You know, instead of being a prick you should know that I don't deal with people who don't know anything about the world around them.
Why should he know that much about random people on an internet forum?
I do not deal with people who have preconceived notions and think (for example) a given country is full of sex tourists lusting after 12 year old children, something at the very least strongly implied in his post.
I never said that. I'm sure the locals must be heavily involved, not just tourists.
He even admitted that the only thing he knows about Thailand is that there is prostitution there, and why would you even bother to talk to someone like that?
Look back please. I also knew it has a monarchy, desperate poverty, beautiful scenery, trade in endangered species & is the home of phad thai.
You should try talking to someone who has seen more of the country than a go-go bar.
That's why I'm here asking questions. The people I know who have been there also told me about beautiful, remote islands & beaches.
I would, but I shouldn't need to "educate" someone on something they should already know.

But you just said...
It's okay to not know much about another country, but to presume things about a country (like that you can buy a little girl for $200, a complete fabrication) based on the testimony of a couple of college losers who went there on their spring breaks is just intellectually irresponsible.
I did not presume that. I asked if it was true. Read it again please.
They were not attending college at the time. One is a woman who spent 3 months traveling around Thailand & India.
Attending college does not make someone a loser.
At the very least, you should be able to say "this is what some people say, but I know that there's a lot more to a country than the experience of a few people who vacationed there for two days."
That's why I asked about it. It is unreasonable to try to dictate the thoughts of others by specifically stating how they should say something. The friends I refered to were there for more than 2 days. I never said how long they were there.
I think you are missing the humor in that image. The Simpsons is doing a parody of teachers who aren't concerned enough about their students' education to answer their questions without becoming annoyed or defering them elsewhere.
Technically, the Thai monarchy is like any constitutional monarchy in the world that is with only a figurehead role. But such is the popularity and respect for the monarchy among the Thais plus Thai traditions that hold that the monarchy is the absolute authority in the land that whatever the monarch degrees it would be necessary to act accordingly.
Thanks. What an interesting contrast between written law & cultural tradition. Cultural tradition must be quite strong there.
From this, it sounds like the people will go along with the military coup because the king supports it even though it is illegal. Fascinating. I suppose it's a good sign that the military is holding elections instead of just staying in power.
Thailand? It's a great place. Those things that you mentioned happen, but it happens elsewhere too not just in Thailand, and it doesn't represent Thai society.
Understood.
Western media have a tendency to bring out the worst in other cultures and forget about the positive side. Trust me, I lived there.
Yup. One doesn't often see or read good news. It's usually all bad news that's reported.
To give an idea how powerful King Bhumibol is, protests against Thaksin's government of over a hundred thousand people each were common occurances in the streets of Bangkok, and he never caved into them until the King held a private meeting in which he asked Thaksin to step down.
Amazing that he holds such influence without legal backing. Traditions must be deeply ingrained there. Subjects of the British Commonwealth openly discuss eliminating their monarchy. Big contrast between those cultures.