English gentlemen going abroad for love

And they're all out committing crimes all the time are they?

riiiight. poverty and crime are in no way related... 

also no one said "all the time" so get that shit outta here

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, did you even bother to read the whole exchange? . I'm the one defending poor people, saying that despite their poverty the majority still know the difference between right and wrong. I don't think his relatives are out on the rob all the time, despite their poverty. He's the one claiming poverty overrides morality and that the majority of Thai people think like him.  If that was the case, Thailand would have a higher crime rate than the US and over 50% of the population would have a criminal record. Which it doesn't and they haven't. 

no i think i have the right end of the stick. i don't think he's saying poor people don't know the difference between right and wrong (if he is, then i guess that's where we disagree). i also don't think anyone here is saying poverty is the only thing that affects crime rates, so im not sure the US/thailand comparison is super relevant.

i think certain considerations can outweigh (or at least weaken) moral duties. ex. a starving person who steals an apple is significantly less blameworthy than a non-starving person who steals an apple. let's look at the most extreme case of this. if the choice is between dying and stealing, should we expect a poor person to choose death?

And they're all out committing crimes all the time are they?

riiiight. poverty and crime are in no way related... 

also no one said "all the time" so get that shit outta here

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, did you even bother to read the whole exchange? . I'm the one defending poor people, saying that despite their poverty the majority still know the difference between right and wrong. I don't think his relatives are out on the rob all the time, despite their poverty. He's the one claiming poverty overrides morality and that the majority of Thai people think like him.  If that was the case, Thailand would have a higher crime rate than the US and over 50% of the population would have a criminal record. Which it doesn't and they haven't. 

no i think i have the right end of the stick. i don't think he's saying poor people don't know the difference between right and wrong (if he is, then i guess that's where we disagree). i also don't think anyone here is saying poverty is the only thing that affects crime rates, so im not sure the US/thailand comparison is super relevant.

i think certain considerations can outweigh (or at least weaken) moral duties. ex. a starving person who steals an apple is significantly less blameworthy than a non-starving person who steals an apple. let's look at the most extreme case of this. if the choice is between dying and stealing, should we expect a poor person to choose death?

I don't think anyone would say a poor person should choose death, do you?

Yes of course the whole issue centres around the definition of poverty. He said 'Yer darn right poverty trumps morality'. In 2015 Over 1.9 billion people, or 26.2 percent of the world's population, were living on less than $3.20 per day. Assuming all those people are what we would call 'poor', he thinks 1.9 billion people in the world are morally justified in committing crimes. I then claimed the majority of dirt poor Thais would not agree with this precept and would not be out committing crimes, to which he responded that I didn't know what I was talking about. Bearing in mind the crime statistics (there are not a billion people out committing crimes on a regular basis)  I think  my case is the stronger one.

no i think i have the right end of the stick. i don't think he's saying poor people don't know the difference between right and wrong (if he is, then i guess that's where we disagree). i also don't think anyone here is saying poverty is the only thing that affects crime rates, so im not sure the US/thailand comparison is super relevant.

i think certain considerations can outweigh (or at least weaken) moral duties. ex. a starving person who steals an apple is significantly less blameworthy than a non-starving person who steals an apple. let's look at the most extreme case of this. if the choice is between dying and stealing, should we expect a poor person to choose death?

I don't think anyone would say a poor person should choose death, do you?

Of course not.

Yes of course the whole issue centres around the definition of poverty. He said 'Yer darn right poverty trumps morality'. In 2015 Over 1.9 billion people, or 26.2 percent of the world's population, were living on less than $3.20 per day. Assuming all those people are what we would call 'poor', he thinks 1.9 billion people in the world are morally justified in committing crimes

I don't think it's so black and white. These people aren't necessarily any more justified in committing a crime like murder. However, are these 1.9 billion people probably morally justified in committing petty theft? I think so (at least more so than the rest of the population). Similarly, conning someone (with the goal of escaping poverty) seems more justifiable in the case of an impoverished person than for someone who is already fairly well off. At least, it's closer to petty theft than murder.

I then claimed the majority of dirt poor Thais would not agree with this precept and would not be out committing crimes, to which he responded that I didn't know what I was talking about. Bearing in mind the crime statistics (there are not a billion people out committing crimes on a regular basis)  I think  my case is the stronger one.

I don't think crime statistics are really relevant to a discussion about what is or isn't morally justified.

I don't think crime statistics are really relevant to a discussion about what is or isn't morally justified

I made two points. One that claiming poverty morally justified crime absolutely was childish and two that  most poor Thais would agree with that. I mentioned crime stats to back up the second point, not the first.

I don't think crime statistics are really relevant to a discussion about what is or isn't morally justified

I made two points. One that claiming poverty morally justified crime absolutely was childish and two that  most poor Thais would agree with that. I mentioned crime stats to back up the second point, not the first.

i haven't been arguing against the second point

Some people turn to crime to escape poverty, others turn to working longer hours, saving money, and studying.

In 2015 Over 1.9 billion people, or 26.2 percent of the world's population, were living on less than $3.20 per day.

Double that $ number to something around $7 per day, and you probably got well over half the world's population earning less than that.

People talk about Thailand being poor and I guess parts of it must be.

However when my bus went from Cambodia to Thailand I felt I was in a richer country. It was crossing from the third world into the second.

People talk about Thailand being poor and I guess parts of it must be.

However when my bus went from Cambodia to Thailand I felt I was in a richer country. It was crossing from the third world into the second.

It’s due to the millions of pounds sent to Thai girlfriends and wives. It’s an important part of the economy.

People talk about Thailand being poor and I guess parts of it must be.

However when my bus went from Cambodia to Thailand I felt I was in a richer country. It was crossing from the third world into the second.

Because it is a richer country. Also, backed up by data. Thailand's GDP per capita income is like 4x more than Cambodia's.

Cambodia's per capita GDP has gone way up. So has Thailand's. Globalization is lifting billions out of poverty. Life around the world is getting better for most.