Alfred001

The wifi I'm talking about here is provided by the city, so its not some random bar, does that change things any?

I've only recently started using a smartphone so using public wifi networks is completely new to me. I'm wondering if there are any security precautions I should take if I'm using public wifi?

I'm pretty sure I understand what this means, but want to double check: If someone in American football says "We're a throwing offense" it means their attack is based on passing, right? What's the alternative? The QB making a run for it?

I understand energy comes in discrete packets, is there evidence that the same may be true of space or time?

I should say, to make things clearer, the context I'm working with is the translating industry where you have translating agencies who have translators employed who work in their office and are paid a salary and then they also have freelancers who work from home and who are paid per word. Do folks from the US agree that if I juxtaposed these two things it would be clear what I meant? I should say, though, that I think, and I may be wrong, that in the US the word "contractor" is heavily associated with someone doing construction work or some kind of work on the house in the same way that the word "startup," is heavily associated with tech companies, even though, technically (no pun intended), any new business is a startup, but no one would ever call a new grocery store a startup. Because of this I think in the US context the distinction would be freelancer vs employee. Yes, this is, I think, a significant factor. As I said, the employees work in the office, the freelancers don't. Yes, the context is applying for a job. Are you from the US or the UK?

So there really isn't a clear cut and simple way in English to make the distinction, it seems like.

So the consensus seems to be employee. Would you say it as "I want to work for you, whether freelance or as an employee?" The phrasing is a bit awkward, though,

How do people typically refer to being employed by a company as a member of the company as opposed to as a freelancer? If you were to phrase it: "I want to work for you, whether freelance or _____"

My good friend iNow makes a good point, is it that they are not selective or just promiscuous? I can't remember the exact quote any more, but I think it was that they are not selective, which is very odd. Does anyone know which it is? Nah, I don't buy this explanation. If they are so slutty, what do they need protection for? And bullying is not life-threatening, its normal social dynamics.

I just heard on a podcast that female chimps will mate with anyone, unlike human females who are selective and mate across and up dominance hierarchies and have hidden ovulation. Why is it that female chimps are not selective? I imagine gestation is long, like in humans and number of possible offspring limited, again, like in humans.

"Stars trade planets just like baseball teams trade players," How does that happen?? How does a planet, once captured, leave a star's pull?

Solar system IS used to refer to planetary systems (thanks for the correction to one of the previous posters), but that's not correct, no? It should refer only to the Sun and ITS orbiters. Heck, doesn't the word solar refer to the Sun SPECIFICALLY, not a star generically?

Ok, and you acknowladge that other people's opinions matter, too, right? Don't you think those people deserve some consideration? So was prohibition of interracial marriage. Wasn't it you who brought that up? You know what else is democracy? You got three guys in a room, two vote that the third should be killed because he's black. Sure they are, what they care for is being disregarded and stomped on because they are a minority. Again, see the point about democracy. Would slavery be ok if 65% approved of it? (And its not 65%, not that it matters.) Don't just make pat statements, explain how my argument is wrong. Also, would you answer the cultural appropriation question, since iNow obviously won't. Hahaha, you're a TYPICAL SJW. As soon as you can't deal with the arguments you run away. I love how 3 posts back you were beating your chest about how sound your arguments are only to run away 3 posts later. You guys can bs and quote false statistics and false sources and make insanely stupid arguments to the stupid and uninformed, but as soon as you run up against someone with an actual brain with whom you can't hand-wave and BS you run away I have experience arguing with your kind, it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME. You have untenable positions, and you're not very bright, to begin with, but you're used to getting approval whenever you voice your incoherent views and when you run up against a non-stupid person you run. And your reasoning is sooo bad That part where you make the argument that opinion on interracial marriage changed and you REALLY thought you had something there... logic is not your strong suit. This guy's been calling me a bigot for 3 pages, NOW you come and warn me?!

I thought the Solar System is the Sun's system, but I see a lot of publications using solar system as a generic term for a star system. Which is it?

I know very little about astronomy and it occurred to me that I've only ever heard of plantes orbiting stars, but I can't think of a reason why that would always be so, are there planets that are not orbiting stars?

Thanks!

No, the definition of "coming into the house" is moving from outsied the house's walls to within the house's walls. The taking off of shoes doesn't enter into it, its just a curtesy. Just like the cutting of a ribbon is usually done with scissors, but if you do it with a stake knife, you're still cutting a ribbon. For chrissake, man, we just went through this in the previous post. I said, if no one cares for a tradition any more (or almost no one) then it's ok to change it. I'm beginning to think you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument. My argument is not it should be so because of tradition, my argument is it should be so because these people care for tradition. This is the EXACT example we used and in reference to which I explained the SAME position I explained AGAIN before this quote. I can't keep explaining the same thing only for you to ignore it again as if I didn't say it. Another argument (which isn't really an argument) that I've adressed already. It is NOT the culture of other people. Marriage is NOT the culture of gay people. Never has been. And 35% don't. So is it your view (and I want an answer to this) that a majority should always be able to trample over a minority? I'm not switching between anything. I think it is wrong to violate someone's rights even if it is not my rights that are being violated. I get emotional over people calling me a bigot and attributing bigoted motivations to me. I still don't understand what your point here is. But my question was rhetorical to begin with. Let me help you out: The possibility that public opinion on SS marriage will shift further, and it probably will, does not mean that the desires of people living today who DO attribute importance to that tradition do not matter. Oh, so you're not only stupid, but a scumbag, too. Got it. Typical Marxist. A mass of people standing in the way of the socialist utopia? Just crush them. Lovely people you lot are. And what how would you describe the position you expressed in the previous post, "fuck 35% of the population, they are not important?" You haven't asnwered most of the questions I asked you. Go back and answer them. You make claims and then cite sources that don't substantiate them, then you don't apologize for bullshitting, you make remarkably stupid arguments in a condescending tone (with your intellect you can't condescend to anybody) and you just duck what you can't answer and come with insults. Go back and answer the questions, dummy.

I've not traveled much as an adult, but when I traveled as a child with my parents all I ever needed was a passport, but I keep hearing people talk about visas, even if its just tourism rather than going to a country to work. I should say, I've only traveled within Europe (including from non-EU countries to EU countries). I'm wondering, what are the situations in which someone would need a visa if they were just staying briefly in the country and not going for work?

Thanks, guys! Wait, aren't resume and CV the same thing?

Well, let me put it this way, if you wanted to put it in your CV that you worked this kind of job at a computer store, this kind of job being sitting in the store, dealing with customers as they come in and want to buy something, what would you call it?

I'd like to hear from native speakers of English only here. When I say someone works as a salesman, does that mean to you someone who works at a store (say selling computers) or does that word have a more general meaning that includes that, as well as someone sitting at an office, calling people up to offer them wares, traveling salesmen etc.? If I want to refer to someone who works at a computer store or a shoe store, would you refer to that as a retail salesman, necessarily?

What is the idea ignorant of? But you are. By insisting that the word marriage be applied to gay people you ARE preventing them from clinging to a tradition. How is it that I'm changing anyone's rights? (obviously CURRENTLY in the US gay people have the right to apply the word marriage to their unions, but I'm arguing the point whether that should have been done) I don't care about the law, I care about what's right. Why is it that you think that the fact that you do not care about tradition makes you entitled to trample over what other people care about? If you went to Japan and someone asked you to take your shoes off before entering their house, would you tell them that that's stupid because it's based on tradition and they are stupid to do something just because that's how it was done in the past. (btw, I don't know whether they actually do that in Japan, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that they do) I doubt that even you know what your point is here. Are you gonna adress my argument at all? My argument is that the word marriage has never been applied to gay couples so what claim do they have on it? The sources you yourself quote give different terms for their unions, why don't they use those? Furthermored the people who care for marriage as part of their culture and tradition have the right to have it preserved in the original form which they care for. The fact that YOU don't care about tradition doesn't mean you get to do with it as you please when 37% of US does. So, what, fuck them? They're not important? Why don't you answer my cultural appropriation question? Since the term marriage has never been applied to unions btw SS couples, does this constitute cultural appropriation? Please adress my arguments. You just cherrypick what you want and skip anything that doesn't suit you and then tell me I'm arguing my case poorly. Well, sure, if you're gonna gloss over everything that defeats your position, sure I'm arguing poorly. Meanwhile you're the one who made a claim and then cited a series of sources pretending that they substantiate it, when, unless I'm missing something, they don't at all. Don't debate like that. Let's leave the one upsmanship out of it and try to arrive at the proper position. The justification is that it has always ONLY been applied to them. Would you play ball if someone suddenly decided that the word "chair" also applies to tables? If I don't have the right to say that it shouldn't change because I don't want it to change, how do you have a right to change it because you want it to change? The argument But don't you think those people have the right to have their culture preserved and respected? 37% of Americans oppose gay marriage. http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ There is a perfectly objective reason and I've stated it already. The word marriage has NEVER referred to SS couples. Since it has never referred to SS couples and never been part of their culture they have no claim on it and no grounds to demand that they have the right to appropriate it. Do I have any grounds to demand that Japanese people change their culture? ??? Why IN THE WORLD do you think I would pretend not to hold views I hold? I did not say "majority" I said "virtually no one." Furthermore, surely you would not say that the values and thoughts of those 37% of people don't matter simply because they are a minority and we should just trample over them because we can, we're the majority? Why are you not calling out iNow for not answering my questions and not adressing my arguments? Why are you not fair, but rather only policing the side you don't like? Like the sources you quoted which turned out to not support your claim? Name one argument you've made that I've not refuted. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, man?!!?! I've addressed EVERYTHING you've said meanwhile you've not even touched on my main argument except with inaccurate sources and then when I pointed it out you just glossed over it as if nothing happened. My stance is not bigotted and your claiming that it is when it isn't is insulting. I am arguing the conservatives' side on the basis that the term marriage has never applied to gay marriage and the people who care for the traditional definition of the term have the right to demand their culture be preserved and that the meaning of the word does not change because it matters to them and is part of their culture and tradition. I'm NOT arguing on the basis that I hate gay people. THAT would be bigoted. I'm not calling you a nasty word. I could say to you that you're a hateful person because you wish to destroy someone's culture and have no regard for the rights of a minority (as we saw, 37% oppose gay marraige), but I don't do that. That's what SJWs do. I only adress your arguments. I'd appreciate it if you'd extend me the same curtesy. Ridicule my views and call them stupid, if you can find the basis for it and the arguments against them. I have no problem with that at all. If I make a stupid argument call it stupid and mock it, if you wish. But don't baselessly call me a bigot. See, there you go. I refuted EVERY SINGLE ONE of these points and you simply glossed over the refutations and didn't answer, but continue to claim your arguments are valid. So, lets do this over again now, and no ducking this time. I want you to answer all the counter arguments I'm gonna give or concede that your argument is invalid. Please state for each point your counter argument or state that you're conceding, play fair, don't just skip over things as if nothing happened. Also I want you to answer my question about cultural appropriation. The relevant secular reason is that one is SS the other is OS, the definition of marriage has always been SS. I appreciate you don't care about tradition, other people do and you should respect their desire to preserve their tradition. Could the term marriage be redefined to apply to ANY two people, regardless of gender? Sure, the term african american could be redefined to apply to all people, too. But the people who care about tradition and who come from the community which originated the term, heteros, want to preserve their culture and I think they have a right to it. The point you're making is tantamount to me saying there's no reason the word Japanese couldn't apply to me, so if I start insisting that the word Japanese be exapnded to include me Japanese people should simply have to accept that and they are bigots if they don't, they simply hate white people. This is completely irrelevant. The fact that tradition changes and that this one may change in the future in no way renders the desires of people to preserve those traditions in the current moment irrelevant. Never claimed this was relevant. Once again, the fact that the definition changes is irrelevant. For the third time, your sources, unless I missed something, do not show the term marriage ever applied to these unions between men. Different terms were used. Please don't gloss over this point for the third time. Do you have some counter evidence or do you concede this point? I ask you again, ignorance of what? Please don't skip over this question. And I'm going to again ask you to stop calling me a bigot. Please answer all of these counter arguments and either give a good counter argument or concede the point. Don't just gloss over them, state whether you have a counter argument or state that you are conceding. Don't skip over anything. Furthermore, if there is indeed no evidence of the term marriage having been frequently and consistently used in SS ceremonies (if you have any evidence for this, I'd be interested in seeing it), does the demand on the part of SS couples to have the term marriage be applied to their unions constitute cultural appropriation? Also, my main argument (and I'd like you to address it finally) is this: Tthe term marriage has never applied to gay marriage (I understand this is still up in the air, if you have evidence for consistent and frequent use I'll reconsider my position) and the people who care for the traditional definition of the term have the right to demand their culture be preserved and that the meaning of the word does not change because it matters to them and is part of their culture and tradition. These people should not simply be trampled over by a majority that disagrees with them, but should have their culture respected. Since the the term marriage has never applied to the gay community, they have no claim to the term and cannot dictate to the community which originated the term and from whose culture it comes that the term be changed, no more than I have the right to tell Japanese people in what way Japanese culture oughtta be changed. I understand that YOU don't care about what this custom has traditionally been, but you can understand that not everyone feels the way you do and that this is immensely important to some people who care a great deal about their culture and tradition. Folks, please read the preceeding pages before posting, because things will become too hectic and we won't be able to keep the discussion focused if people just start dropping in posts without knowing what the premise of the argument we're having is. The argument we are having is what if gay couples had all the same legal rights as straight couples, only you didn't call it marriage, you called it a civil union. That's what we are arguing, whether that is acceptable or not. Not whether gay couples have the same rights as straight couples right now.

??? Why would you call me a bigot? I'd appreciate it if you would not baselessly insult me as I have been nothing but civil to you. Unless I'm missing something, at no point do your sources refer to these gay unions as marriage. There's this this and this No gay marriage. There's also this: this and this Now, to other points The fact that some aspects of a tradition have changed does not mean that people do not have the right to cling to other parts of it that they wish to cling to. That one is SS other OS. Can you understand that the fact that that is irrelevant to you doesn't mean it is irrelevant to others? Can you comprehend that someone can feel differently about something than you and that maybe you should be tolerant of that. Because traditionally a marriage has been a union btw a man and a woman. Please stop insulting me with the bigotry accusation. Really, calling someone a bigot is not uncivil? I'm not talking about law I'm talking about tradition. ??? None of those things refute that it is a union between a man and a woman. So can't you then appreciate why people who oppose gay marriage care about the label "marriage?" As I've said REPEATEDLY and had it ignored AND been called a bigot, I don't care. I'm merely arguing the case. As to why it matters to the people that it matters to, because it is a part of their culture's tradition and they perceive the application of the label "marriage" to a SS couple as desecrating this part of their culture. Virtually no one cares any more about the restriction on mixed race marriages, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more. The opposite sex couples aspect of the tradition still matters to, I imagine, something like 50% of people in Western societies (I'm sure the exact % varies). As far as I know, unless iNow has some sources that state the opposite, the tradition has never been applied to SS couples. The people who care for this aspect of their culture have the right to demand that it be preserved and honored. I have a question here for iNow (and anyone else who feels the same way can answer). I'm going to assume, perhaps I'm wrong, that you oppose cultural appropriation. Seeing how your sources do not show that the term "marriage" ever applied to SS couples, do you then oppose SS couples appropriating the culture of OS couples? No, what I said IS analogous and, no, it doesn't need to be Canadians. Tolerance is a virtue and you shouldn't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is malicious. Lets, please, stay within the premise otherwise we're gonna go hopelessly off topic. The premise is what if civil unions had all the same legal rights as marriage, just weren't referred to as marriage.

That's like saying girls are not equal to boys because we don't call them boys. The point, again, is that the people who are anti-gay marriage see marriage as a union of a man and a woman, which is what it has been for over 1000 years. To their mind, and I appreciate that you don't see it that way, I don't either, but to their mind, calling a union between a same sex couple marriage is a desacration of marriage. So, to you, the definition of marriage is a union between two people, to them its a union btw two people of opposite sex. So the question is, who gets to define what marraige is. It seems to me that given that marriage has been one thing for over 1000 years the people who are saying, wait a minute, you can't all of a sudden change what this thing means have more of a leg to stand on. Same sex couples can come up with a word of their own, but they can't culturally appropriate (hello!) something that was never theirs. But MY question would be: Who cares? Why does it matter that you call a union between opposite sex couples X and you call a union between same sex couples Y? Why is that something to get upset over? (again, we're working within the premise that they are afforded all the same legal rights) You seem to not have understood what my argument is. My argument is that the definition of marriage is a union btw a man and a woman. That's why the argument doesn't apply to people of mixed race or certain hair color etc. So what is that that matters to some people. Could the definition of marriage be changed? Sure. But to some people the definition of marriage matters. Why? I don't know, it doesn't matter to me, but I recognize that it matters to others and I respect that. If labels matter, then you can understand why some people want to apply the label "marriage" only to a union of a man and a woman. They are not identical. One applies to same sex couples, other opposite sex. Why one would do that? Because some people care about tradition and see the application of this name to a same sex couple union as a perversion of something they care about. My point is, its not second rate in any way other than that someone says it is. (remember, we're operating under the premise of a civil partnership having all the same rights) My question is why do the SS couples care? Its a label that was never applied to SS unions, why do they want it applied to them. I'm with you all the way on them having to have the same legal rights, but what claim do they have on a label that's never been applied to them? It's like me who's not an American insisting that Americans must refer to me as an American.

Folks, lets try to stay on topic. Let's discuss whether pro-gay marriage folks feel it's ok to have a situation where the civil partners are afforded all the same legal rights as married people, or is it important to give them the term "marriage," as well. That IS a secular difference. Its biology, not religion. My argument doesn't apply to mixed race or anything else. Marriage has traditionally been defined as a union btw a man and a woman, race doesn't enter into it, nor any of the other things you mention. Who says its second-rate, you do. Who cares what the thing is called? (I'm arguing withn the premise of "what if they had all the same legal rights")