2 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

I'm well aware, that is the case around the whole world. However, if you've ever been inside a Kindergarten you will see children screaming, running everywhere, making a lot of noise. There is no 100% control of 4 year olds anywhere. It's impossible.

 

Parents do take children to appropriate facilities, but sometimes they may want to go see a movie. If the child then becomes restless and makes noise that's just part of life isn't it?

Would it not be selfish to allow an unruly child to spoil the entertainment of theatre or cinema audience rather than take the child outside?

5 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

first check definition of “selfish”, i.e. lack of consideration for others, focused substantially on oneself. “why” ? human default evolutionary survival instinct. requires “unselfish” co-operation override, a weaker human trait…….oddly without co-operation ( polar opposite of selfish) human society could not exist…..so paradox is by being cooperative for survival is actually a lesser form of selfish………

Very true. And actually with selfishness it's the same as with freedoms, people's competing selfishness will often affect or harm other people's selfishness. That's when the courts come in and usually the decision is in favour of the selfish interest that favours the greater good, though not always.

1 minute ago, 473geo said:

Would it not be selfish to allow an unruly child to spoil the entertainment of theatre or cinema audience rather than take the child outside?

Well, you have to consider the individual facts of the case against the general principle. The general principle is that children benefit society and as future taxpayers are valuable. It can be taken for granted that most parents do not want their own children to disturb a movie in a cinema, they do not start the children off to behave that way intentionally. Thirdly, they have no 100% control over a 4 year old child, so can not be expected to control the child fully.

 

However, it is a matter of degrees, obviously if the child makes such a loud and prolongued spectacle that enjoyment of the movie is impossible for everyone and the film would effectively be ruined for all parties, then yes, the parents would be selfish if they do not take the child outside. Most parents would do that in such circumstances. However, some leeway is to be granted.

23 hours ago, Will B Good said:

Playing loud music, smoking in non-smoking areas, talking loudly in public, disobeying simple rules for the common good......I find many people are totally inconsiderate of others.

 

The most frustrating ones are the people who defend the above and say it is their right to do what they want to do.....the very definition of selfishness.

 

The other day I saw a foreigner smoking inside a Thai eatery and sitting there for more than 1 hour almost everyday. 

 

Kidding! Well kinda-sorta...

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

You know what I consider to be a selfish person? One with children (or dogs) who do not behave, and let them run around and terrorize the neighborhood, a movie theatre, a restaurant, or anyone around them. And when you say something to them, they reply with something inane like "they are four year old children. How am I supposed to control them, or keep them quiet?"

 

My response? So, who is the parent, and who is the child, in this equation? Gets them every time. Food for thought for lousy parents with rowdy kids. 

Yes woeful parents. Should need a licence to parent like you do car.

Control the population-

IQ test to be a parent. If failed abortion.

 

1 hour ago, Tanomazu said:

I'm well aware, that is the case around the whole world. However, if you've ever been inside a Kindergarten you will see children screaming, running everywhere, making a lot of noise. There is no 100% control of 4 year olds anywhere. It's impossible.

 

Parents do take children to appropriate facilities, but sometimes they may want to go see a movie. If the child then becomes restless and makes noise that's just part of life isn't it?

You want to go to a movie hire babysitter….can’t afford a sitter…you can’t afford to go out! Your children are your responsibility…not the responsibility of those around you and it’s “not easy”!

ps: I have four sons…they weren’t perfect but they were good kids and we were always there to make sure they didn’t spoil someone else’s dinner ???? 

They're all four good men now and there for their kids too….

3 hours ago, ronjomtien said:

https://www.facebook.com/183359395133735/posts/2263609933775327/?sfnsn=mo

You guys are a bit selfish , how about the people that don't use fakebook ?? 

4 minutes ago, Kanada said:

You want to go to a movie hire babysitter….can’t afford a sitter…you can’t afford to go out! Your children are your responsibility…not the responsibility of those around you and it’s “not easy”!

ps: I have four sons…they weren’t perfect but they were good kids and we were always there to make sure they didn’t spoil someone else’s dinner ???? 

They're all four good men now and there for their kids too….

Why would one hire a babysitter if one goes to a movie to see a Tom and Jerry movie? You go to the movie for the kid in the first place. If they're at home with the babysitter they can't watch the movie, can they?

 

I'm well aware whose responsibility children are and I never said they are the "responsibility" of the public.  However when children make noise generally the public has to suck it up. Children are the greater good, and parents take it upon themselves to produce the future doctors and taxpayers so single people can go to hospital and drive on the roads.

 

That's why the law allows children to make noise. Try and sue about it. You will lose. Every time.

1 hour ago, EricTh said:

 

The other day I saw a foreigner smoking inside a Thai eatery and sitting there for more than 1 hour almost everyday. 

 

Maybe the eatery was his and since no dine in was alowed he was smoking in his own place without disturbing anyone ????

Just now, Nanaplaza666 said:

Maybe the eatery was his and since no dine in was alowed he was smoking in his own place without disturbing anyone ????

 

No, the eatery was owned by a Thai person. Sometimes, I dine there.

 

Me first is Thailand. 

7 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Why would one hire a babysitter if one goes to a movie to see a Tom and Jerry movie? You go to the movie for the kid in the first place. If they're at home with the babysitter they can't watch the movie, can they?

 

I'm well aware whose responsibility children are and I never said they are the "responsibility" of the public.  However when children make noise generally the public has to suck it up. Children are the greater good, and parents take it upon themselves to produce the future doctors and taxpayers so single people can go to hospital and drive on the roads.

 

That's why the law allows children to make noise. Try and sue about it. You will lose. Every time.

Who said kids flicks?

14 minutes ago, Nanaplaza666 said:

You guys are a bit selfish , how about the people that don't use fakebook ?? 

True cant open link

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Who said kids flicks?

I did. Just now. That's where you read the reference. I thought my name at the top would give that away.

Just now, Tanomazu said:

I did. Just now. That's where you read the reference. I thought my name at the top would give that away.

The other guy didnt. You quoted him.

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

The other guy didnt. You quoted him.

That's correct, but he was referring to a post I had made about a movie. The movie I had in mind was Tom and Jerry.

 

 

Just now, Tanomazu said:

That's correct, but he was referring to a post I had made about a movie. The movie I had in mind was Tom and Jerry.

 

 

So we should be mind readers 555

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

So we should be mind readers 555

No. No need. Since I had written above that I referred to a Tom and Jerry movie.

 

Which is where you read it.

 

I hope this helps.

1 minute ago, Tanomazu said:

No. No need. Since I had written above that I referred to a Tom and Jerry movie.

 

Which is where you read it.

 

I hope this helps.

Yes after the event 555

7 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Yes after the event 555

I hope that didn't confuse you too much. I wouldn't want to be selfish on a thread like this.

Just now, Tanomazu said:

I hope that didn't confuse you too much. I wouldn't want to be selfish on a thread like this.

Not at all. I can predict the lotto a day later 555

You don't have to, nobody has to predict anything here.

2 hours ago, Tanomazu said:

Parents do take children to appropriate facilities, but sometimes they may want to go see a movie. If the child then becomes restless and makes noise that's just part of life isn't it?

No, you take them home. That's what I've done with mine and because they've lost out on a trip to a restaurant and a day at the beach in my case, they've thought twice on future occasions, and a single warning is all it takes.

2 hours ago, Tarteso said:

72 mate, 72… 

 

9 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

69 virgins

I also heard it was 72...or 144 that have only been shagged once or twice.

7 minutes ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

 

I also heard it was 72...or 144 that have only been shagged once or twice.

3 is enough

3 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Very subjective... 

Being kind is subjective?

On 8/30/2021 at 7:59 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

That book is selfish

On 8/30/2021 at 2:59 PM, Sparktrader said:

Be kind

Tip people

Give compliments

Drive safe

Help people

Be kind   -   for who .

Tip people -  i'm tired of tipping thieves and liars and cheats

Give compliments  -   what to a stupid 7-11 cashier who can't ad up 2 + 2 without a calculator

Drive safe -    with these road maniacs'

Help people -   and get stabbed or shot in the process