you don't have the answer because it all sounds terribly subjective to me so far.

Yes, I and the United Nations...

You have rejected what seems to be fairly acceptable measures suggested by Steve (which cover more than just women's rights) because those measures fail to prove your point, but you offer no standard measure yourself. You know very well that you can pretent to hold your position as long as you do not agree on a standard meansure.

What are you babbling about?

The WFE's "first ever study that attempts to quantify the size of the gender gap in 58 countries" in which China scores better than Switzerland?

The 3-criteria HDI based on life expectancy, TWO education indicators and GDP per capita which can't tell us nothing about "details" like the women's rights or the freedom of press and speech?

Or the OECD which according to steveromagnino is an exclusive club of fully developed first world countries while all that it is in reality is merely one of the countless organizations for the economic cooperation and (mutual) development with members like Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary?

These are your "fairly acceptable measures"??

I'd venture that gender equality in Japan is also an issue by western standards but why have they made the grade? What was the difference there? How different are they really compared to South Korea? Maybe the truth is they have become so economically important that the hypocrasy of denial was just too obvious for other less developed 1st world countries?

You don't have to VENTURE, I have given you the address of the place where you can research and study what's the actual situation of the country.

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/index.html

Are you here just to waste my time or do you think that the task is above you and you are then waiting for steveromagnino and one of his misread, misunderstood and completely out of context " fairly acceptable measures" to show us that THE authority on the matter is talking rubbish?

What disturbs me about your position is that you think western culture and social standards are what makes them superior to eastern countries, and that eastern countries have to somehow change and adapt and live up to these western standards before they are deemed to be 1st world, otherwise, they are forever in NIC purgatory. [...] sorry for not being PC but you are a cultural chauvanist.

This kind of stuff is part of what I have been studying in a past life and whenever I get into this kind of discussion I usually get banned because most people can't stand honest and solidly argued truths

Which culture the values and principles at the base of the UN Division for the Advancement of Women and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women stem from?

South Korea? Thailand? Saudi Arabia?

Which countries are actively pressing the others (and them themselves) to uphold and put into practice the principle of women's equality and women's rights?

South Korea? Thailand? Saudi Arabia?

Which culture has produced the "Universal" Declaration of the Human Rights?

South Korea? Thailand? Saudi Arabia?

Sorry for not being "PC" but you are an ignorant blind man.

nevermind that many of these eastern countries make countries like italy look absolutely backward.

Nevermind that you haven't been able to give me examples.

i have friends from south korea, singapore, hong kong, taiwan who would like to visit europe but would never want to live there.

And let me guess, they have never set foot here, right?

Do we see a pattern?

why? show them how equal you treat women, how much maternity leave they get paid by the state, how few hours they have to work, how fairly treated should they end up in court. do you think they will be impressed? people i know from these countries do not feel the least bit inferior to old european so called "1st world" cultures, in fact they would be downright amused to read your feeble attempt to hang on to your imagined measures of superiority.

Oh... I assure you, I don't have any problem believing that they would be "downright amused" by concepts like women's rights and women's equality.

Ah, and the fact that you call them "imagined measures of superiority"... Haven't you called me a "cultural chauvinist"? You look a lot like a male chauvinist to me.

P.S. Are there, amongst your South Korean, Singaporean, Cantonese and Taiwanese friends, many lower income females..?

1- after your researches (the UN websites, Wikipedia etc) have you verified the correspondence between the expressions "third world country" and "developing country"? YES [] NO []

NO (if your question is are they the same thing) (of course I found that there is correspondence mentioning both terms).

This answer is the perfect paradigm of your way to discuss: they are not the same thing but "of course" you found that there is correspondence between these expressions...

Crystal clear.

Furthermore, since you insist on refusing to argue in a logical and consequential way (replying point by point) which may actually lead us to some sort of conclusion, the rest of your post (and the following others) is just the umpteenth repetition of the same old arguments to which I have already TWICE or THRICE replied. You haven't offered any kind of counter-argument, you just keep repeating them.

What's the point in keeping copying&pasting myself and the posts in which I gave my answers if you will keep on making the exact same points in your next milk shake post?

BAF's interpretation of the 1st to 3rd (or 4th) world is stupid on so many levels,

It's amusing seeing how bold you manage to remain after having just made a tit of yourself mantaining, until a few posts ago, how superior South Korea is to Italy in the area of the women's rights

Well, don't worry, I will address both of your last couple of posts later when I have the time.

Point by point, as always.

Get a degree in one of the 'hard' sciences.

Who cares about all the semantics - 2nd world, 3rd world etc.

And you know what? I actually agree with you.

After having lived extensively abroad (the US and SEA) I am now back in Italy getting a degree in a sanitaryan profession which is what will allow me to permanently move back to the USA or any other of the countries that interest me (Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

Life in old socialist Europe is boring while living in the US was under certain aspects even more exciting than Cambo...

I know from Americans living here that they find living in Europe very fascinating so it's probably just a question of "exotic is exciting".

Well we all know the empirical standards and benchmarks that determine where / if said nation is emerging or not.

It's all based on their toilets.

The 1st world countries would be all the "Latin" countries (Italy, France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Latin America) plus (recently) Japan then, since we are the ones using bidet in our toilets. All the rest of you just wipe hard their asses with a piece of toilet paper, if that

And BTW, in Italian "analyst" is "analista" and "analysis" is "analisi". Try to guess whether the Italian comes from the English or the English comes from the Italian...

Neither is true from a linguistic point of view.

The original word is Latin, which is not the same as Italian, even though Italian clearly derives from Latin whereas English is a primarily Germanic language with extremely strong influences from Latin, mainly via French.

Can you explain to me where the Latin originated, which population spoke it, who brought the Latin to France and who have been speaking Latin in Britain for almost half a millenium? Thanks.

Hint: the French is a "lingua Romanza" (probably translated in English as "Roman language", from "Roma") and the group of "lingue Romanze" ("Roman languages") is part of the "lingue Italiche" ("Italic languages", from "Italia", "Italy") which comprises among others the Latin (spoken in what is today's Lazio), the Osco (spoken in today's Toscana) the Umbro (spoken in today's Umbria) and other dead Italian dialects. The Italic languages are part of the Indoeuropean languages which comprises among others Celtic languages, Germanic languages etc

Other lingue Romanze are the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Provencal, the Catalan, the Romanian etc

The Italian is one of the original Latin dialects (the one spoken in Firenze, "chosen" over the others for its particular literary prestige, just think about Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio...), the French (and the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Provencal, the Catalan, the Romanian etc) is derived from the Latin.

For all the talk here about this I would love to see what an average Thai would say.

I think they would have a bemused look and think how the crazy Farang loves to "phoot maak" and then just get on with their lives not caring either way.

The OP is correct, it doesn't matter.

To think you spend all that time and money at university and this is the result.

The result is that those who, after 160 posts, are still unable to comprehend and answer the simple OP's question are those who haven't spent time and money at university.

Like the "average Thai" you are talking about.

According to the World Economic Forum (I know I know, amatuerish searching on the net for information, but what the hel_l, I have just completed a kick butt analysis of the Phuket property market for which I am going to get well paid for my late night, now I can actually surf the net briefly ;-) you can rank women's equality on this basis:

Let's see, to compare Italy's and South Korea's women's rights you have thought the greatest idea to be to look at the World Economic Forum and specifically at their "first ever study that attempts to quantify the size of the “gender gap” in 58 countries. " (copied word by word from their website).

The fact that in their "first ever attempt" countries like Latvia and Lithuania score better than countries like France and the US, countries like Uruguay and China score better than countries like Switzerland and Israel, countries like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe score better than countries like Italy and Greece and that even Pakistan scores better than Turkey hasn't, of course, raised any red flag with you...

Maybe a look at the Human Rights Division of the United Nations, and specifically at its Section on the Status of Women (which, dating back to 1946 is hardly at their "first ever study" on the matter that you are trying to discuss) may shed some much needed light.

I know you like, as you said, "easy" and "easy to find" formulas and I've tried to tell you over and over that the description of complex realities requires complex definitions. Trying to take the easiest and shortest way like pretending to acquire a knowledge in socio-political matters and on countries you have never set foot in through the reading of a couple of internet links and a couple of misread, misunderstood and (in this context) meaningless stats like the HDI and the "first ever study" of the WEF just leads you to the result that China scores better than Switzerland in the area of the women's rights...

So, I'm sorry but I can't point to you a single "easy" and "easy to find" link where you can find a country and its "score" or ranking position. You, thedude and the others who think that South Korea or Singapore are not only 1st world, but even "more 1st world" than true 1st world countries like, for example, Italy, have to go, by yourselves, through the DAW's reports and the CEDAW's conclusions therein reported. (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/index.html)

DAW = Division for the Advancement of Women

CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

You lack the professional cultural background to correctly interpret those data and relativize their meaning to the local realities nonetheless you will discover interesting things like the fact that what western countries are usually asked by the UN is essentially to establish or accentuate the so called "positive discriminations" (which are still themselves discriminations) in order to force, through the introdution of mandatory quotas, the presence of women in politics and in the higher managerial positions of the economy (the main subject of your WEF's "first ever study").

There isn't much else to ask from countries where the women have long been "liberated" and where it's mainly their choice to dedicate their life to their careers (like men have always done, relatively speaking) or to their families and where the feminists are left to fight over their husbands' surnames...

What the DAW questions in countries like South Korea or Singapore or Thailand is "somewhat" different and regards "slightly" more important matters, considering as an example South Korea, the country which scores better among those three, I have randomly picked:

- South Korea

. "The most serious social and cultural obstacle to improving the status of women in Korea is the sex role stereotypes of the patriarchal society. Gender roles are learned in childhood, and the gap in gender identity is reflected in a dichotomy of male and female roles in the family and society. The result has been social, economic, legal, political, and cultural discrimination: disadvantages in employment, promotion, and wages; discriminatory provisions still remaining in the Family Law," - from the introduction to the Fifth Periodic Report of the Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

. The sex ratio of newborns shows that female infants have unequal opportunities to be born. The normal sex ratio at birth is of 105-106 males per 100 females, in South Korea it can reach the 204%.

Such practices are stronger in the traditionally more conservative regions and also in the case of the lastborn. Such imbalance in sex ratio is due to gender discriminatory social attitudes and practices. The government has made efforts to address the attitudes of male preference.

Recognizing the gravity of the problem of the growing imbalance in sex ratio, the Seoul Metropolitan City started a campaign in 1999 to celebrate the birth of the female infant by planting a tree but detection and punishment is difficult, since these practices take place covertly in hospitals.

. The Republic of Korea has maintained the family head succession system, whereby the family head is succeeded based on the paternal lineage (Civil Code, Articles 980-995). The family head system has far-reaching implications on marriage and family relations, and has stood in the way of realizing gender equality in many aspects of society.

. When there is no son and only daughter(s), the family cannot be succeeded for generations unless a man is taken into marriage and his son is made to succeed the family.

. A divorced woman can either return to the family registry of her parents or establish a new family registry under her name. But she cannot register her child on her registry. The child has to remain on the husband’s family registry, even when the mother is designated as legal custodian and guardian of the child and lives with the child. Even when the divorce was brought about because the husband abused the child and/or did not carry out his role as father and therefore the mother was awarded custody of the child, the child cannot be transferred to the family registry of the mother.

. Children born out of wedlock to an unmarried mother can be registered on her family registry only when they are not recognized by the biological father. If so recognized, they are registered on the father’s family registry regardless of what the mother wants. The child is registered in the family registry of the father through the unilateral act of the father, even if the mother has no intention of marrying or maintaining contact with him, and he is not engaged in rearing the child at all.

The husband can register on the family registry a child born to him by a woman other than his wife, regardless of what the wife wants. It is not so rare that the wife is not even aware that the husband has registered a child that she did not give birth to. Meanwhile, when the wife wants to register a child born out of wedlock with another man, she must get consent not only from the husband but also from the head of the family that the child biologically belongs to.

. a male may get married when he reaches 18 years of age, and a female 16 years of age.

. A movement to use the surnames of both parents started in 1997 among women’s organizations, and the number of women using both parents’ surnames is increasing. But there is not enough public support or research back-up to turn the movement into law at this point. (thedude, are you reading?)

. gender-restrictive recruitment and advertisements is allowed

. inheritance laws still favors males

. "violence against women is still pervasive in Korean society." in the CEDAW's concluding comments, General Assembly - Official Records - Fifty-third session

. among the CEDAW's areas of concerns: "Insufficient social protection of female workers in the private sector; Situation of women in agriculture, especially of elderly women and in rural areas;"

. among the CEDAW's recommendations: "Provision of equal social protection for women in both the public and private sectors including extension of paid maternity leave to the private sector to bridge the gap between the working conditions in these sectors;" (steveromagnino, are you reading? it seems that the Korean 3 months at 100% isn't better than the Italian 5 months at 80% + 13th and 14th wages + normal holidays allowances + normal maturation of seniority "points" for the private sector and the 1 year leave at 80% + 13th and 14th wages + normal holidays allowances + normal maturation of seniority "points" for the public sector)

. until 2000 female offspring couldn't continue to benefit from family pension after marriage.

. until 1999 family leave for wedding or funeral granted to civil servants depended on the paternal or maternal side of the relation with the defunct.

. the first explicit reference ever to the prohibition of gender discrimination was made in the law in 1999 with a reference in a revised Penal Administration Law provision

. until December 2000, married daughters or granddaughters couldn't receive the assistance provided by the AHTCDSI and the ACACDSS unless there were no other remaining family members and there was no son in the father’s family.

. until 2004 married women didn't have the right to choose their own nationality, a wife automatically and involuntarily acquired Korean nationality upon acquisition of the same nationality by her husband and married women were prohibited from obtaining naturalization without their husbands also being naturalized.

. until 2004 a child could obtain Korean nationality only if the father was a Korean citizen at the time of the child’s birth

. until 2001 pregnant women and women within one year of childbirth as well as children under 18 years of age could be assigned to physically or ethically hazardous or dangerous work; women over 18 years of age who were not pregnant could be assigned to work that was detrimental to their reproductive health; worker consent wasn't required when a woman over 18 years of age was assigned to work at night (10:00 pm - 6:00 am) and on holidays; assigning pregnant women and

children under 18 years of age to work at night or on holidays was allowed; women weren't

entitled to 90-day paid maternity leave (it was 60 days paid + 30 days unpaid)

. the concepts of indirect discrimination and sexual harassment at work were introduced in the Equal Employment Act in 1999

This is my last OT post in this thread, I haven't time to waste with uneducated children who pretend to maintain that a country in which females are so unimportant, disregarded and unwanted that they are still being killed by their parents in public hospitals can aspire to compare on the human rights area to Italy or any other western country which has founded, has inspired, is supporting and is leading the action of the very UN Division for the Advancement of Women and UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

A last warning to steveromagnino and thedude, have you ever declared your love to a woman (who knows you and who is used to see you everyday) and kissed her on the cheek? If she is an Italian lass, you kiss her in Italy and she is not pleased with it you will get 8 months of jail and a fine of the equivalent of € 1000 plus the expenses of the judgement. Have you ever jokingly made sexual allusions to one of your female coworkers? If she is an Italian lass, you do it in Italy and she is not pleased with it you will get 3 months of jail and a fine of the equivalent of € 800 plus the expenses of the judgement.

On the other hand if all you want to do is just killing the female baby your wife is carrying in her belly, South Korea is the place to go, you will find there plenty of accommodating hospitals and helpful hospital staffs...

As for the HDI from the UNDP, I mentioned earlier that it is one alternative measure that compares other forms of development. It is a supplement and not a replacement of other financial and socio-political measures.

I do quite like the HDI, nice formula, easy and well explained. The official classifications are far richer in detail though, for sure.

I thought we have already ascertained that the HDI classification is based on just three (3) criteria and is just an extremely partial socio-economic approach.

The HDI is based on just:

1- life expectancy

2- two education indicators

3- GDP per capita

You came up with it in our discussion on what differentiate a 1st world country from a NIC, I have told you to look for socio-political indicators and you came back with GDP per capita...

The HD Index is completely USELESS in the context we were discussing, if you were replying point by point you wouldn't have missed my replies on this HDI issue: what does the HDI tell us about a country's women's rights? what does the HDI tell us about a country's stance in the area of the human rights, from the protection granted by the law to the minorities to the rights granted to foreigners?

OK, I would respond point by point, but it makes more sense to summarise my issues with your posts into 3 areas:

No, the only thing which makes sense is replying point by point because that would force you to stay close to the topic, close to the fine details being discussed and close to the line of reasoning we are following.

Let's cut through the crap:

1- after your researches (the UN websites, Wikipedia etc) have you verified the correspondence between the expressions "third world country" and "developing country"? YES [] NO []

2- do you agree that Thailand is still a "developing country"? YES [] NO []

3- how do you answer to this thread's topic "Is Thailand a 3rd world country still"? YES [] NO []

Your milk shake of words is just designed to avoid giving a direct, clear, easy, simple, honest answer to these questions.

Well, in reality you have already convolutely replied YES to all of those questions, you are just refusing to state so in a CLEAR manner. Come on, you are almost there.

What makes you such a fcking expert? What gives you the right to say I am wrong? What have you studied,what have you read, who told you this information? Yes, I know the differnence between culture and nation, and they are two separate things, what dumba$$ would agrue with that? It's clear you have something to prove.

Yes, that you are an ignorant "dumba$$" (quotation marks added to zzap's benefit) who pretend others to believe the same absurdities that his evident blind obsession for everything Thai (and possibly his hate for the West) makes him to believe

There are many like you on these Thai related m.boards, just look at this very thread.

I have been studying and researching all it takes to get a degree in "Socio-Political Science" and my studies tell me that you can't backdate a culture to the oldest element that said culture have absorbed and/or reelaborated from other older cultures. This is basic stuff.

As for cultures and nations, a Thai culture can't precede a Thai nation i.e. the Thais themselves.

A nation can exist without a state but you can't define a culture as of a population that don't yet exist.

Yes! The only point I wanted to make is that Thai culture is older than the Thai nation. Sorry again.

You are saying that since nowadays the majority of the Thais believe in Buddhism and since Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) is believed to have been born in the year 543 before Christ the "Thai culture" was "born" in the year 543 b.C. as well.

It's clear you don't realize how ludicrous all of this really is.

And I won't even mention the statement that "Thai culture is older than the Thai nation" which is another logical nonsense (provided you know what "culture" and "nation" mean).

BAF, is Gramsci popular in Italian universities?

Less and less, maybe there is hope for socialist Europe.

So how consistent and accurate is the use of "2nd world" today?

This is why I have been ignoring your last few posts, you keep asking questions which have already been answered and this means that you either don't understand the answers or you are just plain trolling.

BAF, post #13 "[...] the 2nd world was made up of the communist countries and is today made up of those same countries but with some of the now ex-communist countries sliding outside the "2nd world" category towards the 3rd world and some towards the 1st (the latter mostly impeded by socio-political considerations rather than by economical ones)."

BTW, you might be shocked to know that there are countries, around, which still call themselves and still are "communist"...

The ones that are abandoning the command economy are not called "2nd world" anymore.

You should have stopped at the UN quote you dug up which states what I have been saying all along. I (and, I suspect, the UN and Wikipedia as well) am not interested in your amateurish attempt of a geo-political analisys based on an extemporary web searched knowledge when I have actually been studying this matter in a university course.

He hasn't "dug up" the UN quote, you pointed to it.

steveromagnino, post #83 "according to the UN

'Definition of:

developed, developing countries

There is no established convention for the designation of “developed” and “developing” countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania and Europe are considered “developed” regions or areas.[/i]"

As I said, just like steveromagnino you seem to be totally unable to follow a topic discussed online in a message board.

Ohh, you've been to a university course? Why can't you even spell "analyst", then?

Because I am Italian and I have been attending an Italian university course in an Italian university?

Pointing to spelling errors is not only against the netiquette but is also especially pathetic when is directed to non-native English speakers and is usually the last resort of argument-less people.

And BTW, in Italian "analyst" is "analista" and "analysis" is "analisi". Try to guess whether the Italian comes from the English or the English comes from the Italian...

It doesn't take an university education to use quotation marks to indicate the use of someone else's words (which you haven't in the post concerned). It appears you are the one lacking certain basic comprehension and debating skills.

I was replying to kasi (who, I suppose, can remember and recognize his own words which he had just used) and just above the sentence in which I was using his expression said expression was even quoted in full.

Putting quotation marks, besides being unnecessary and "overkill", would have ruined the intended effect which was to show how funny seeing Los Angeles and Paris being called "third world sh!tholes" looks (like kasi stated).

You and steveromagnino are the only ones I know of who are having troubles comprehending this. Coincidence?

And, I might add, this has made it extremely tedious and time-consuming for some to debate with you - without any perceivable agreeable outcome.

So stop doing it.

Point by point replies would have helped the discussion but it seems some folk is incapable of doing that.

We should know what he exactly said before we start critizing the poor guy. Can anybody get a news article that states what he exactly said.

That won't help because it wont be printed what he actually said.

And people are still unconvinced, in other threads, that Thailand is still a 3rd world country...

What we have (or had, 15 years ago) is an outdated numerical system, which used numbers that didn't indicate hierarchy, didn't say the third world was any worse than the second, since we now know that many Soviet countries were undeveloped and poor, didn't say anything about development or industrialization, just geopolitical alignment.

Yes and the hierarchy indicated by the ordinal numbers in the classification related to those blocs' weight and importance on the geopolitical scene of the time.

What we need to do is to stop using the old numerical system(s) to describe something different altogether. Stage of development or industrialization shouldn't use numbers.

Plain absurd. Describe to me, for examle, the percentage of the urbanized population of Malaysia and Thailand without using numbers.

You will probably end up saying something like "urbanizing population", "less urbanized population", "least urbanized population", "most urbanized population" and "over-urbanized population"

Using just words all you can do is (non scientifically and non accurately) comparing 2 different realities. You can't effectively compare and categorize a complex multi-reality and, above all, you can't misure anything. So you will never know how much industrialized Malaysia and Thailand are.

Just because it's easy to count to four or even five, doesn't mean we should oversimplify and only use numbers. Words are good, too - and far more descriptive.

Those numbers aren't "descriptions", they are labels for categories very complexly defined.

In answer to a question, I would describe the UK, USA and similar countries as 'Over-developed.'

And how do you differentiate (if you do) between Thailand and Malaysia? How do you call them?

And how do you differentiate (if you do) between Thailand and Cambodia? How do you call them?

And how do you differentiate (if you do) between the USA and Poland? How do you call them?

And how do you differentiate (if you do) between the USA and Russia? How do you call them?

So far the only two categories you have introduced are "developing" (Thailand and ... ?) and "over-developed" (the USA, the UK and "similar countries", but what are these similar countries??).

This whole thing is too complex to describe in a word or three.

In fact, people here think these (1st world, "developing countries" etc) are descriptions but they all are merely labels referring to very complex descriptions.

A big part of the confusion introduced by the PC expressions lays right here, in the fact that they pretend to be (or better said, to look) "descriptive" in a couple of words!!

Even the rural rice farmers have TV and motorcycles and mobile phones (well, many of them probably do), and even rice farmers are literate (well, many of them are). But you've got manufacturing plants, you've got computerized billboard companies in Chiang Mai, you've got chain restaurants in Hua Hin, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a Burger King in Khon Kaen. Not that those measure 'development,' exactly.

Even in some dirt poor fourth world countries you will be able to find some sandwiches, TVs, motorbikes, electronic billboards and in a couple of them even oil industries but since you know that a couple of electronic billboards don't make a country "developed" why are we talking about them..?

Would you pass the rice, please? Thanks.

Here it is but I think I will go for maccheroni in ragù alla bolognese, thanks

BAF

FOr a living, I actually have worked as an analyst in the past, classifying things without the benefits of all the dross available on countries. It isn't hard. You use statistics a lot to come up with groups, and usually define the differences between them using measures of statistical significance....

The usual steps, are coming up with some classifiers, coming up with a way to measure data and then putting objects into the groups. There are some stats to test significance of difference and so on, but basically it is very simple. Children do the same thing putting piles of things together that are red, green and so on.

So a well experienced and skilled analist who keeps asking for directions to do a simple search of other peoples' analitic work and who ends up using (and defending as a valid and reputable source) Wikipedia..!

To do this for countries is not hard, and I merely picked ONE way of doing it, since you said that you are not willing to share the ones you are using, on the basis they are so complex, and I should go find out myself.

Your task wasn't to pick up a method to reclassify the countries but to find out if it's true that the classification I used was the one internationally used.

You should have stopped at the UN quote you dug up which states what I have been saying all along. I (and, I suspect, the UN and Wikipedia as well) am not interested in your amateurish attempt of a geo-political analisys based on an extemporary web searched knowledge when I have actually been studying this matter in a university course.

If you can point me to a better place than the UN (which is a site that our network cannot upload for the most part) then I'll look at that.

Why, isn't the UN statement you have already found enough? (well, I guess it isn't since it proves my point and not yours...)

Anyway, pick any one of the countless international organizations which study, compare, categorize and rank the various socio-political realities around this world, any one of the countless international organizations which work in the field of economic cooperation and socio-economical-political development and tell me Thailand is defined something else than a developing country.

As for the equivalence between "developing country" and third world it's your Wikipedia itself to say "Terms such as Global South, developing countries, least developed countries and the Majority World have become more popular in many circles, due to the potentially offensive and out of date connoations of describing a 'Third' world."

All your sources, links, tables and classifications say that

1- Thailand is a developing country

2- developing country = third world

How long are you going to drag this on before replying YES to this thread's topic????

[As far as your 'strawman argument' re. the wikipedia, unless you are going to refute something I have quoted, then it is unimportant of the source right,

I have already done so posting the definition of NICs (totally coherent with MINE) given by them and referring you to the definitions given by them to 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th world which are all to some degree in contradiction. Another example is the fact that "least developed countries" are called "third world" in a definiton and correctly called 4th world in another.

since most of the bits I posted were referenced back to UN and others and since you did not raise issues, I'll assume what I posted was ok then....]

This is mere data analysis. I did much the same thing when I was fresh out of university, I've had the chance to do bits and pieces of this sort of work for organisations associated with groups like the UN (admittedly in a financial only component); I've done it for academic research and it is not hard. Of course what to do with the results is another matter, but we aren't concerning ourselves with that here.

Haven't I already pointed out to you that the result of your "accurate" research is based on just 3 criteria and that those criteria are only of socio-economical nature?

What does the HDI tell us about, for example, a country's women's rights????

And BTW I assume you might not be familiar with yacht design... Compared to yacht design, this classifying stuff is a proverbial walk in the park.

Seeing how you got lost in the park I wonder how you score in yacht design...

I have NEVER stated that Thailand is not a developing country. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? I have stated that people do not use the term 3rd world anymore

NO, you have questioned the equivalence between the expressions "third world country" and "developing country".

If what you say were true you would have replied to the thread starter:

- Is Thailand a 3rd world country still?

- Yes it is but I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the expression "3rd world country" is outdated, now "developing" is used.

Oops! I have just rewritten MY initial reply in this thread...

- it is antiquated and confusing and the definition is not clear - so could we use some other term. You have responded that 3rd world is fine,

I responded that the equivalent PC expressions are confusing.

And this thread proves my point.

and have now introduced 4 + 1,

NOW????

but continue to only offer commentary that I should look things up myself if I don't believe your system.

And what's wrong in this?

Your claim as to why people use terms which are far more intuitive and use far more widespread you attribute to 'PC' and in fact blame the confusion on this. er WHAT?

??? You seem to imply that I deem these PC expressions confusing merely because of their PC nature as if "being PC" always equals to "being confusing".

I blame the confusion on the fact that these PC expressions are extremely inconsistent (developed/most developed/developing/least developed etc) and do a very poor job of substituting the original cold era expressions and the new ones added by the analists community (4th world and NICs).

At least as far as this thread goes, you are the one responsible for the confusion!

Reread the whole thread, as far as this thread goes here it's full of ignorant children dreaming hilarious things up (I am not just referring to the in topic ones like "Thailand is a 2nd world country", "Thailand isn't a developing country" etc) and spouting them on the net challenging others to do the hard work to research and prove their BS wrong.

I am the fool who is wasting his time doing so

Please refer to what I wrote, for your reference as to why I object to Thailand being referred to as 3rd world; mostly because people don't understand what 3rd world means,

So what? People don't understand what "developing countries" or "countries on the verge of the industrialization" or "emerging nations" exactly mean too.

...BTW those 3 expressions are ALL PC speak for 3rd world.

most people I know have NEVER heard of 4th world + 1 that you are pulling from somewhere,

"From somewhere"? Even your Wikipedia knows about it!

And what is the fact that "most people I know have NEVER heard of 4th world and NICs" supposed to prove?

and generally it is nice when experts in their fields speak a language others can understand,

Unless the "language others can understand" is just a greater source of confusion...

I stated

'1. Because 3rd world means not part of the west, or the communist band; with regards to backwardness other than to comment mistakenly about Thailand economically and match it alongside Cambodia and Laos as a 3rd world country is not very accurate, and if someone was to do so around me then I would try to explain to them why this might not be the case, and ask for clarification about what they meant by 3rd world, since to me it is no longer a particularly useful concept with the fall of communism. So in answer to your comment, well I object to Thailand being referred to as a 3rd world country with regards to backwardness. That would like saying USA is a licencious country, with regards to the country seeming to have a lot of people with driving licenses'

Once again, "3rd world" has long lost his political-only meaning.

You keep justifying using a system that seems not to be in significant use compared to other definitions (such as NIC, Developing, blah blah blah which you keep having to use so we can understand what YOU mean by the worlds and the +1 you are using, when you could just switch to the language that most of the world seems to be using).

I use it for clarity and the thread starter and many other posters also used it (so much for your "most of the world seems to be using").

I also explained the equivalences.

Many have used "my" terminology incorrectly, many have used the PC terminology incorrectly, many don't know the correlations between the two of them.

So as you see the PC terminology which has been added to the original (very famous) one has just added to the confusion.

Language develops. For instance... your own language. YOU start by saying:

'The 1st world is made up of all of the Western countries plus Japan and the 2nd world was made up of the communist countries and is today made up of those same countries but with some of the now ex-communist countries sliding outside the "2nd world" category towards the 3rd world and some towards the 1st (the latter mostly impeded by socio-political considerations rather than by economical ones).'

In your first post you make NO mention of the +1, and have conveniently added this to handle Korea (and presumably Singapore) when pulled up on it, the NIC, and we also have added a 4th world as well somewhere along the way so now we are having 5 groups....

'Malaysia can be considered, today, a NIC, Thailand is a 3rd world country, Laos, Burma and Cambodia are 4th world countries.'

So Malaysia and Korea are NICs, ok, fair enough, but why not mention them at the beginning!

"also have added a 4th world as well somewhere along the way"????

It is like all the rest in my FIRST post!

The fact that I haven't talked about NICs in the first post is because (like I wrote and repeated ad nauseam) NICs are technically third world countries.

While 3rd world countries are socio-erconomical-politically defined, NIC is just a socio-economic definition meant to distinguish amongst the 3rd world countries which have ("newly") reached industrial maturity (i.e. their economy isn't agricultural based anymore).

It took 6 pages before you responded to an accurate list of definitions (agreed not definitions, but at least now I can look at UN documents etc, and know what they are talking about, since they use the 'PC' words that everyone except you seems to also now prefer)

1st world = "most developed countries", "developed countries"

2nd world = communist and, in part (see my previous posts), ex-communist countries

3rd world = "developing countries", "less developed countries"

4th world = "least developed countries"

NIC = "newly industrialized countries" which are technically 3rd world countries (hence my "4+1" remark in previous posts) that have economically developed to, or almost to, 1st world level but which still have to socially and/or politically catch up

Haven't you already mentioned this? And haven't I already replied to you:

I have "finally" offered that "Rosetta Stone" because I realized you seem to need something like:

3rd world = "developing countries", "less developed countries"

to understand the meaning of the more "structured" and "complex" sentence:

3rd world countries like Thailand are also called "developing countries" (or "less developed countries", whichever you like better).

That was (and has been repeated all along the thread) IN MY FIRST POST.

Do you want examples and quotes also for 1st world, 2nd world, 4th world and NICs?

All the while, you continue to make comments like on page 6, 'It's not MY terminology, it's the correct terminology. I've simply pointed this out to you.' ' I have simply pointed out to you what the universally accepted, well known and well studied reality is.'

The problem is, I get the impression it IS your terminology, and it is not a universally accepted well known well studied reality.

Where do you get this impression?

By the today's temples of PCness like the UN by chance? Or by the work of some well known geo-political analist or community?

I totally agree Thailand is not developed, therefore by YOUR own definition above Thailand can never be 2nd world, so stop trying to push that one on us, we get it.

Haven't you already mentioned this TWICE? And haven't I already replied to you TWICE that I was replying to those who stated that Thailand was a 2nd world country or a 1st and challenged them to find a link to prove so.

What and where am I "pushing" on you??? Quote me.

I would debate that using terminology like 'third world' is somewhat pointless, because people don't always understand what that means. Therefore, I said right at the beginning, as have others, that Thailand is a developing country. People get that.

I would have understood this reasoning which is fine for me, the problem is that I fail to find it "right at the beginning" of this thread. Can you please show me the post "right at the beginning" of this thread where you have stated that?

You've totally reinforced my belief that 'third world' is a poor choice of term because everyone takes something different away from its meaning. You can stick to your guns and keep using it, but you are in a minority. Regarding your other choice of word 'Negro', good luck with that in South Central LA, I am sure the 'Negroes' in that area will surely enjoy your choice of words.

It's not "my choice of words", it was an example which "strangely" you haven't understood.

People are today (without reason, which was the point I was making) offended by it hence I don't use it.

I look at a country which is, in my opinion (to use your words) a 'third world sh!thole' like Italy

MY WORDS???? Is zzap contagious?

How can you pretend to understand a topic discussed online in a message board if you are totally unable to follow and comprehend quotes and replies??

(and you've levelled similar criticisms at other cities, so my opinion is no different to yours)and I would argue that Korea has surpassed Italy in many areas of development. Which bit of the socio, economic or political component of Korea do you consider to be so far behind Italy? Ah...police and women's rights... I recall now. So.... can you provide some decent indicators I can look at to compare the two countries, since it is obvious that Korea is almost on par with Italy and is going to overtake Italy economically shortly, and your contention is that Korea is stopped from being 'first world' (by your own definition, and not by the classification cold war period definitions of others) due to lack of socio development right?

For a start you could look in the area of the human rights (as I was hinting), from the protection granted by the law to the minorities to the rights granted to foreigners, and the political maturity of a country where the first civilian head of state (after the last military backed dictator) in a long time has been elected in december of 1992 under a brand new, finally democratic constitution...

I am sure that you being such a formidable analist (heck, you were used to do it for a living) you won't have any problem showing me how higher than Italy South Korea scores...

'This kind of stuff is part of what I have been studying in a past life and whenever I get into this kind of discussion I usually get banned because most people can't stand honest and solidly argued truths '

If you believe that having a debate using terminology you don't and refuse to define clearly, with a constantly changing set of categories is an honest and solidly argued truth...well clearly we have quite different views on what constitutes a debate.

We are having a debate?

What about replying point by point to my posts like I do with yours? It would show how wrong, confused and argument-less you are. It would also help us to reach some sort of conclusion instead of keep going in circles and mixing up arguments, posts and replies...

When i studied Economics ans Economic history at University it always went like this

[...]

NIC - is the term often used in Thailand pre-97 crash

"Used" as in "we dream to become a NIC" or "we are a NIC"???

Thailand was before the 97 crash and is still now a full fledged 3rd world agricultural based society with 80% of its population living in rural communities. Compare this with Malaysia (a NIC) and its 60% of urbanized population.

I think whether or not one views Thailand as "Third World" is a question of ontology. To my understanding, 1st, 2nd and 3rd World were categories of nation-states created out of Cold War neo-realist theory. The first two massively generalized countries into the "Free World" and "The Soviets" while the Third World was Non-Aligned.

Correct.

Since the Cold War is technically long over, the terminology wouldn't seem to apply anymore. However it is still quite prevelent. I think it has to do with the fact that many people still think in these terms.

It has to do with the fact that the all-political original definition has been substituted by a much more complex socio-economical-political one.

The need to categorize complex variables into over-simplified homogonizations.

"Developed/developing/least developed countries" is a much more over-simplified homogonization.

I had mentioned earlier about notions of history as well. The question "is Thailand still 3rd World?" is one of teleology. It assumes that development is a linnear progression, with a fixed goal at the end... usually one established by "Western" standards. Once again, whether or not you buy in to this depends on your ontological starting point.

Nope, it's exactly the other way around!

It's using the PC equivalent expressions that assumes that the "developing countries" have to reach a fixed goal at the end (the "developed country" status).

Categorizing the status of development of each country into 4+1 categories merely means taking a virtual picture of the present situation to effectively research, study, compare, aid and cooperate.

The fact that these categories have an ordinal number in them means that the desired goal is to be in the first BUT it doesn't indicate the achievement of the "final result" since countries in the first world are still socio-economical-politically developing and between different developing countries you are always going to find differences and you will always have to research, study and compare them (to aid and cooperate) so categories will always be in place.

I suggest it is connecting the term '3rd world' to the word 'sh!thole' which makes it derogatory in this example.

So you have got it, at last.

Try: "developing world sh!thole", "country at the edge of industrialisation sh!thole" would anyone use this to convey a derogatory meaning?

So what? The point isn't to establish which expression sounds better when accosted to the term "sh!thole" to convey a derogatory message.

Now, put on your reading glasses and go through the last few posts again:

3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,...

Does the use of the term '3rd world' here bear any relevance to any classification, or is the intent and actual use purely derogatory?

kasi was stating that Los Angeles and Paris were the true third world instead of Thailand, whether he meant it literally or had the sole intent of being derogatory to these places you have, of course, to ask him. Not me.

Now, since we all know that Thailand, and not Los Angeles, is third world, and since we all know that being third world means being less developed saying that Los Angeles is less developed than Thailand in this instance shows, of course, an insulting intention.

The point, zzap, is that saying that Thailand is a less developed country while it is indeed a less developed country can't have in any way an implied insulting connotation.

In fact, to "make it clear" kasi has had to add something like "sh!thole".

Any chance of getting an answer to what I have posted?

3,141592

Age of a culture (most of them totally legendary, like Rome and Maya, or Siam) or a religion doesn't make it better, just because it's older.

I agree on that fact that older doesn't necessarily means better, just two other points:

1- there is nothing legendary in the fact that the foundation of the first "Thai" Kingdom is actually dated around the XV century (as the Thais themselves say)

2- there is nothing legendary in the fact that Roma did exist in the year 753 before Christ, the legendary bit is Romolo and Remo sucking a wolf's tit and the fact that the Roman myths fixed the fondation of Roma at that precise year. The actual year of foundation isn't of course known but is placed a couple of centuries BEFORE the traditional one.

Thailand is a developing country, not a numerable country. It is industrialized, but not fully so, because it is (present continuous tense used as a present participle) a developing country.

So, how do you call a "fully industrialized country"?

And, do you differentiate between the stage of development of, for example, the US and Thailand? And how do you call the US?

I suggest it is connecting the term '3rd world' to the word 'sh!thole' which makes it derogatory in this example.

So you have got it, at last.

Try: "developing world sh!thole", "country at the edge of industrialisation sh!thole" would anyone use this to convey a derogatory meaning?

So what? The point isn't to establish which expression sounds better when accosted to the term "sh!thole" to convey a derogatory message.

Now, put on your reading glasses and go through the last few posts again:

3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,...

Does the use of the term '3rd world' here bear any relevance to any classification, or is the intent and actual use purely derogatory?

kasi was stating that Los Angeles and Paris were the true third world instead of Thailand, whether he meant it literally or had the sole intent of being derogatory to these places you have, of course, to ask him. Not me.

Now, since we all know that Thailand, and not Los Angeles, is third world, and since we all know that being third world means being less developed saying that Los Angeles is less developed than Thailand in this instance shows, of course, an insulting intention.

The point, zzap, is that saying that Thailand is a less developed country while it is indeed a less developed country can't have in any way an implied insulting connotation.

In fact, to "make it clear" kasi has had to add something like "sh!thole".

Kasi didn't say "3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,..." , you did.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you avoid to address the point made, again?

kasi, post #86 "I think anyone who can classify Thailand as third world sh!thole is wrong. If that's what they want they can move. There are plenty of places in the world which qualify: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few."

Why doesn't it surprise me that you are unable to scroll or search within the thread you are reading and even posting?

And where is the answer to: where does the derogatory connotation (which kasi gives to the category "third world") come from if not from the term "sh!tholes"??

I think anyone who can classify Thailand as third world sh!thole is wrong. If that's what they want they can move. There are plenty of places in the world which qualify: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few.

Definitely, third world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few, have much to learn from Bangkok. I hope one day they manage to catch up.

Thank you, BAF, for posting an example how the term "3rd world" is used in a regoratory manner with no relevance to any classification system.

Why it doesn't surprise me that you haven't understood that I was just repeating kasi's own wording?

And BTW, where does the derogatory connotation (which kasi gives to the category "third world") come from if not from the term "sh!tholes"??

BAF, i'm not the one writing or reporting on those "crappy" articles.

Who has reported them here then?

The anonymous crap you refer to was published by reputable news agencies and broadcast around the world. A simple google search of the news will generate pages of international news reports on italian court decisions, many of which made the news precisely because of their controversial nature. There is really no point trying to translate italian court documents and explain the circumstances to me because you can't change the court decision that was made in the end,

I am, in fact, reporting the court decisions that were made taken directly from the CENTRO ELETTRONICO DI DOCUMENTAZIONE della Corte Suprema di Cassazione (http://www.giustizia.it/cassazione/ced_cass_index.htm) which, roughly, stands for the "Data Processing Centre and Archive of the Supreme Court of Cassation".

and you can't change the way those court decisions were interpreted by the international press,

You mean a couple of reference-less internet articles which you haven't even linked?

or even the women's movement in italy itself.

The women's movement is fighting the fact that in the case of a couple legally married and where the father is alive at the time of their children's birth their offspring can't take the mother's surname ALONE (but they can still take their mother's surname followed by their father's surname or their father's surname followed by their mother's surname).

The worthless crap you have posted says that "children can't take their mother's last name as a surname unless the father is unknown."

I have showed you that is simply NOT TRUE.

A father can be known but the couple is not legally married and the children can take their mother's surname, their father's surname, their father's surname followed by their mother's surname and their mother's surname followed by their father's surname.

A father can be known but he is dead at the time of the birth of the children and the children can take their mother's surname, their father's surname, their father's surname followed by their mother's surname and their mother's surname followed by their father's surname.

A father can be known, alive and legally married and the children, reached the age of 18, can take their mother's surname, their father's surname, their father's surname followed by their mother's surname and their mother's surname followed by their father's surname.

All of the above doesn't come from some shitty mass-media "customs&society" (that's how they are called in Italian journos' jargon) articles designed to shock and "sell" but from the official website of the Italian Ministry of Justice (www.giustizia.it).

I'm sorry to say that reading reports like this over the years have not left me with a sparkling impression of the italian judicial system.

Are you STILL referring to the ones that I have just shown you as totally inaccurate???

You asked me a hypothetical question on whether i'd prefer to be handled by the italian or south korean judicial system when it came to a serious crime. You were trying to use the Italian judicial system as an example to show the difference between a 1st world country and that of a NIC like south korea, allegedly not deserving of 1st world status because of "social-political" reasons.

I know that both countries have well established judicial systems, both countries have orderly and modern penal facilities (although i'm not sure if i prefer to be in an italian goal). I reasoned however that the idea of getting a fair trial lies not so much on whether i will get off lightly if convicted, but more so on whether i believe consistent and knowable standards will be applied in arriving at the judgement. This is especially important if i am innocent in the first place. This is where the Italy argument fell apart in my assessment. I chose south korea not only because i think it is better, i chose south korea also because i had a dubious impression of the alternative.

my impression is that south korea is a modern, clean, efficient, forward looking democratic country. the country has a free press, a low crime rate, extremely high educational standards, an ancient eastern culture with important values like respect, honour, integrity. corrupt politicians and businessmen have been consistently exposed, prosecuted and put in goal in south korea. you don't see beggers and touts and homeless people sleeping at train stations in south korea, not sure i can say the same for italy.

It was YOU to ask me to compare two places you know nothing about and you then went on to explain to me why you prefer a country (South Korea) where you have, admittedly, never set foot over another country (Italy) where not only you have never set foot but you have also a negative bias on based on some "news reports" which I have just proved wrong!

So while I was talking about the stage of socio-economical-political development of the two countries as defined by hundreds of international recognized indicators you were just talking about your personal impressions.

BTW, we now know that your personal impressions about Italy were based on untrue "news reports" but what about your personal impressions about South Korea? You haven't even bothered to provide me links to show the South Korean approach to the same matters you raised about Italy yet you "have the impression" that they do better... What's their approach and what are their rulings?

so please tell me, how is south korea socially-politically lacking when compared to 1st world countries like italy?

I assumed you knew the two countries (which YOU have chosen) and I have tried in the simplest of way. You are looking at the result.

History lesson 101

From that link "Sukhothai (13th - 15th Century)

The state that is still regarded by Thai historical tradition as the "first Thai kingdom" was Sukhothai. "

Have you read your own link before giving history lessons and writing that "Thailand is a 2500 year old Kingdom"?

Nice try, doubt anyone will read it.

They just wanna be right.

Have YOU read it??

...or are you one of those who "just wanna be right"?

Yes, he is right, check the year number used in Thailand.

You mean the number based on the Buddha's birth 543 years before Christ?

I guess you forgot about China?

China has mostly always been a regional self-contained reality until its very recent slow rise on the international scene. Roma has ruled and directly influenced most of the then known world (involving 3 continents) like no one has ever done. Ever heard of the expression "Roma caput mundi"?