unicorn

Anyone here know why the Thai government sent the Uyghurs back, possibly to their deaths? Did the PRC offer some sort of incentive?

I mean, Trump does all kinds of crazy things, but I saw his list of countries whose citizens he wants to ban from the US, and the most baffling of all for me was Bhutan. While I do agree that Bhutan's massive visa costs for US citizens is rather extortionist, I can't imagine that any of their citizens presents a serious threat. I suspect he's pissed off at Dominica, St. Christopher/Nevis, and St. Lucia over their policy of selling their passports to any thug who'll pay them. But Bhutan? https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-travel-ban-countries-list-b2715762.html "...The draft list was separated into three sections — red, orange, and yellow — to denote the level of restriction, according to the outlet. The “red” list includes 11 countries whose citizens would be entirely forbidden from entering the United States: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. Ten countries whose citizens will be limited from entering but not entirely banned, meaning they are required to have specific visas, were on the “orange” list. People of Belarus, Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Turkmenistan will have to sit for in-person interviews to obtain a visa, the outlet reported. The “yellow” list contains 22 countries, mostly African nations, that the Trump administration is giving 60 days to address its concerns over alleged “deficiencies.” If these nations don’t comply, they risk being placed on the red or orange lists, the Times reported. This list includes Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, the Republic of Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe...". It also seems rather nutty to ban Laotian citizens. Shouldn't we be encouraging more trade with Laos as a buffer to the Chinese?

I would just be careful, and make sure that importing poppers to these countries is legal. Smuggling can result in very serious criminal penalties in Asia. If an item isn't sold in a particular country, it may be because that item is not legal in that country.

After his humiliating defeat and his land losing most of its value, do you really expect him to say "Oops! My Bad!"?

Neither of us has seen results on a polygraph, so neither of us can say 100% whether or not he's being truthful. However, there are the hints I've mentioned. Do you believe everything everyone tells you? Do you believe everything Donald J. Trump says? The fact that he said it doesn't mean it's true, much less than I have to believe it. The farmer has a strong incentive to lie. Saying that he regretted the decision would be to confess he's been a fool. Ever heard about saving face?

Is your real name George Santos? Here you go: And I'm still waiting for a rational or fact-based response, rather than emotional rantings.

I agree with your views on capital punishment. Convictions of the innocent is only of of many compelling arguments. I believe that in most states, the district attorney (prosecutor), judges, and the sheriff are all elected positions, which often makes convictions at any cost politically expedient. (Certainly where I live in California, these three offices are all elected) The recent movie Juror #2 is a good dramatization of how easily a jury can be bamboozled (especially when judges tell jurors that the "haven't done their job" if any of them disagree, forcing them into sequestration until they all are coerced to "agree"). The only time I'd be OK with capital punishment would be in cases in which there was mass murder--serial killers and the like--and the evidence wasn't just beyond reasonable doubt, but completely indisputable. Examples would be Jeffrey Dahmer, Tim McVeigh, Stephen Paddock, and so on. These examples are so rare, that it's probably not worth having such laws on the books. As for the blanks in the rifles, I believe that depends on the state. If I'm to believe what I heard in the news, at least in South Carolina there are three executioners, each one with live rounds. I remember reading years ago that there are other states in which there are more executioners, but some rifles have blanks instead of bullets. I have a distant recollection of another state which uses 7 executioners, with 3 or 4 having live rounds. I would surmise that the executioners would have to volunteer for these positions--and be comprised of those who wouldn't feel burned by the knowledge that they shot dead a man who was strapped down.

Well, I do accept that you're an admitted liar, since you plainly stated on 2/28/25 that you wouldn't post further on this string. First of all, I have no idea what you could be talking about when you say "undisputed facts," since the only undisputed facts on this string were the links to those I posted: (1) There are tons of examples of similarly stubborn landowners who've also refused to sell or held out for better offers all around the globe, so this is (as a matter of fact),proving that this situation at all unique to Japan, and (2) This farmer received support from only a fringe group of Japanese politicians, and that he certainly did not have the "whole country" behind him as a-447 claimed. The fact that a-447's opinion isn't "undisputed" comes from your own words, when you said "every Japanese will know this farmer is being stubborn - and indeed very un-Japanese." a-447 has had ample opportunity to provide links to sources which would factually support his opinion, but has not done so (most likely because they don't exist). His only "evidence" to support his statements are his repetitive pompous declarations that only his opinions are valid because of where he grew up, and the age of his country. (That being said, the Wikipedia article indicates that the farmers whose land was purchased to built Narita obtained their land in the late 1940s, during the period of US administration--not hundreds of years ago) I have been the only poster on this string to provide real facts. The only link a-447 provided was a link to a BBC interview with the hapless farmer. I had already said that I didn't believe the farmer when he stated he didn't regret his decision not to sell, so that link didn't provide any evidence to the contrary. If I tell you that I don't believe the BS that comes out of Trump's mouth, and you provide a link showing him proclaiming that Haitian immigrants eat household pets, or that Ukraine invaded itself, is that supposed to convince me he's being truthful? Well, it looks as though a majority did vote for the Liar-in-Chief, so I guess there are people who will believe anything. In fact, the farmer hinted at his lack of candor when he admitted that the lock-up of the country during the pandemic provided temporary relief. This is analogous to the man who says he likes hitting himself on the head with a hammer because if feels so good when he stops. And if you really believe this string has an audience of zero, you're just advertising your lack of observational skills. This is one of the most followed strings in this forum, with views in the five-figures.

Well, at least they're not killing civilians with toxic gases, nor, as far as I've heard, are they torturing people in torture centers, with the leader living in a palace. No one expected these people to be angels, by any means.

Much of the press acted surprised that a man in South Carolina chose to be executed by firing squad, rather than lethal injection. But these "lethal injection" methods usually seem to use muscle paralyzers, which essentially cause the person to suffocate to death, unable to breathe. His choice seemed rational to me. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/07/us/brad-sigmon-south-carolina-firing-squad-execution/index.html "...Sigmon chose firing squad over the two other state-approved methods of execution, lethal injection or the electric chair. He was pronounced dead by a physician at 6:08 p.m. ET, officials said at a news conference Friday... “He chose the firing squad knowing that three bullets would shatter his bones and destroy his heart,” King said in a statement. “But that was the only choice he had, after the state’s three executions by lethal injection inflicted prolonged and potentially torturous deaths on men he loved like brothers.”...". Of course, there are ways to use lethal injections without paralytics, but I don't think any states use those methods.

The article stated, and I quote: "The monks stated that the suspect was an LGBTQIA+." That's not the same as "he looked like...". Of course, the big question is what relevance that had to the story to begin with. That news source seems to take great glee at pointing out the alleged criminality coming from our community--or people who "look like" they belong to our community. When one adds up the other suspicious statements in that article, one gets a picture of the news source's reliability (or lack thereof) and motives.

Thank you for referencing what appears to be a more objective article. While I understand that something may be lost in the translation, what I can read from the translation is "...the temple did not remain indifferent to the incident. It checked the CCTV footage to see who the perpetrator was. It knew, but could not identify the person yet...". This is quite different from the Thaiger article, which stated with certainty that the man who provided the drink was known to be in the LGBTQI+ community. I have been noted repeated instances in which Thaiger seems to enjoy maligning the LGBTQI+ community. I'm not sure why it's even relevant to the story. Again, I find it very difficult to believe that sildenafil and a bit of alcohol alone could have done this. There are very few instances of sildenafil overdoses documented, but in those few cases, the primary symptoms appeared to be nausea, vomiting, rapid heart rate, vision problems, and headaches, not passing out. Here are two reports of overdoses, one who took 65 sildenafil 100 mg (max) tablets, and the other 20 of the 100 mg tablets. Neither passed out, nor is it possible for that much sildenafil to slipped into one drink. I have to believe there's something we're not being told. https://academic.oup.com/jat/article-abstract/39/7/572/819563?redirectedFrom=fulltext "...The case presented here is of a 56-year-old man who claimed to have undertaken an unsuccessful suicide attempt by mono-ingestion of 65 tablets of 100 mg sildenafil. He arrived at the emergency department 24 h after intake with severe vomiting and symptoms of blurred vision. Clinical examination revealed no priapism. Of note was a sinus tachycardia of 100 bpm without signs of hypotension...". https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1081/CLT-100105168 There are also reports that overdosing on sildenafil can temporarily and permanently damage vision. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/664088 "...the case of a 27-year-old male patient who had sinus tachycardia and blue vision, which developed because of overdose of SC taken in an attempt to commit suicide and which was followed by this clinical state for approximately for 4 h. This clinical status was spontaneously terminated without requiring any intervention. The patient ingested approximately 1500 mg of SC. After improvement in visual perception, the patient was followed-up after approximately 6 h in the observation unit of the emergency department and was discharged without any complication or sequelae...". (SC is short for sildenafil citrate) https://bmcophthalmol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12886-022-02426-7 "...We report retinal morphology, retinal sensitivity, and findings of electrophysiological evaluation over long-term follow-up in a case of sildenafil overdose (2000 mg). Case presentation Our patient developed visual abnormalities in the paracentral visual field accompanied by photophobia, decreased contrast sensitivity, and difficulty distinguishing colors in both eyes, 8 hours after the sildenafil overdose. These symptoms did not improve throughout the course, and although abnormalities of retinal morphology and sensitivity, as well as the electroretinogram findings showed slight improvement, the patient did not recover completely at 6-month follow-up...".

Well, this is certainly a good reminder not to accept drinks from people you don't know, unless you observe the drink being prepared in front of you. When I clicked on the appropriate link, the purported "sexual stimulant" was reported as sildenafil, which is not a sexual stimulant, but rather a medication which makes it easier to obtain and sustain erections. Sildenafil does not change sexual desire (libido). If there was something else mixed in, it was not mentioned. Although sildenafil can drop blood pressure by a few points, it wouldn't cause someone to pass out. The only reports of people passing out on sildenafil are from those who are also taking nitrates, which I can't imagine this dancer was taking. (Sildenafil was originally tested as a blood pressure medication, but didn't get approved for that because its effect on blood pressure is too small. The effect on erections was discovered when polling test subjects on side-effects). I would think there was probably more than alcohol and sildenafil in that drink to cause a severe reaction, although it's unclear what the article means when it mentions "shock." Presumably, it doesn't mean shock in the medical sense, since the dancer doesn't appear to be attached to anything in that photo--not even an IV. I'm also curious why the monks "stated" the suspect was a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, not even "suspected." I could understand why, if he were wearing a rainbow shirt or a unicorn-bearing shirt, they could have that suspicion (though I've known allies to wear rainbows). I'm not saying he was or was not a member of our community, but certainly the article didn't mention why the monks were so certain. This article certainly raises a lot more questions than answers, at least as far as I'm concerned.

You keep repeating yourself with your infantile large font, claiming to be too stupid to figure out how to adjust font size, yet able to figure out how to use bold face. You don't bring up anything new. Any idiot could figure out that the multiple examples of stubborn hold-outs around the world proves that the farmer's behavior is not something uniquely Japanese. You continue to ignore that the only two parties which supported the farmer have either disappeared completely in one case, and have only minimal representation in the National Diet in the other case. You are completely disinterested in actual facts. Your only "argument" is your arrogant (and racist) contention that only a Japanese person could understand the farmer's motives. You position is all BS, no facts.

Oh, for God's sake, it's not that complicated (quite intuitive, in fact). Just click on your icon on the top right, then in the pull-down menu, click on "Ignored users."

You're the one who's arrogant for believing that just because you explain your position, that you must be right. It is you who ignore the facts. I have shown examples of dozens of people who similarly turned down generous offers, mostly in the west, in fact, and none of them in Japan, and paid the consequence. It is you who ignores the fact that this was the only farmer (all of the rest were also Japanese) who rejected the offers. As another poster pointed out, the lone farmer's behavior was, in all appearances, quite "un-Japanese" (anti-social and pig-headed). It is you who claimed the "whole country" was behind him when, in fact, only a fringe political group supported him. You ignore all of the hard (and obvious) facts, while your only claim to being "right" stems from your assertion that only your opinion matters because of where you grew up. Sorry, but most other Japanese people apparently disagree with you.

"...Yes, leftist political parties were involved in the demonstrations. Isn't that what I said - twice?..." . After 50 years? That video is 4 years old. Twilight zone. He mentions how the pandemic was a relief for him. That made it clear, by inference, that the other times are unpleasant for him. In any case, truthful or not, his opinion is not relevant to the fact that he's simply a stubborn mule. One can argue whether or not, for example, Donald Trump truly believes Ukraine started the war with Russia, or whether he's spouting BS intentionally. Of course, no one can really know what really goes on in his mind (although one can make fair inferences). What it comes down to is that what he says is simply ridiculous, and that anyone with any knowledge of the subject knows that. Just about anyone looking at that video would think "Oh, dear. What a mess that farmer got himself into." In fact, the ridiculousness of situation seems to be the main point of the video.

I've told you multiple times that I believe this farmer is a stubborn mule and most probably a liar. What might possibly lead you to think I'd find anything he says persuasive? That's the best you could come up with? How often do you buy his jet fuel-laced vegetables? Does the jet fuel add a certain je ne said quoi to the taste? Seeing the video just reinforces the ridiculousness of his current situation. What kind of a jackass would like to be in his situation?

You appear to have a significant short memory problem. What you said was that the "whole country" was behind the farmer. If you truly believe that what you said was that only leftist political parties were involved (and are not simply lying), then you really should see a physician for evaluation of memory problems. Seriously.

Which is why it's impossible to have a mature, rational conversation with an angry baboon.

Well, perhaps said with the arrogance of someone who thinks only someone from the Far East could understand the thinking process of a Japanese farmer. However, he appeared to be the only holdout. So what you said is not only arrogant, but factually false as well.

If you disagree, feel free to indicate why (hopefully with some factual information, and not simply emotional ramblings).