Fat is a type of crazy

1 hour ago, trainman34014 said:

Spent a week on Koh Chang just the once and that was enough for us; everywhere filthier than the rest of the country (and that's saying something).   Transport higher priced than just about anywhere else in the country and we found most eating establishments were charging more than on other Islands, actually price gouging in some places.   Needles to say they cooked their own Goose and we won't be going back !

By transport if you mean taxis they are way cheaper than many places such as Phuket. Just 50 to 100 baht for many trips. If you stay on the north side where hotels are few then you have to pay more but that seems fair. 

Not sure in what way you mean filthy. Most of the island is national park. Some beaches get some rubbish from time to time same pretty much every beach now in South East Asia.

If you mean restaurants are filthy I saw no sign of that but each to their own.

37 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Thailand,

No heating bills, and everyone has a family farm to which they can return, food grows everywhere. 

Everyone has a farm to go back to blessed with ample food for all. Sounds amazing this Thailand place.

I suppose it's your expectations. Many Thai working people I guess are used to doing it tough whereas the english have been known to whinge a bit if things aren't how they want them to be. 

I know of many thais who are doing it tough, without farms to fall back on, and who would love some of that UK government support

25 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't know anyone in the UK that managed to do that.

All the folk I know are deep in debt, behind in their mortgage/rent payments and unemployed or on short working hours with reduced pay.

In Australia many people got more money than usual as the dole went significantly higher and many wage earners got more than usual.

I didn't say every country in Europe but it seems like UK assistance is pretty good. 

An employee in the UK, if the employer couldn't pay,  is paid 80 per cent of their normal pay. There's lots of other assistance too. 

If your self employed  there's grants and ongoing assistance.  

If you run a successful business in Australia and the UK then the extra money will not compensate you for your previous profit  but it keeps you going.

As far as I can see most employees in Thailand, especially if they were off the books as a large number are in Thailand, got nothing like this level of assistance. Same for businesses. 

As you say some people everywhere would be doing it tough if they have large ongoing expenses and a reduced income.  As a Thai it's significantly tougher than in the countries I noted. 

17 hours ago, dbrenn said:

I wasn't apologising. I was correcting a daft mistake that you made.

 

You erroneously claimed that Thailand's image should be questioned because of its distribution of wealth, when wealth disparity is obviously as bad in most places, western countries included. 

I disagree with that. When American's talk about capitalism they must love what they see in Thailand. In 2018 Thailand was third in the world for the unequal distribution of wealth with 1 per cent of the richest Thais owning  58 per cent of the nation's wealth. They are only behind China and India. Source: Bangkok Post

The pandemic has no doubt made it worse.

 Australians and many Europeans have actually saved during the pandemic due to less spending and generous government support. The United States lesser so but still more generous than Thailand.

I just look at workers in say the building industry. Say what you will about unions but in Australia workers are paid high wages and developers still get to make a healthy profit. In Thailand they get low pay and terrible conditions.

If any nations needed a fairer distribution of wealth it is Thailand.

To be honest I am happy to leave the debate about impeachment to the more learned and the legal minded. If I made a case I would be just reading a news article and then restating it.

My point is that from my reading it is clear that the argument for the legality of impeachment is strong and that the strong majority, not just Democrats,  believe this to be the case.

3 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

If anyone, let alone a president, committed "insurrection" against the United States, do you think it's right for federal prosecutors to wait for the impeachment process to end to consider their options? Especially when the maximum punishment from the House impeachment and Senate trial would be removal from office [already happened] and a ban from future federal office. I mean during the interim, Donald Trump could be plotting another "insurrection" right...so wouldn't it prudent, if there was any case to be made, that federal prosecutors move with all speed and haste to arrest and charge Mr. Trump and therefore protect the country? The fact none has done so speaks volumes.

I won't argue the issues regarding the legality of impeachment but it is clear that by far the  majority of constitutional lawyers concur that the process is correct and legal. Sometimes it's better just to follow trusted experts. Or you can believe Rand Paul whose comments appear on your posts.

You imply here that the argument that this was an insurrection is not valid. Trump made inflammatory statements and then clearly egged on a large group of protesters to go to the Capitol  building on the day they were finalising the election results. Then he watched on as violence ensued. Putting impeachment aside do you concur that he acted appallingly and irresponsibly on that day and that Senators genuinely and reasonably felt their lives were threatened. 

Can you fully condemn his actions that lead to actual deaths. Even if you think impeachment is not required can you condemn his post election  lies resulting in this outcome.

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You appear to believe god started things only e.g. created the big bang and then just watched it unfold with no further impact on you in life or death.

Correct. If God has a personal relationship with me then God must really not like me very much given I married the wrong woman and ruined my remaining life. I prefer to believe that God does not have a personal relationship with anyone.

 

If you think something had to get stuff started then what got god started.

That is the ultimate question. I hope to discover the answer after I pass over.

 

Possibly you think there is something special about the fact that we are sentient  and somewhat independent living bits of stuff and that that requires a god.

Correct.

 

But it appears that by your theory god just started things off in the universe so either way humans were just created from the existing universe of inanimate objects and not directly from a god.

That is taking a statement and twisting it to suit your narrative.

A room full of chemicals for a gazillion years would not IMO make something alive. That comes from the creator IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

On the last point I am not attempting to push a narrative.   I just meant if god pushed that first domino to start things off, but took no further action, then what we know of, say, the big bang and what happened after that, is god free from that point on.

You don't seem to like the option  that  life just happened and it was just that chemicals happened to mix in a certain way. Other options are:

1 God in creating the dominoes and pushing over the first one had done so in a way that would inevitably result in life; or

2 God came back a second time and created life. 

It is just a bit of fun to discuss  and follow the logic of those theories. 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not sure what "option 2" refers to, but I don't believe in the "Garden of Eden".

 

I don't believe that God decided to create humans. The universe IMO has seen the emergence of countless life forms of vastly differing appearances- on some planets intelligent life could be a cloud of gas, or a large silicone mass. Had the dinosaurs never been exterminated would they eventually have developed a human like intelligence over millions of years?

 

An interesting issue is by your theory did god create people or did he just create the universe that then resulted in people through physics and chemistry.

IMO the latter.

 

Not sure you even need a god in your approach for life on earth as no matter your actions god does not intervene in your lifetime.

Without God to create the universe there would be no "us", and the life force that makes us "alive" comes from God. When the life force in our bodies departs the body is dead.

 

 

You can tell we are in Oceania as we make the early posts.

You had quoted a post where there had been options, including Option 2, in a discussion of possibilities of free will and the existence of god.  

Option 2 suggested a belief in the combination of total free will in humans with the existence of a god that did not impact that free will of humans directly but might impact the outside world e.g. make an earthquake happen. 

You appear to believe god started things only e.g. created the big bang and then just watched it unfold with no further impact on you in life or death.

In the last post I just wondered why you consider there is a god at all i.e. stuff might have just happened to create the big bang rather than god creating it. If you think something had to get stuff started then what got god started.  

You refer to a life force - possibly you think that had to come from a god. But we know that life consists of   chemicals made from the stuff of the inanimate universe. Possibly you think there is something special about the fact that we are sentient  and somewhat independent living bits of stuff and that that requires a god.

But it appears that by your theory god just started things off in the universe so either way humans were just created from the existing universe of inanimate objects and not directly from a god.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If one accepts that God created the world one also accepts that the ability of rocks to move was also designed into it. While God created a planet where rocks move, IMO God does not decide which human gets killed when they do.

If one accepts that we are part of God's life force, one also accepts that death is irrelevant as one's life force returns to God after the body dies. We mourn another's death because we lost someone that we loved, but it doesn't mean that their spirit is also gone.

 

Seems to me that some people think God should have made the planet a Garden of Eden where nothing ever went wrong, no one had to strive for anything. Hungry? Just pick fruit from the trees and vegetables from the ground. Never too cold or too hot. No enemies- no harmful bacteria or viruses, no dangerous animals, no disease. All is peace and love.

Humans would die out quite quickly as no need to strive for anything, no ambitions, no desires etc.

Humans IMO need adverse things to develop and improve. We have to overcome to be better, to advance.

Without a desire to become better no one would try to attain nirvana as the world would be nirvana. Bit pointless creating a universe where nothing happened.

It appears you believe in option 2 although you consider God set in motion events that resulted in the earthquake by pushing over the first domino of the universe's creation and took no further role.

As people have free will it was there bad luck if they died. Not God's fault. As humans use their free will and use it to learn about the universe things that had been set in motion can be stopped e.g. we learn how to predict earthquakes and volcanoes so less people die and deadly bacteria can be stopped.

An interesting issue is by your theory did god create people or did he just create the universe that then resulted in people through physics and chemistry.

Not sure you even need a god in your approach for life on earth as no matter your actions god does not intervene in your lifetime. You may believe though God is watching and will get you after you die if you are bad and hold you to account.

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

But that's exactly my stance > randomness / coincidence simply does not exist, not even a tiny little bit... Everything happens according to universal laws, when we do not understand these laws we rationalize this by bringing in the notion of random occurence or coincidence.

Or to put it differently > everything happens for a reason, and of course this is irrespective whether we know the reason.

The implication of what you are saying appears to be  that there is no actual free will and we are automatons. It was preordained that you wrote your post and that I am replying.  

Other options are:

1 There is a god. People have free will but god is inside us whispering to us, if you like, about what is the best thing to do. Some may believe other spirits are there too. It is up to us to act on it or not. There are some people with mental illness who thought this was the case but sadly it was not. 

2 There is a god. People have free will but the external non-people world around is controlled by god - god has his reasons for earthquakes, tsunamis etc. He chose the baby to die instead of the cynical old man. 

Often, people who believe in god have had bad things happen to them, leading them to the church. The irony is that by accepting god  they accept that their trusted saviour did bad things to them. People might decide they deserved whatever bad thing God dished out. 

3a No god. People have free will but genetic factors gives us a limited free will with boundaries based on intelligence, health, imagination and strength of character. Life experience such as wealth and education are a factor too.

3b No god. People have free will and we can change our destiny broadly and the world is just stuff that happens. Earthquake happened because big rocks moved. 

Laws of physics do not preclude free will in humans.

45 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I agree with it to a certain point.

But...science doesn't cover everything. In fact, as it stands, it is uncapable of doing so in regards of the inner worlds, because it mainly uses outer worlds techniques to do so. 

Brain scans for example can show the brain's activity during meditation or REM dreaming, but they can't fully understand the subjective implications of those states. This is the field that spiritual science has explored since time immemorial. The evidence gathered through millions of personal experiences clearly points towards something that can't simply be dismissed as fantasy or wishful thinking. Higher states of consciousness are as real as anything else. Again, the effects of those states on the brain activity and chemistry has been researched and proven by science, but what they mean on a personal, subjective level are out of the reach of science (for now at least). 

 

It doesn't help that a lot of spiritual theories, especially from the 60's onwards,  had been debunked.
Which spiritual theories are you talking about? I would argue it is quite the opposite actually. The more science advances, the more it overlaps with the ancient teachings. We've seen this with the example of the quantum scientists leaning on the Vedic teachings. 

 

I am not sure how those ancient principles differ from scientific method - maybe they take a spiritual path, rather than using test tubes, to find the ideas and theories, but whatever is discovered should still be provable and consistent and become science.

It is said that to know the world, you have to know yourself first. To know yourself is to know God. I think that the insights that revealed the workings of the universe for those ancient sages came as a byproduct of their spiritual practice. They didn't have particle accelerators to study quantum particles, yet their own findings strangely coincide with the findings of modern scientists. How is that possible? Because their conclusions were based on the same scientific principles we have today:

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

These principles apply to spiritual science just as well as modern science. I use Buddhism as an example, but it's not restricted only to that.

• Make an observation. - Buddha observed that there is suffering in the world.
• Ask a question. - He asked "What is the cause of this suffering?"
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. - Suffering is caused by selfish craving and personal desire. >>> 4 Noble truths of Buddhism<<<
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. - 8-fold path to liberation
• Test the prediction. - Millions of people have since tested the prediction, followed the instructions and came to the same conclusion. Predictions are testable and repeatable.
• Use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. 

Don't get me wrong. I am well aware of the achievements of modern science and I certainly don't demonize them even if they produced their fair share of misery. What I'm saying is that science has its place in the world, just like spirituality has its place. If I break an arm, I will not go to a Yoga instructor or pray to the Beloved for it to heal. I will go to a doctor and get it cast. However, if I feel miserable due to a spiritual crisis, I will not go to a psychiatrist and gulp down Prozac or SSRI's. I will go to someone who has experience with this kind of problems.

Psychiatry does seem like the least advanced science - the stuff going on inside us must be complicated. I concur that a better solution to taking a blunt instrument such as prozac  may be to follow buddhist meditation or similar built up over 1000's of years of looking at the human experience. Science needs to catch up but I don't think there is a secret area where it doesn't apply.

In terms of debunked theories it may be a bit shallow but I was thinking of how the theosophical society, astrology, new age beliefs, telekinesis, ESP, belief in talking to dead people, and reiki massage all go in and out of fashion with no proof. 

I can give you my findings after a termite problem I had in Australia. Not sure if it is totally relevant to your situation if they are getting inside through the air.

In Australia there are 2 main treatments.

One is to put the poison down around the property to make a barrier. Sometimes this can be less effective on hills and depending on the property. Then they use say termite termidust to kill the termites in the house and that takes a few weeks.  You don't want to simply  spray them if there are a lot as they will spread elsewhere. The negative of this is that it is more expensive and it doesn't kill off the nest if you don't know where it is. 

The second is to set up termite stations around the house filled with wood termites love and you check them every month or two. They will go to these on the way to your house. If they are there you put some stuff, one brand is termigold, in the station and they eat it and take it back to the nest and it eventually kills the nest. Termites in the house are fed the termigold and over a  few weeks they take it back to the nest. This is cheaper and kills the nest but you have to make regular checks of the termite station.

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The Vedas are ancient spiritual texts and their oral origins are likely to be a lot older, long before modern science. I would call them scientists too, but maybe not the way you define the term. For me they are the highest incarnation of scientific inquiry, because they researched and explored both the inner and the outer world, without prejudice and with one clear goal: finding the truth. "Spiritual scientist" would probably be a more appropriate term.
Nowadays, science is mostly preoccupied with the outer world and if something doesn't fit in that paradigm, it is usually called pseudo science and conveniently ignored. There are some brave souls that defy this paradigm and are researching more controversial topics, but they are few and poorly funded. 

Let's hope there'll be a return to the ancient principles of truth finding. Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Einstein, Capra and many others should be taken as examples and their attitude should be the blueprint for the science of the future.

My only issue I have with what you are saying is that science does by definition cover everything - inner and outer. If it is - it is covered by science.

The problem might be that at this stage, science can not accept many spiritual beliefs because they are not at this stage provable, either because:

a the theories are still beyond current scientific method to prove, or  

b because they are aren't real but just imagination, hope or faith.

Scientific funding over history is likely to go where results can make a dollar and or benefit people. It's not a dislike or bias against spiritual theories but just a facing of reality as to a and b above.

It doesn't help that a lot of spiritual theories, especially from the 60's onwards,  had been debunked.

I am not sure how those ancient principles differ from scientific method - maybe they take a spiritual path, rather than using test tubes, to find the ideas and theories, but whatever is discovered should still be provable and consistent and become science.

People who have theories that can't be proven, but may in fact be correct, have to cop it and just continue to say ''I have a theory''.

The alternative is they can call it a religion and say, ''science is not up to proving my theory so have faith people, and follow my teachings''. They have crossed a line into hope and faith and imagination and dreams whether they like it or not. 

It may be that such theories are better for peoples lives even if science can't prove them at this time. I haven't seen such a theory that ticks my boxes and is worth making that leap of faith. 

22 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Are you sure?

https://upliftconnect.com/quantum-physics-vedas/

The convergence of Spirituality and Science

Quantum physics explains the nature and behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level, and began with a number of different scientific discoveries from the the 1838 discovery of cathode rays, to the quantum hypothesis and photoelectric effect. The term quantum mechanics was coined in the early 1920’s by a group of physicists at the University of Gottingen.

In the 1920’s quantum mechanics was created by the three great minds: Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrödinger, who all read from and greatly respected the Vedas, the ancient Indian sanskrit texts on spirituality. They elaborated upon these ancient books of wisdom in their own language and with modern mathematical formulas in order to try to understand the ideas that are to be found throughout the Vedas, referred to in the ancient Sanskrit as “Brahman,” “Paramatma,” “Akasha” and “Atman.” As Schrödinger said, “some blood transfusion from the East to the West to save Western science from spiritual anaemia.”
[...]
While he (Heisenberg) was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore (Rabindranath Tagore was a Bengali poet, writer, composer, philosopher and painter). He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China.”

“This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins [wise men or priests in the Vedic tradition] express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.” – Schrödinger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the article is a lot longer but extremely interesting. A lot of food for thought...

 

 

Thanks. It is interesting.

If some ancient really smart indians had some ideas that were way ahead of their time, like an Einstein sitting in the Patent's office, then they are scientists, attempting and possibly succeeding in adding to what is known about reality. 

It could be, like Newton spending so much time attempting to turn lead into gold, that Bohr and others took a tenuous path to making the discoveries they made and focused too much, and read too much into,  those ancient texts.

It may be obvious but  it just comes down to the implications of words used no matter the topic. If someone says ' I have a theory that I'd love to scientifically test to say that someone's dream is their reality ' that is one thing. But to say 'I believe that dreams are actual reality for that person' is a different kettle of fish. You have then jumped away from science and into hope and faith.

44 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm#:~:text=When a quantum "observer" is,can also behave as waves.&text=In other words%2C when under,observation affects the experimental findings.

 

If you can't observe subatomic particles without influencing them, doesn't that make any attempt at being completely objective futile?

 

As for science being the best guide to reality...well...

It may be useful in the material reality, but severely lacking in a lot of other departments. 

To be honest when I first heard about that  I wondered why it wasn't the headline story. It is one of those things that it is truly fascinating. That phenomenon is a discovery from science.

Whatever causes it, even if it is some sort of god, then that mechanism becomes part of science once it is known what is happening. 

I know it's obvious but in the past, when scientific knowledge was weak, people took things that didn't make sense and put it down to gods. People couldn't wait for science to catch up and explained the stars, and volcanoes etc, with reference to a god. Comforting.

Not saying there is no god. Just that science showed that belief in a  god based reality for these reasons did not stand up.  

Discoveries in the future will  further alter our concept of reality but the scientific knowledge we have today is clearly the best guide to reality.  

I won't pick up a hot coal, and I wont believe that thoughts, feelings or dreams in my head are reality,  however real they may seem, if empirical evidence shows this not the best course of action.

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I would define reality as any state of consciousness you find yourself in at any point in time. 

If you're dreaming, then that's your reality at that time.
If you're awake, your reality is what we're all used to and spend most of the time in.

If you're depressed or see the world as out to get you, that will be reality for you.
If you have a mystical experience and experience everything as one, then that's reality.

Why should the reality you're used to experience be the only reality, or the only one worth exploring? 

Can you explain what a "fanciful" experience is?

Reality isn't defined as state of consciousness.

It may be impossible to be fully objective but by following science we can become as objective as possible about what reality is. If you dream, or have a certain perception that everything is one, or think the world is out to get you, scientific analysis can step in to show you that, based on scientific knowledge at this time,  your experience is less likely to be reality than what science can tell you it is. 

Science is the best guide to reality.

One thing you can do is get those apps on your phone that take satellite readings of your bike rides and then you can easily compete against your own times and others who are using the same app. Though just the pleasure of riding yourself, with the results it is having, might be sufficient.

At my gym they had stationary bikes that had been connected to the internet and you could go in competitions with yourself or people all around the world in road races and games even though you are looking at a cartoon like picture on the screen as you ride. I got really hooked too. Whether your were trying to get in the top 500 or top 10 in the world or just beat the people at the gym it was a fun incentive to go that bit harder. 

They went out of fashion and the bikes weren't maintained and the gym turned off the subscription so I don't ride much now. 

I am not in Thailand so you probably don't care but we had a ridiculously rainy Friday in Melbourne particularly in the hills. Flash floods etc. Been a strange summer.

1 hour ago, BEVUP said:

Good to know it seemed a nightmare as I (if the time comes ) am not going to be able to provide half that info (not forgetting over a duration of 13 yrs ) - Don't keep reciepts /ect ect 

Will have to rely on wifes memory

Also Thailand do not keep records of international travel (have doc from embassy stating this )

As i was a FIFO worker i only visited every mth so no joint anything

But married with son

 

The last sentence should make proof of relationship fairly easy.

The ones that I have seen get rejected are guys who have fallen madly in love and apply after 12 months of knowing her and don't have much proof.

If you have photos over 12 years, getting married, together with your child, with her family and your family, that should be fine. Your passport will show  your regular visits. 

Things like joint bank accounts can help but in my case I just said that as a couple we said I would take charge of the finances. You can probably show money sent to her or money spent on stuff in the area where she lives etc. It is normal not to have kept receipts from 10 years ago so just show more recent stuff and in your case it should be fine. 

As others have said it's just whether your story is believable and if you both tell the same story it should be fine. They have to have a good reason to say no.

Just now, organicman said:

 

Do you know of a guide that I can follow? I'm looking around the net at present for a good one where I'll be doing it myself. 

I don't know of a guide though there are forums like this were people may discuss it.

The way I did it was with my Thai partner in Thailand and I had a lot of contact with vfs which you probably dealt with for the tourist visa.

If I was you I would just think about what you want i.e. defacto or marriage then use the website that has a pretty good step by step guide to get the correct forms. Then if it helps you could call the immigration line to make sure you are on the right track.

Then just look at the forms with your spouse and take it step by step making a note of stuff you don't have. If you have specific issues you can always call vfs or immigration in Australia. 

As I said the ID part was a bit tricky getting and it may be a bit hard for you if she is here but maybe you have it all for the Tourist visa. You have to list family members and probably get a bit more ID but that's not too bad.

Then you just need to gather evidence of your relationship.. I downloaded the whole Line conversation, a bit embarrassing in parts but it is good, and had lots of photos.  Not too much detail but not to little. I put it in sections with headings. For example:

2018

I stayed with her in Koh Chang in February for three weeks and then spent two nights with her family in Ubon. See photos attached as Photo 1 and Photo 2 and booking Document 1 for hotel for that trip. For nine months we were apart but I was in daily contact as per the attached summary of the Line app. I sent her some funds for financial support as per Document 2. She came to Australia in November and we travelled to Queensland and spent time with my family. See photos 3 and 4 attached.   

2019 etc

The thing to remember is there is a  public servant who'll be checking your forms - make their job easy  with complete forms and it's not too bad. 

If you need an agent depends on your experience with forms. Really each question is fairly easy but as a whole it can seem overwhelming. At the end of the day it will you doing the leg work to get the forms etc that are required but the agent may give you confidence.

I did it myself and it was fine.

In the big picture it's about having ID of various forms. much of which you provided for the tourist visa, and proving your relationship.

If she's been here many times and you have photos of her with you and with your family and you with hers and proof of contact when you weren't together it's not hard. Just takes time and patience. 

Recently in Australia they have introduced new payment option businesses that have been the darling of the stock market - they have no interest but a  fee if you don't pay on time. Seems the same as a credit card. But to compete with these new players, credit cards have been offering $100 gift cards, if you make x amount of purchases. Money for nothing.

Add to that up to 60 days to pay back, no fees, ease of touch pay, insurance included, points to gain further gift cards what's not to like.

One time I booked a hotel in Thailand and the site selling the booking went bust. The bank repaid the amount as I had used the card. In Thailand I get free travel insurance too.

As others say as long as you pay it off each month no issues.