Bob

I’m not convinced that there’s even a soft rule; I think it’s just a case of the one or the other way of doing it nebulously sticking, like how sometimes you form a noun with -ness and sometimes you do it with -hood. Which now I think about it is more or less what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s done consciously at any rate.

I believe “the gays” used to be offensive, and I did notice that myself but it doesn’t make sense to met that that would be the distinction!

adjectives as nouns are rarely a good sign in general

I don’t think that’s true unless you mean within the context of referring to people or something, e.g. the blacks, the poors. But then stuff like “the rich” and “the unemployed” I don’t really take issue with.

I think it unironically would be androids.

Does it make a difference that it’s under the section “Prescribed Prayers”? Because the New Testament has a similar rule written in it that women have to cover their heads while praying.

Or put a bit more elegantly: joy shared is joy doubled; sorrow shared is sorrow halved.

Cherry picking to sound smart.

It was my point to begin with so I’m bringing it back within context!

Thanks, ants. Thants.

You can sort of tell by the style, the typeface the name’s set in, and the boilerplate dialogue.

Or literally ON biological material?

That you’ve just washed? Nope! On a glove that’s been worn so long it’s got shite all over it? Yep!

For handling food, they certainly are as clean as each other! Unless you think gloves magically repel dust and so on while sitting in the open box on the kitchen shelf?

Well, for one thing, I’m citing the opposite of conventional wisdom, and for the other thing, I’m not saying hands are more or less germ-prone than fresh gloves; I’m arguing the opposite, namely, that they’re as clean as each other. You should really pay attention before being such a sarky cunt.

Forgiven!

I know I can just wash my hands and be clean enough to handle food! It’s my job after all. This actually isn’t the first time I’ve been challenged by someone quoting all kinds of irrelevant scientific concepts: once I said you can wash veg in cold tap water (which is true where we live!) and this young squirt piped up going on about stillwater, breaking surface tension, bacteria… the knowledge apparently isn’t worth much without real world experience!

Gloves in a kitchen is just an illusion of hygiene. The gloves can be dirty and hands can be washed while gloves can’t. So what you’ve actually done is pressured a hapless manager into following an arbitrary rule and I don’t think that’s very nice of you.

Betrays a poor taste in Ape Escape games.

To be fair, that style of rhetoric where you repeat part of the comment you’re epic dunking on is common on Reddit.

I’d draw the man with the million boxes using just the one to see over the fence.

This person presumably pronounces the H in “hour”.

It’s quite telling that you’re ready to say “control” to describe people arguing that you shouldn’t use animals as resources, but not to describe what happens to animals. Or if you would use it to describe what happens to animals, that you think nothing untoward of it. You know what I mean? Either controlling is, as you imply, inadmissable and you therefore become vegan because you mustn’t control animals, or controlling is sometimes admissable and you purport carnism.