4 ms·

Culturally, there is a huge difference between American nuclear families and Thai extended families. As was mentioned in TFA, when someone in Bangkok is unable

by grugq 10y ago

Culturally, there is a huge difference between American nuclear families and Thai extended families. As was mentioned in TFA, when someone in Bangkok is unable to support themselves they fall back on their extended family as a support network. This can mean moving from Bangkok to a rural village where they are given work doing farm labor... it can mean they are given a "job" for room and board by a family member with a business in Bangkok, etc. etc. There is no social safety net to speak of, but the extended family model provides a functionally equivalent version. Again, this was explicitly stated in the article itself. Your insinuation that there is forced institutionalisation because the Thais don't respect "human rights" is, quite frankly, racist.

bsder 10y ago
> As was mentioned in TFA, when someone in Bangkok is unable to support themselves they fall back on their extended family as a support network. Why do you magically assume that the same is not true in the US? Why do you magically assume that the homeless actually have living relatives or families? And what happens if the person refuses to move or is too far gone? What then? Who makes that call? The fact that you are quite so glib about making such an assessment, quantifying it as a "solution" (Have you ever taken care of somebody with severe Alzheimers? That's a 24/7 job.), and imposing it upon both the individual and their family shows a distinct lack of understanding. > Your insinuation that there is forced institutionalisation because the Thais don't respect "human rights" is, quite frankly, racist. You will have to do better than an ad hominem attack to excuse the human rights situation in Thailand, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Thailand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Thailand And, an insinuation about institutionalization is probably the most charitable characterization given that many of the homeless also have substance abuse problems. Allow me to be particularly uncharitable: I suspect that many of the urban homeless simply "disappear" if the Thai police don't find them useful for shaking somebody down.
- aminok 10y ago
  Human rights is subjectively defined. You and your fellow social democrats define it as forcing a drug addict into treatment. You use terms like "human rights" to stigmatize those who don't share your beliefs. A sensible person would define throwing a productive person into prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade (i.e. refusing to comply with income tax law) as a human rights violation before they would define compulsory treatment as one. You and your fellow social democrats have absolutely no problem imposing authoritarian measures to force people to forfeit their private property to pay for the programs you want.

by grugq 10y ago

bsder 10y ago

> As was mentioned in TFA, when someone in Bangkok is unable to support themselves they fall back on their extended family as a support network. Why do you magically assume that the same is not true in the US? Why do you magically assume that the homeless actually have living relatives or families? And what happens if the person refuses to move or is too far gone? What then? Who makes that call? The fact that you are quite so glib about making such an assessment, quantifying it as a "solution" (Have you ever taken care of somebody with severe Alzheimers? That's a 24/7 job.), and imposing it upon both the individual and their family shows a distinct lack of understanding. > Your insinuation that there is forced institutionalisation because the Thais don't respect "human rights" is, quite frankly, racist. You will have to do better than an ad hominem attack to excuse the human rights situation in Thailand, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Thailand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Thailand And, an insinuation about institutionalization is probably the most charitable characterization given that many of the homeless also have substance abuse problems. Allow me to be particularly uncharitable: I suspect that many of the urban homeless simply "disappear" if the Thai police don't find them useful for shaking somebody down.

aminok 10y ago
Human rights is subjectively defined. You and your fellow social democrats define it as forcing a drug addict into treatment. You use terms like "human rights" to stigmatize those who don't share your beliefs. A sensible person would define throwing a productive person into prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade (i.e. refusing to comply with income tax law) as a human rights violation before they would define compulsory treatment as one. You and your fellow social democrats have absolutely no problem imposing authoritarian measures to force people to forfeit their private property to pay for the programs you want.