Teacher head batted by bar owner!

[Guest lazyphil]

<<I was recently in the UK and found the place dull, uniform and conformist>>

 

Once I got over the exoticness of LOS I find/found it just like you describe the UK. I could not live in bkk as a trade off for here, a sleepy Thai town by a beach in our UK winter (November 6th to April) months I could do but this is another thread!

[FIGJAM]

khwaimaisabai said:

Hi figjam,

I think you are getting very wound up about making a point that most would accept

Hi,

I am in fact discussing it with those who don't...

 

You are going on to use the fact that there is a lot of violence that is largely unseen by farangs to prove that Thailand is an undesirable place to live, work and raise families.

No, my whole point in this regard is that more than the amount of violence itself, it's the attitude towards it, the way the matter is viewed and handled in Thai society that IMO contributes to make the place unfit to raise children.

 

As others have said, there are trade offs and that makes it a matter of individual choice - not a black and white/right or wrong answer.

In fact, re-read the thread and you will find that I am one of them.

But while the choice is certainly individual, the fact that your family and loved ones are much better defended in western societies than in 3rd world countries' ones isn't much open for debate...

 

I was recently in the UK and found the place dull, uniform and conformist. For all its faults, I would choose Bangkok any day.

Khwai

For cheap nights out for boozing and whoring, I would as well (and not only Bangkok but pretty much anywhere in Thailand).

 

Frankly, a similar lifestyle appeals to me A LOT, but I wouldn't choose Thailand for anything else.

[Guest]

The whole discussion about comparative statistics started when Suadum said that by any metric Thailand is more violent than the US. All I did was provide a metric that proved that this comment was demonstrably wrong. It only takes one, and it can't be disputed that one was supplied.

 

The argument is also a demonstrably silly when you consider the 2000+ extra-judicial and still unexplained killings (murder) that occurred in a scant three months immediately after the government first announced a war on drugs or what happened in Tak Bai. Indeed, the argument is so silly that I can't see the point of debating this issue further. Oh, and incidentally, today's Bangkok Post, "In Brief" (p. 4), contains a report from Thailand's Office of Narcotics Control Board about a 20% increase in new addicts. So much for winning the war on drugs.

 

But the real issue here is whether you think a bar owner is justified in using lethal force against a customer when there is a dispute over a bar bill. That really is what this whole debate is about.

 

Because it is impossible to reasonably defend an attack that nearly killed someone in this context, those who originally took and tried to defend the attack have responded by either (a) making spurious claims about what a peaceful society Thailand is (think: 2,000+ extrajudicial killings) or ( contriving additional facts - which don't appear in any report about the attack - based on their supposed personal experiences with farangs in Bangkok's nightlife venues.

 

If you pause for a moment and give it some calm thought, the credibility of those who tried to defend the use of lethal force here is undermined when they employ these silly arguments. It is all rather pathetic, and those who tried to justify the violence should be ashamed of themselves. The whole discussion here says more about the psychology of some of our members than it does about the probity of what happened on Sukhumvit.

[Guest lazyphil]

The Brazilian getting shot by the police in the tube has caused some big waves. 2000 killings on the streets by the police is totally and utterly unthinkable here!

[Old Hippie]

"...2000 killings on the streets by the police is totally and utterly unthinkable here! ..."

 

Not sure how many the cops here (USA) shoot a year...I know a lot of suspects "fall down the stairs" as well as "commit suicide" in custody... probably more than 2000 a year...

[Old Hippie]

"...2000 killings on the streets by the police is totally and utterly unthinkable here! ..."

 

Not sure how many the cops here (USA) shoot a year...I know a lot of suspects "fall down the stairs" as well as "commit suicide" in custody... probably more than 2000 a year...

 

Regarding all the stats, I wonder what the numbers are concerning violence against tourists? for the USA, Vs. Thailand...?

[Guest]

ou are more than 8 times LESS likely to be a victim of crime in LoS than in the US. LoS is safer. QED. I rest my case.

 

or the reported crimes are 8 times less than actually happen

 

EDIT: Now I know some of you will winge that "Waaah, those numbers can't be right, I just *know* it!" Well, the CIA World Factbook is the benchmark in all types of country data.

 

arent these ( cia) the same folks that told Pres. Bush (and the world) there were definitly wmd in iraq?

[jxxxl]

Gadfly1 said:

The whole discussion about comparative statistics started when Suadum said that by any metric Thailand is more violent than the US. All I did was provide a metric that proved that this comment was demonstrably wrong. It only takes one, and it can't be disputed that one was supplied.

 

The argument is also a demonstrably silly when you consider the 2000+ extra-judicial and still unexplained killings (murder) that occurred in a scant three months immediately after the government first announced a war on drugs or what happened in Tak Bai. Indeed, the argument is so silly that I can't see the point of debating this issue further. Oh, and incidentally, today's Bangkok Post, "In Brief" (p. 4), contains a report from Thailand's Office of Narcotics Control Board about a 20% increase in new addicts. So much for winning the war on drugs.

 

But the real issue here is whether you think a bar owner is justified in using lethal force against a customer when there is a dispute over a bar bill. That really is what this whole debate is about.

 

Because it is impossible to reasonably defend an attack that nearly killed someone in this context, those who originally took and tried to defend the attack have responded by either (a) making spurious claims about what a peaceful society Thailand is (think: 2,000+ extrajudicial killings) or ( contriving additional facts - which don't appear in any report about the attack - based on their supposed personal experiences with farangs in Bangkok's nightlife venues.

 

If you pause for a moment and give it some calm thought, the credibility of those who tried to defend the use of lethal force here is undermined when they employ these silly arguments. It is all rather pathetic, and those who tried to justify the violence should be ashamed of themselves. The whole discussion here says more about the psychology of some of our members than it does about the probity of what happened on Sukhumvit.

 

It really doesn't help to compare Thailand to the US in this discussion. Thai's killing in cold blood over something as small as a bottle of wiskey or damage to their car is commplace. Fortunately I still find this abhorrent.

 

LOS, I think not.

[Zorro]

Exactly right Gadfly.

 

And as much as like Thailand I would still prefer to live in Sydney where I have a nice apartment on Coogee Beach.

 

Now that is a truly great place to live.

 

http://www.sydneymate.com/travel_sydney_australia/Bays_Beaches/Coogee/bondi_beach_3.htm

[MaiLuk]

This is @ no one in particular.

 

If you are at the bottom of the food chain, whether in LOS or in the US, you are a more likely target for violence.

 

The LAPD is notorious for breaking heads, ask the homeboys living in the ghetto. While your at it ask them how many murders and drive by shootings they committed over the years. Does anyone watch the occassional riots that erupt in the US? They happen ALOT more often than realized. In most major cities there are small riots several times a year that only the local media cover.

 

 

The tak bai killings it should be noted were committed by the military in what amounts to a civil war zone. Before someone says it, i'm not justifying the killings. The point is that its not a good example to support the argument that LOS is a violent place. If we include military killings in the mix we know which military does the most of that though they do it in far away places but its still US citizens commiting some serious damage abroad.

 

And a comparison with taksin's drug war. In its efforts to stamp out drugs, US civilians engage in limited military style operations in central america. They also engage in huge operations that involve arming and training militias to combat drug trafficking insurgencies down there. The idea is we give the "good" guys guns and they go into the villages burn farms and kill people to stop the trafficking.

 

Not a whole lot different from the thais going after the traffickers, except that the thais do not hesitate to blast them on thai soil. Was the thai war on drugs a fiasco with innocents murdered? Yes. But doing what the US does in other countries, no due process in either case.

 

So did the guy on suk suffer a vicious and unjustified assault? Depends on the facts. According to the OP, the girl claimed that the farang was breaking bottles. If true, then WTF? It cannot be said he was the victim of random violence. He took a risk by acting in that manner. The risk is that someone might yell at him, or slap him, hit him with a club, stab him, or shoot him in the head. IMO when someone fucks around like that then he has no reason to complain when shit happens.

 

The bars on the asoke sidewalk are not big operations. They have what, three or four stools each? So comparing the response of a thai guy who invested the only money he had in the world into buying some liquor and a cheap makeshift bar and some stools, on the one hand, with a bar owner in the west is a poor comparison. In any event, bars in the west have bouncers to handle these types and any resistance to these bouncers can certainly result in a beating. And the cops will usually side with the sober bouncer when they arrive.

 

I consider LOS to be a violent place. I consider the US to be a violent place. In both, the violence is mostly perpetrated by and against people who are involved in the shit, or people who are unfortunate enough to live at the bottom of the food chain. In the BKK farang areas the most likely violence you will encounter is from another farang. Unless we define such things as throwing soup at farangs as attempted assault in which case OH's encounters with TGs might single handedly skew the stats out there.