5 ms·

> Given that paedo-tourists are effectively given a free pass in Thailand Really necessary to drag that in to the discussion?

by stef25 13y ago

enraged_camel 13y ago
What's a pseudo-tourist? edit: why the downvote? It's a simple question!
- zolbatar 13y ago
  Read it again, it's not PSEUDO...it's PAEDO.
- mbrameld 13y ago
  A pseudo-tourist is your misreading of the word paedo-tourist.
kordless 13y ago
Is it really surprising someone is using an ad hominem argument again?
- rorrr2 13y ago
  That's not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem is "You're an idiot, therefore what you said is incorrect".
  - bencollier49 13y ago
    Call it an ad humum then? :-)
  - strlen 13y ago
    What I find is that people consider "saying anything offensive" to be an ad-hominem attack, but completely omit very common forms of ad-hominem attacks such as attacks on supposed ideology or bringing or other views and arguing that their views are contradictory -- or arguing against another viewpoint that they hold -- in an attempt to refute their views. To use a real example I recently saw: "Russ Feingold said the Patriot Act violates the 4th amendment, voted against it, and says we should repeal it; however, Feingold sponsored the McCain-Feingold act -- parts of which were found to have violated the first amendment -- so his argument against the Patriot Act is invalid because he and other liberals also violate the constitution". This is an example of not only an ad-hominem, but also false equivalence, and to-quoque -- but yet I see these arguments commonly asserted and unchallenged. For the record I do think the grand-parent comment does not constitute a particularly strong argument to me: there's no proof that Thailand fails to punish paedophiles any more than any other country (keep in mind these kind of crimes are grossly under-reported) and even if that is indeed the case, there's no proof that the same dynamic would mean laws against bitcoin would not be enforced.
tomelders 13y ago
Maybe not necessary, but I don't think it's out of place. It paints a picture of what the Thai government deems important and with a country like Thailand, with the issues it faces, comparing this non issue against a real issue makes mockery of Thailand's leadership. And they deserve to be made a mockery of.
- wilfra 13y ago
  I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't accurate. Paedophiles are regularly sent to prison in Thailand. There is also some misunderstanding about who declared bitcoin illegal. The Central Bank deals specifically with monetary transactions - and they were asked for their opinion by a private company, and they gave that company their opinion. That is the extent of what happened. The government of Thailand is not on a crusade against bitcoin.

> Given that paedo-tourists are effectively given a free pass in Thailand Really necessary to drag that in to the discussion?

by stef25 13y ago

> Given that paedo-tourists are effectively given a free pass in Thailand Really necessary to drag that in to the discussion?

enraged_camel 13y ago

What's a pseudo-tourist? edit: why the downvote? It's a simple question!

zolbatar 13y ago
Read it again, it's not PSEUDO...it's PAEDO.
mbrameld 13y ago
A pseudo-tourist is your misreading of the word paedo-tourist.

kordless 13y ago

Is it really surprising someone is using an ad hominem argument again?

rorrr2 13y ago
That's not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem is "You're an idiot, therefore what you said is incorrect".
- bencollier49 13y ago
  Call it an ad humum then? :-)
- strlen 13y ago
  What I find is that people consider "saying anything offensive" to be an ad-hominem attack, but completely omit very common forms of ad-hominem attacks such as attacks on supposed ideology or bringing or other views and arguing that their views are contradictory -- or arguing against another viewpoint that they hold -- in an attempt to refute their views. To use a real example I recently saw: "Russ Feingold said the Patriot Act violates the 4th amendment, voted against it, and says we should repeal it; however, Feingold sponsored the McCain-Feingold act -- parts of which were found to have violated the first amendment -- so his argument against the Patriot Act is invalid because he and other liberals also violate the constitution". This is an example of not only an ad-hominem, but also false equivalence, and to-quoque -- but yet I see these arguments commonly asserted and unchallenged. For the record I do think the grand-parent comment does not constitute a particularly strong argument to me: there's no proof that Thailand fails to punish paedophiles any more than any other country (keep in mind these kind of crimes are grossly under-reported) and even if that is indeed the case, there's no proof that the same dynamic would mean laws against bitcoin would not be enforced.

tomelders 13y ago

Maybe not necessary, but I don't think it's out of place. It paints a picture of what the Thai government deems important and with a country like Thailand, with the issues it faces, comparing this non issue against a real issue makes mockery of Thailand's leadership. And they deserve to be made a mockery of.

wilfra 13y ago
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't accurate. Paedophiles are regularly sent to prison in Thailand. There is also some misunderstanding about who declared bitcoin illegal. The Central Bank deals specifically with monetary transactions - and they were asked for their opinion by a private company, and they gave that company their opinion. That is the extent of what happened. The government of Thailand is not on a crusade against bitcoin.