OPINION

Be rational, not nasty

Re: "Long way to go to end of Covid deaths, freedom", (Opinion, Sept 9).

Joseph Stiglitz writes that those who question the safety of Covid 19 vaccines are uneducated. Yet one of the vaccines' most ardent critics is Michael Yeadon, a scientist who was a researcher for Pfizer. If Pfizer hires "uneducated" researchers, then how can we have any faith in their vaccine?

In my lifetime I've been involved in many causes and it's the same story every time. Ninety percent of my critics would personally attack me because they couldn't answer my arguments.

Over the years, I have changed my mind on certain issues. For example, I went from being extremely pro-Israel to extremely pro-Palestinian. I also used to go fishing and attend cock fights. Yet now I'm a vegan and a card-carrying member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Why did I change my mind? Because a few people gave me good arguments which convinced me I had been wrong. If the Bangkok Post could give me good answers to my legitimate questions about Covid 19 and the vaccines I might change my mind again. But when you run insulting articles like Stiglitz's there is not a snowball's chance in hell that I'll consider your opinion.

Let's replace insults and lies with rational, respectful and well-rounded debates.

Re: "Healing the scars of a 40-year war", (Opinion, Sept 10).

The tragic realities in Afghanistan so persuasively depicted in this article lead to the unavoidable conclusion that the duty of global humanitarian solidarity with the Afghan people must be on the firm priorities list of the world community of nations.

This is a mammoth challenge to be dealt with by the United Nations international aid conference on Afghanistan in Geneva on Sept 13 -- a multilateral diplomatic gathering expected to answer the question: is genuine pro-active humanism still possible during the current era of global vulnerabilities, perplexities and discontinuities?

A positive answer would be universally welcome.

Re: "Thailand takes action", (PostBag, Sept 11).

I look forward to Saturday's Bangkok Post because of its expanded page of PostBag letters, usually offering a range of different views on different subjects.

Instead, on Saturday we had to suffer an interminably long single letter from Tanee Sangrat, director-general of the Information Department and spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This letter, which was at least three times as long as the Bangkok Post Editorial (Sept 4) that it purported to be addressing (and in so doing, rejected some of the comments in the editorial) was nothing more than self-promoting government propaganda.

In future, the Bangkok Post should make the Information Department pay for advertising space to espouse the wonderful job it obviously thinks it is doing.

If nothing else, having to pay for it, might make Mr Tanee less prolix and more economical with his words.

Re: "Thailand takes action", (PostBag, Sept 11).

I would just like to make a small observation: It took Tanee Sangrat, a senior government official with the Information Department 1,670 words to get to his final comment: "Actions speak louder than words, indeed."

A perfect example of bureaucracy at work.