Hello everyone. Over the years, i've noticed patterns or types of comments on TV that in my opinion are just wrong for one reason or another. Because they come round again and again like utopian pronouncements from Thai government ministers promising to fix this and that before the end of the year...i thought it would be worth identifying the kinds of posts i'm referring to. They involve points about Logic, Meaning, and Accurate Description (or the lack of it).

1) A member makes a negative comment about some aspect of Thailand, Thai behaviour, Thai people and so on. This is typically followed by an onslaught of voices either suggesting, insisting or requiring the maker of the negative comment to basically, 'Shut up and leave if you don't bloody like it here'. Now, there is no logical pathway between making a criticism of X, and necessarily having to LEAVE X as a direct result of making the criticism. That would be both ridiculous and highly damaging to human society and knowledge in general. Apart from anything else - the divorce-courts around the world would grind to a halt with overwork by the end of the week ! In other words, there is no logical equation whatsoever that goes 'Criticise X necessarily entails leaving X'.

2) Time and again, criticisms of Thailand or Thai culture provokes the reaction : 'Look - we are GUESTS here - so put up with whatever is annoying you and behave like a nice guest would'. Well, don't know how to stop laughing about this one - since when, or where, did the word 'Guest' accurately describe the experiences of Ex-pats living in Thailand (or ex-pats anywhere else for that matter). We are NOT 'guests'; - we are tolerated, paying customers, who have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to remain in LoS. We are 'aliens' allowed to remain as long as the ATM keeps spewing out the readies. I can see only one way in which the use of the word 'guest' here has some sense - that like guests anywhere we should behave, and respect the indigenous people and culture. But that is 'behaving AS IF we are guests', not being actual guests. There's a difference.

3) How often - how many thousands of times - have we seen some problem with Thailand accounted for by describing it as 'THIRD WORLD'. Ha - all i can say is, people using that label have never been near a Third World country if they think it fits Thailand. By reasons of infrastructure, GDP, income per capita, education-system (in spite of its faults), level of nutrition, ownership of assets such as property and vehicles....on and on. To use the label 'Third World' about Thailand is just cognitively lazy, thoughtless, and probably spiteful.

4) Right - here's a very old chestnut - and again it involves simple Logic, or the failure to stick to it. It's the old contest between LOVE and CASH. A guy gets trouble - sometimes i admit, lots of trouble - from his Thai girlfriend, wife, partner - about Money, or the lack of it going her or her family's way. I know this is highly difficult to handle - a lot of us have been there, me included. So after the gory details are aired, the TV experts will opine : 'If she really loves you, she will still love you even without the supply of cash'...sometimes they suggest 'Just cut off the cash completely (or cut drastically)and see how long she stays around'. I admit that looks extremely practical and even logical, but it's not the latter. This story comes from that style of inherited thinking which is deep in our Western psyches and deep in the structures of our languages. We sometimes call it : Either/Or thinking, or Black/White... it only allows for 2 outcomes - there is an 'excluded middle'...no 'grey area'. But i'm sure that in many of the cases of Thai girl vs Western man over the subject of money, this simple either/or process of thought just doesn't match reality. Let me put it this way : Why wouldn't it be completely reasonable for a Thai girl from a poor background to SIMULTANEOUSLY want to be in love, and be helped financially by the person she's in love with ? And connected to that - why wouldn't it be virtually impossible for her to stay with the loved guy if he cannot supply the funds that really are needed ? (NB : please don't imagine i've forgotten about the straightforward abusive moves to get cash from farang by lying and cheating in that all-too-familiar way.) I feel there is too much rigidity in the thinking of western guys about this thorny topic - the old (classical) forms of thought can be a prison when we are faced with a dilemma - i am not saying that all girls that say they both love you and need cash are telling the whole truth - do i sound that stupid ? :-) - but i am saying that there is NO Logical requirement that a girl that says she badly needs cash (and will have to leave if you cannot or will not give it) - can not be genuinely in love with you - and deeply regret leaving. That's all. It is not a small point in my opinion.

Too

Many

Words....

Could you provide a summary please. Can't be arsed reading all that.

Is the ops post available on kindle?

so can you tell us in your words then how we should behave here, and we will do our best to accomadate you in the future.

I think the topic title is misleading. It should read

"I've just dropped a sh#tload of meth "

someone just returned from myanmar with pocket loads of yabba

Could happen anywhere.

someone just returned from myanmar with pocket loads of yabba

A one line snipe can in no way compete with a well thought-out, reasoned piece of prose.

Had you read all the OP - or read it and understood it - you would understand how trite your post at #5 was. This is not about accommodating the OP it is about his views on logic and reasoning.

Op: Good post.

It does however, leave little to discuss....

I'll try...

Money - Guys sometimes allude to the fact that they have ample funds which often leads to a number of unimaginative comments regarding why they choose to live in Thailand if they can afford to live somewhere else more expensive.

Edited April 25, 201313 yr by richard_smith237

Creative thinking goes a long way sure but it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

You can't blame the Membership really because most of them seem to be one step removed from the grave, have the attention span of a small child and end up having to kow tow their little tirak in order to get their leg over.

TV is their only outlet for venting and logic doesn't come into it really.

someone just returned from myanmar with pocket loads of yabba

A one line snipe can in no way compete with a well thought-out, reasoned piece of prose.

Had you read all the OP - or read it and understood it - you would understand how trite your post at #5 was. This is not about accommodating the OP it is about his views on logic and reasoning.

No, it was a rant.

one, two and four, yes

but not three.

Third world is a cold war term to describe countries neither allied, or enemies of NATO.

NATO allies being first world, Communist Bloc allies being second world.

Switzerland and Austria are officially third world countries.

Edited April 25, 201313 yr by AnotherOneAmerican

Guests in third world countries love to complain too mutt.

Personally, I found the OP interesting & well-reasoned.

Your point #1 drives me nuts, but in America & not in Thailand. I see the "if you don't like it you can leave" in the current American political climate. To wit: So many people are supportive of the invasive security regime undertaken at airports & elsewhere (I'm talking about pre-boarding, not immigration). People will say to the effect: If they want to give me a rectal exam, that's ok as long as it keeps me safe."

Others (like me) find such inspections onerous, intrusive, unnecessary & Constitutionally questionable. When we raise our concerns, we get this "If you don't like it, you don't have to fly" response. As you said so well, "there is no logical pathway between making a criticism of X, and necessarily having to LEAVE X as a direct result of making the criticism." Such lack of intellectual engagement essentially cuts off any further meaningful dialog. It is pervasive on TV.

For sake of brevity, I won't comment on #2-4 just now.

one, two and four, yes

but not three.

Third world is a cold war term to describe countries neither allied, or enemies of NATO.

NATO allies being first world, Communist Bloc allies being second world.

Switzerland and Austria are officially third world countries.

Correct, but the term "third world" is used by many as if to say the people of Thailand are less fortunate than the people of western society, this i'm affriad is completely wrong in my opinion, Thais are brought up with stronger family ties and religious beliefs than most westerners and tend to live everyday life by these rules, most Thais are held back through the need to leave school and work at a very early age to help the family not because education doesn't exist, Thais tend to stay closer to family in villages as oppose to travelling away to earn the extra cash available in other areas or countries.

Another thing to think about for the people who have taken wives and g/f to their home country and then come back to Thailand to live, while your wife/gf was in your country consider how many times she called home to her family or was homesick and then think how long you have been here and how many times you call your family or been homesick.

To Thais family and religion is everything or at least until the farang introduces the financial improvement to their life, then the financial improvement in their and their families life is everything, with a little throw in for Budha too.

Thailand should not be judged a third world country based on poverty, as the OP said look at the property and vehicles being bought in thailand, more new cars sold last year than in many European countries, the shopping malls being built in nearly every city, all the food chains and fashion chains moving into the new built malls, this isn't because Thailand citizens have got no money it is because Thai people now want the better things.

Edited April 25, 201313 yr by Keith67

I don't think some of you have a clue what Third World means.

It's got nothing to do with the wealthy, it's got everything to do with the poor.

I remember the Ethiopian government ordering two containers of whisky from Scotland at the height of the 1984 famine.

What does that tell you? The elite didn't give a toss. It's the same here in Thailand, that busy creating self enrichment schemes and neglecting the health care, education and housing of the poorest people

Next thing you'll be saying is that India isn't Third World cos it's got a space programme.

Oh aye that'll be right enough then.

I don't think some of you have a clue what Third World means.

It's got nothing to do with the wealthy, it's got everything to do with the poor.

I remember the Ethiopian government ordering two containers of whisky from Scotland at the height of the 1984 famine.

What does that tell you? The elite didn't give a toss. It's the same here in Thailand, that busy creating self enrichment schemes and neglecting the health care, education and housing of the poorest people

Next thing you'll be saying is that India isn't Third World cos it's got a space programme.

Oh aye that'll be right enough then.

How does your theory equate to Switzerland and Austria then?

The thought maybe that it's third world based on poverty, but the reality is different.

My !st hand experience of the health care is that it is as good as any in the UK, the UK health system is crumbling, but it won't make the UK third world.

My wife's daughter is in a private school that costs B1,200 per year and speaks as good English as most non-native speakers and is looking tofurther education already at 14yrs of age.

A lady with a disabled daughter 3 doors away from me had the land given to her and the house built by the government.

Where would you get any more or better than that in the UK or Europe.

Didn't the Primeminister of England Tony Blair line his own pockets and then as thing started to fall apart secure himself a well paid job and leave his PM position that he accepted for a 4yr term early?

Edited April 25, 201313 yr by Keith67

I don't think some of you have a clue what Third World means.

It's got nothing to do with the wealthy, it's got everything to do with the poor.

I remember the Ethiopian government ordering two containers of whisky from Scotland at the height of the 1984 famine.

What does that tell you? The elite didn't give a toss. It's the same here in Thailand, that busy creating self enrichment schemes and neglecting the health care, education and housing of the poorest people

Next thing you'll be saying is that India isn't Third World cos it's got a space programme.

Oh aye that'll be right enough then.

How does your theory equate to Switzerland and Austria then?

The thought maybe that it's third world based on poverty, but the reality is different.

My !st hand experience of the health care is that it is as good as any in the UK, the UK health system is crumbling, but it won't make the UK third world.

My wife's daughter is in a private school that costs B1,200 per year and speaks as good English as most non-native speakers and is looking tofurther education already at 14yrs of age.

A lady with a disabled daughter 3 doors away from me had the land given to her and the house built by the government.

Where would you get any more or better than that in the UK or Europe.

Didn't the Primeminister of England Tony Blair line his own pockets and then as thing started to fall apart secure himself a well paid job and leave his PM position that he accepted for a 4yr term early?

Laughable......

It doesn't matter how the terminology came to pass, the context of Third World has now moved on from the Cold War rhetoric.

Your line about Thai healthcare being comparable with the NHS is just surreal. Yes the best private hospitals can stand comparison, but go into the public health service and you will get a shock.

one, two and four, yes

but not three.

Third world is a cold war term to describe countries neither allied, or enemies of NATO.

NATO allies being first world, Communist Bloc allies being second world.

Switzerland and Austria are officially third world countries.

Correct, but the term "third world" is used by many as if to say the people of Thailand are less fortunate than the people of western society, this i'm affriad is completely wrong in my opinion, Thais are brought up with stronger family ties and religious beliefs than most westerners and tend to live everyday life by these rules, most Thais are held back through the need to leave school and work at a very early age to help the family not because education doesn't exist, Thais tend to stay closer to family in villages as oppose to travelling away to earn the extra cash available in other areas or countries.

Another thing to think about for the people who have taken wives and g/f to their home country and then come back to Thailand to live, while your wife/gf was in your country consider how many times she called home to her family or was homesick and then think how long you have been here and how many times you call your family or been homesick.

To Thais family and religion is everything or at least until the farang introduces the financial improvement to their life, then the financial improvement in their and their families life is everything, with a little throw in for Budha too.

Thailand should not be judged a third world country based on poverty, as the OP said look at the property and vehicles being bought in thailand, more new cars sold last year than in many European countries, the shopping malls being built in nearly every city, all the food chains and fashion chains moving into the new built malls, this isn't because Thailand citizens have got no money it is because Thai people now want the better things.

Do you wake up each morning with the sound of the Thai national anthem playing in your head?

Nearly everything is wrong with this post.

Here's my abbreviated opinion.

Thai-Chinese but probably not ethnic non-Chinese Thais do not often have such strong family ties. The family ties that are there are often borne out of necessity as there is no social welfare or similar supporting infrastructure in Thailand. Is that do good - that Thais are 'forced' to be close to their families for financial reasons?

I believe that 1) religious beliefs are for the weak-willed and weak-minded and 2) that the Thai interpretation of Buddhism is a farce with most Thais truly not living lives anywhere near to honouring the major tenets of Buddhism.

Thais don't leave Thailand because 1) many do not truly understand that a world exists outside Thailand, 2) many believe Thailand is truly the greatest country in the world, 3) Thais are out of place and uncomfortable in places where their status in Thailand is not honored. Even educated, 'elite' Thais tend not to stay in other countries (even with better opportunities) because in those other countries their 'elite' FACE is not respected or honored. Particularly countries without FACE (like Western ones) they are uncomfortable.

Are you contending that Farangs introduced the concept of money and material acquisition to Thais and Thailand?

Thailand is not a Third World country because Third World is a term with particular meaning. However, Thailand is very underdeveloped in many of the areas that Westerners find most important (medicine, safety, education, racial matters, attitude towards violence, infrastructure, food safety, politics, etc).

And, yes, Thailand is still a poor country. Perhaps not as poor as some but certainly not in the well-off list just yet.

Edited April 26, 201313 yr by PaullyW

I don't think some of you have a clue what Third World means.

It's got nothing to do with the wealthy, it's got everything to do with the poor.

I remember the Ethiopian government ordering two containers of whisky from Scotland at the height of the 1984 famine.

What does that tell you? The elite didn't give a toss. It's the same here in Thailand, that busy creating self enrichment schemes and neglecting the health care, education and housing of the poorest people

Next thing you'll be saying is that India isn't Third World cos it's got a space programme.

Oh aye that'll be right enough then.

How does your theory equate to Switzerland and Austria then?

The thought maybe that it's third world based on poverty, but the reality is different.

My !st hand experience of the health care is that it is as good as any in the UK, the UK health system is crumbling, but it won't make the UK third world.

My wife's daughter is in a private school that costs B1,200 per year and speaks as good English as most non-native speakers and is looking tofurther education already at 14yrs of age.

A lady with a disabled daughter 3 doors away from me had the land given to her and the house built by the government.

Where would you get any more or better than that in the UK or Europe.

Didn't the Primeminister of England Tony Blair line his own pockets and then as thing started to fall apart secure himself a well paid job and leave his PM position that he accepted for a 4yr term early?

Laughable......

It doesn't matter how the terminology came to pass, the context of Third World has now moved on from the Cold War rhetoric.

Your line about Thai healthcare being comparable with the NHS is just surreal. Yes the best private hospitals can stand comparison, but go into the public health service and you will get a shock.

A Third World country is one of those concepts that is hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

one, two and four, yes

but not three.

Third world is a cold war term to describe countries neither allied, or enemies of NATO.

NATO allies being first world, Communist Bloc allies being second world.

Switzerland and Austria are officially third world countries.

Correct, but the term "third world" is used by many as if to say the people of Thailand are less fortunate than the people of western society, this i'm affriad is completely wrong in my opinion, Thais are brought up with stronger family ties and religious beliefs than most westerners and tend to live everyday life by these rules, most Thais are held back through the need to leave school and work at a very early age to help the family not because education doesn't exist, Thais tend to stay closer to family in villages as oppose to travelling away to earn the extra cash available in other areas or countries.

Another thing to think about for the people who have taken wives and g/f to their home country and then come back to Thailand to live, while your wife/gf was in your country consider how many times she called home to her family or was homesick and then think how long you have been here and how many times you call your family or been homesick.

To Thais family and religion is everything or at least until the farang introduces the financial improvement to their life, then the financial improvement in their and their families life is everything, with a little throw in for Budha too.

Thailand should not be judged a third world country based on poverty, as the OP said look at the property and vehicles being bought in thailand, more new cars sold last year than in many European countries, the shopping malls being built in nearly every city, all the food chains and fashion chains moving into the new built malls, this isn't because Thailand citizens have got no money it is because Thai people now want the better things.

Do you wake up each morning with the sound of the Thai national anthem playing in your head?

Nearly everything is wrong with this post.

Here's my abbreviated opinion.

Thai-Chinese but probably not ethnic non-Chinese Thais do not often have such strong family ties. The family ties that are there are often borne out of necessity as there is no social welfare or similar supporting infrastructure in Thailand. Is that do good - that Thais are 'forced' to be close to their families for financial reasons?

I believe that 1) religious beliefs are for the weak-willed and weak-minded and 2) that the Thai interpretation of Buddhism is a farce with most Thais truly not living lives anywhere near to honouring the major tenets of Buddhism.

Thais don't leave Thailand because 1) many do not truly understand that a world exists outside Thailand, 2) many believe Thailand is truly the greatest country in the world, 3) Thais are out of place and uncomfortable in places where their status in Thailand is not honored. Even educated, 'elite' Thais tend not to stay in other countries (even with better opportunities) because in those other countries their 'elite' FACE is not respected or honored. Particularly countries without FACE (like Western ones) they are uncomfortable.

Are you contending that Farangs introduced the concept of money and material acquisition to Thais and Thailand?

Thailand is not a Third World country because Third World is a term with particular meaning. However, Thailand is very underdeveloped in many of the areas that Westerners find most important (medicine, safety, education, racial matters, attitude towards violence, infrastructure, food safety, politics, etc).

And, yes, Thailand is still a poor country. Perhaps not as poor as some but certainly not in the well-off list just yet.

I am not convinced that Keith has been to Thailand.

I don't think some of you have a clue what Third World means.

It's got nothing to do with the wealthy, it's got everything to do with the poor.

I remember the Ethiopian government ordering two containers of whisky from Scotland at the height of the 1984 famine.

What does that tell you? The elite didn't give a toss. It's the same here in Thailand, that busy creating self enrichment schemes and neglecting the health care, education and housing of the poorest people

Next thing you'll be saying is that India isn't Third World cos it's got a space programme.

Oh aye that'll be right enough then.

Third world has nothing to do with wealth or lack of it.

Cold war, NATO=first, Communist Bloc=second, non-aligned=third world

India is third world because it was neither allied with NATO nor the Communist Bloc.

one, two and four, yes

but not three.

Third world is a cold war term to describe countries neither allied, or enemies of NATO.

NATO allies being first world, Communist Bloc allies being second world.

Switzerland and Austria are officially third world countries.

Such a definition can only come from an american who still thinks they are the elite and who takes wikipedia as truth and who ignores that the world developped in the last 20 years... including the definition of "third world"...

Nowaday's, third world is a definition for developping countries (around 130) who have a deficit in the areas of health, infrastructure, education, politics or social security. And there even is a definition of "fourth world" for the around 40 poorest and lest developped countries in the world who are currently included in the third world definition.

To the OP: Thank you for the well written and well thought through ideas, no matter whether I agree with all or not.

I generally prefer not to respond to topics on forums because of all the dumb, idiotic,and stupid responses that appear. Best to shut up! Recent posts on this thread are typical. Enough to put normal people off starting any topic.

I will make no comment other than to say the Op's post was well thought out and an excellent post whether you agree with the points or not.

Edited April 26, 201313 yr by prakhonchai nick

I don't think some of you have a clue what Third World means.

It's got nothing to do with the wealthy, it's got everything to do with the poor.

I remember the Ethiopian government ordering two containers of whisky from Scotland at the height of the 1984 famine.

What does that tell you? The elite didn't give a toss. It's the same here in Thailand, that busy creating self enrichment schemes and neglecting the health care, education and housing of the poorest people

Next thing you'll be saying is that India isn't Third World cos it's got a space programme.

Oh aye that'll be right enough then.

Disagree, it has everything to do with infrastructure.

If America or Europe was to drop off the deep end economically (which is not unlikely at this point) and unemployment increased, GDP decreased, median wage dropped dramatically, etc would they now be "third world?" I would suspect not.

If they found huge reserves of natural resources and the government decided to share the proceeds equally in Somalia, making every citizen of Somalia rich (by western standards) overnight would Somalia be 1st world overnight as well?

I generally prefer not to respond to topics on forums because of all the dumb, idiotic,and stupid responses that appear. Best to shut up! Recent posts on this thread are typical. Enough to put normal people off starting any topic.

I will make no comment other than to say the Op's post was well thought out and an excellent post whether you agree with the points or not.

umm.... you say you dont respond to topics on forums but you have 1000+ posts

I generally prefer not to respond to topics on forums because of all the dumb, idiotic,and stupid responses that appear. Best to shut up! Recent posts on this thread are typical. Enough to put normal people off starting any topic.

I will make no comment other than to say the Op's post was well thought out and an excellent post whether you agree with the points or not.

umm.... you say you dont respond to topics on forums but you have 1000+ posts

Shhhh....he forgets sometimes.

one, two and four, yes

but not three.

Third world is a cold war term to describe countries neither allied, or enemies of NATO.

NATO allies being first world, Communist Bloc allies being second world.

Switzerland and Austria are officially third world countries.

I have often wondered, is there a second world, and if so, where is it??