What's the matter with kids today? Chapter 1: Table Manners

1235

Comments

  • To me, "Could I", "Can I" and "May I" in such a situation are completely interchangeable. "Just give me a ...." might be seen as a slight hint of impatience (or not). Other suitable phrases are also available.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks a soy cappuccino is not offensive needs to go outside and give themselves a good talking to.

    It’s a good substitute for those who can’t drink milk :)

  • Wrong. It is evil and an abomination unto the Lord.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Wrong. It is evil and an abomination unto the Lord.

    What do you suggest for those who are allergic to milk?

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Wrong. It is evil and an abomination unto the Lord.

    What do you suggest for those who are allergic to milk?

    Black coffee. It's what God drinks.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Boogie wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Wrong. It is evil and an abomination unto the Lord.

    What do you suggest for those who are allergic to milk?

    Something that doesn't involve the destruction of rainforests.

    I dunno, if people want to get high-and-mighty about how other people use words, I'm going to get offended about how other people consume damaging cash-crops.

    And yes, I'm not being entirely serious. And yes, I can see the irony in what I said.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Ha, I knew my soy cappuccino would be commented on! I do like black coffee too. I have that at home - no point getting it in a coffee shop when I can make it at home. In coffee shops I have soy cappuccino, mostly froth, and I eat it with a spoon, like a dessert. I like the texture. I have an oat one in one coffee shop, and I like that even better, but the other alternatives, coconut and almond, have a horrible artificial taste, so I don't have them. I've tried all the options.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, soy milk is still more ecologically friendly than cow's milk:
    The cultivation of soybeans in South America is a cause of deforestation (specifically in the Amazon rainforest) and a range of other large-scale environmental harm. However, the majority of soybean cultivation worldwide, especially in South America where cattle farming is widespread, is intended for livestock fodder rather than soy milk production.

    Though I don't drink it for virtuous reasons. I drink it because I like frothy cappuccino and I don't like cow's milk.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, soy milk is still more ecologically friendly than cow's milk:
    The cultivation of soybeans in South America is a cause of deforestation (specifically in the Amazon rainforest) and a range of other large-scale environmental harm. However, the majority of soybean cultivation worldwide, especially in South America where cattle farming is widespread, is intended for livestock fodder rather than soy milk production.

    Though I don't drink it for virtuous reasons. I drink it because I like frothy cappuccino and I don't like cow's milk.

    There is no virtuous reason to eat soy, ever. But, as I indicated above, there is a big irony in rejecting soy and consuming cow's milk.
  • I got reading glasses a couple of years ago, and find myself needing to wear them far more now than then. Like you, if I've been reading something or using my computer and someone comes up to talk to me if I look up at them they're out of focus. I either need to remove my glasses or look over the top to see people properly. The worst is reading at church, trying to see the text in front of me while at the same time looking at the congregation.
    tangent:

    Some schools of thought say the reader should not try to look at the congregation while reading Scripture. The practical reasons for this are that it becomes easier to lose one’s place and the challenge you describe. The liturgical reason is that the reader keeping his or her eyes on the text underscores that the text is what the congregation is focusing on. That is the Jewish practice when reading in synagogue; the eyes stay on the scroll.

    /back to non-liturgical etiquette.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, soy milk is still more ecologically friendly than cow's milk:
    The cultivation of soybeans in South America is a cause of deforestation (specifically in the Amazon rainforest) and a range of other large-scale environmental harm. However, the majority of soybean cultivation worldwide, especially in South America where cattle farming is widespread, is intended for livestock fodder rather than soy milk production.

    Though I don't drink it for virtuous reasons. I drink it because I like frothy cappuccino and I don't like cow's milk.

    There is no virtuous reason to eat soy, ever. But, as I indicated above, there is a big irony in rejecting soy and consuming cow's milk.

    Well, I don't reject soy and consume cow's milk, so I guess I'm not ironic. But yes, cows consume more soy from the rainforests than humans, it seems, so it would be ironic to be drinking cow's milk over soy for the sake of the rainforests.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I got reading glasses a couple of years ago, and find myself needing to wear them far more now than then. Like you, if I've been reading something or using my computer and someone comes up to talk to me if I look up at them they're out of focus. I either need to remove my glasses or look over the top to see people properly. The worst is reading at church, trying to see the text in front of me while at the same time looking at the congregation.
    tangent:

    Some schools of thought say the reader should not try to look at the congregation while reading Scripture. The practical reasons for this are that it becomes easier to lose one’s place and the challenge you describe. The liturgical reason is that the reader keeping his or her eyes on the text underscores that the text is what the congregation is focusing on. That is the Jewish practice when reading in synagogue; the eyes stay on the scroll.

    /back to non-liturgical etiquette.

    I'm not sure it is quite etiquette but people speaking in public are often taught to try to speak to the audience rather than looking down reading from the page.

    Clearly that's hard to do when reading scripture - but in my experience the readings sound better if the reader glances up and at the audience whenever they can remember the end of phrase without looking down at the verse the whole time.

    But then I think it is a cultural thing. I went through a phase of keeping my eyes off those speaking (singing, chanting etc) because I found the movement distracting.

    Well to be absolutely honest, I couldn't stop giggling. The only way I could control it was to keep eyes pinned to the hymn/prayer book.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Seems simple to me - ‘may’ is about permission, ‘can’ is about ability.

    What am I missing here?
    The actual definition of the word "can" as found in English dictionaries, where one meaning regularly given is "have permission to."
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...It is about control....
    No, it is not. It is about clarity, and, for those who care about such niceties, good manners.
    There is absolutely nothing unclear about "Can I have a cookie?" or "Can I speak with you?"

    Nor is there anything rude about saying "can" instead of "may." More informal in some contexts, perhaps. But more informal doesn't equal rude.

    The supposed difference between "may" and "can" has nothing to do with the actual meanings of the word and everything to do with style and convention, both of which vary by culture, region, register, etc. Presuming to impose the conventions of one subset of English speakers on all English speakers—or to suggest that those who use "can" in a manner different from one's own usage don't care about niceties or good manners—is itself a display of bad manners.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    The weird thing is that being denied permission also means you are not able to do something. To be able to doesn't simply mean physically able if you try, regardless of external constraints like permission, money, laws, etc. It has never meant that. If I say I can't meet up with a friend because I'm working or because I have a doctor's appointment, I don't mean I am physically unable to skive work or not bother turning up to my doctor's appointment. I mean that there are societal constraints that I am choosing to live by, because my life would be much more difficult if I didn't.

    Anyway, here is how the OED defines 'can' as an auxilliary verb:
    With present tense can or past tense could with temporal function: ‘know how (to do something)’, (hence) ‘be able to’ (see senses 4, 5, 9, 10); expressing objective possibility, ‘be permitted or enabled by the conditions of the case’ (senses 6, 11); expressing permission or sanction, ‘be allowed to’ (senses 7, 12); and expressing a possible contingency, ‘it is possible that I did or was’ (senses 8 and 13, used only in negative and interrogative contexts in the present);

    There is much more - it has definitions for all the senses mentioned, and multiple usage examples of each, going back to the 1300s. You can look it up online if you can sign in with your library card.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I'm not sure it is quite etiquette but people speaking in public are often taught to try to speak to the audience rather than looking down reading from the page.
    Sure. My point was only that there are those out there who would say that reading Scripture in worship is the exception to that rule, and who teach readers to, in that particular context, keep their eyes on the page instead looking up at the congregation. As I said, that's the Jewish approach. Mileages will, of course, vary.
    But then I think it is a cultural thing. I went through a phase of keeping my eyes off those speaking (singing, chanting etc) because I found the movement distracting.

    Well to be absolutely honest, I couldn't stop giggling. The only way I could control it was to keep eyes pinned to the hymn/prayer book.
    :lol:

    Meanwhile, am I the only one who, every time I see the title of this thread, gets this as an earworm?

  • On the tangent of the public reading of Scripture, there are also some who would say it should be read dispassionately, allowing the words to make their own resonances with those who hear; and others who say that its stories in particular should be read with drama, as they may well have been recounted in earlier days.

    The acoustic of your worship space may have some bearing on this, too!
  • If you're reading from the scroll, you'll have a yad*. You won't lose your place even if you do look up. When I read, I tend to, oh, use my finger to follow the text. So that when I do look up, then down, I don't lose my place. Geez. You people.


    (* literally, 'hand' in Hebrew. It's often in the shape of a tiny pointing finger. Which is kind of appropriate for all you dicks.)
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    If you're reading from the scroll, you'll have a yad*. You won't lose your place even if you do look up.
    Yes. Nevertheless, as I understand it, Jewish practice is that the eyes remain on the scroll for the liturgical reason I gave above.

  • Still. Yads are awesome, I need one of those in the kitchen.
  • Reading Scripture in church isn't speaking to an audience. It's reading Scripture. They're two completely different animals. I agree with whoever said above that the focus is on the Scripture, not the relationship between the speaker and the audience.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Well, I don't reject soy and consume cow's milk, so I guess I'm not ironic. But yes, cows consume more soy from the rainforests than humans, it seems, so it would be ironic to be drinking cow's milk over soy for the sake of the rainforests.
    Soy doesn't grow in rainforests.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Well one chops down the rainforest to get land to grow soy.

    This seems a bit of an unnecessary clarification - given that fineline probably just accidentally omitted a word.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Reading Scripture in church isn't speaking to an audience. It's reading Scripture. They're two completely different animals. I agree with whoever said above that the focus is on the Scripture, not the relationship between the speaker and the audience.

    I don't agree.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Reading Scripture in church isn't speaking to an audience. It's reading Scripture. They're two completely different animals. I agree with whoever said above that the focus is on the Scripture, not the relationship between the speaker and the audience.
    I don't agree.
    Say more, so I can pounce on it discuss it with you.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Reading Scripture in church isn't speaking to an audience. It's reading Scripture. They're two completely different animals. I agree with whoever said above that the focus is on the Scripture, not the relationship between the speaker and the audience.

    I don't agree.
    As do I. Otherwise, why is a reader necessary?
  • Na, you are ok. Your understanding and practice of the faith is so different to mine as to basically be unintelligible.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    As do I. Otherwise, why is a reader necessary?
    To ensure the passage is read in the service. We could all sit with our Bibles and read them ourselves no sweat. We could all be given a printed copy of the sermon and read that. We could all stay home and read them on the internet. But that's not what worship is.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Reading Scripture in church isn't speaking to an audience. It's reading Scripture. They're two completely different animals. I agree with whoever said above that the focus is on the Scripture, not the relationship between the speaker and the audience.
    Of course. But the reader is the vehicle by which Scripture is brought to the worshippers, and the way that person reads will affect the interaction between the text and the auditors - for better or for worse, for greater or for lesser intelligibility.

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Reading Scripture in church isn't speaking to an audience. It's reading Scripture. They're two completely different animals. I agree with whoever said above that the focus is on the Scripture, not the relationship between the speaker and the audience.

    I don't agree.
    As I said, mileage may vary. Surely the appropriate approach depends heavily on the cultural and liturgical traditions and expectations of the congregation in question.

  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Presuming to impose the conventions of one subset of English speakers on all English speakers—or to suggest that those who use "can" in a manner different from one's own usage don't care about niceties or good manners—is itself a display of bad manners.

    Oooh.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I also like my plums ripe and bursting with flavour.

    *Struggling womanfully to resist Frankie Howerd style retort*

    Anyway. I love that thing the Americans do with changing the fork over to the right hand to eat with, after cutting the food up. It just looks so casual, economical in terms of effort, and cool!

    Anyone broached the 'right' way to hold a knife yet? Handle UNDER the palm, of course?! ;-)
  • I am very right-handed. If I tried to convey my food (especially something like peas) to my mouth with my left hand, I would have spilled food all over the place and none would make it into my mouth. Miss Amanda would never let me attend another Shipmeet.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    She'd pretend not to notice, dear.
  • Just think, you could have pretended not to notice that awkward girl in your OP.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    To me, "Could I", "Can I" and "May I" in such a situation are completely interchangeable. "Just give me a ...." might be seen as a slight hint of impatience (or not). Other suitable phrases are also available.

    I just say, "I would like [whatever], please."

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Just think, you could have pretended not to notice that awkward girl in your OP.

    Sweetie, surely you don't think Miss Amanda stared at her, do you?
  • I'm one of those incredibly literal people, so I'm always worried that if I say, "I would like X" I would get a sassy response like "And I'd like a puppy. Sucks for both of us."
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    I'm my house the polite thing to say is like this

    "Oi, pass me the salt you muppet"

    The polite response is

    "Gettit yourself you lazy toad"

  • I'm one of those incredibly literal people, so I'm always worried that if I say, "I would like X" I would get a sassy response like "And I'd like a puppy. Sucks for both of us."

    The correct response to which would be to get up, brush the dust off your heels, and go to another restaurant. Unless cheek was part of the shtick of that particular restaurant, in which case you knew what you were in for when you went in.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    fineline wrote: »
    Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, soy milk is still more ecologically friendly than cow's milk...
    Perhaps not. I still find it nasty. (And I'm supposed to stay away from soy products in any case.)


  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ...Nor is there anything rude about saying "can" instead of "may." More informal in some contexts, perhaps. But more informal doesn't equal rude. ...
    I fear that we shall have to agree to disagree.


  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    The supposed difference between "may" and "can" has nothing to do with the actual meanings of the word and everything to do with style and convention, both of which vary by culture, region, register, etc. Presuming to impose the conventions of one subset of English speakers on all English speakers—or to suggest that those who use "can" in a manner different from one's own usage don't care about niceties or good manners—is itself a display of bad manners.
    This. And I think the only reason @RooK is arguing to the contrary is because he’s working on his PhD in BBcode and this thread has given him an opportunity to practice strikethrough text.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, soy milk is still more ecologically friendly than cow's milk...
    Perhaps not. I still find it nasty. (And I'm supposed to stay away from soy products in any case.)

    Well, I guess if you represented the entire environment, we could definitively say soy milk was bad for the environment. Just as if I represented the entire environment, we could definitively say cow’s milk was bad for the environment. And if your circle represented the entire English-speaking world, we could definitively say ‘can I’ is rude. Provided that everyone you interact with agrees with you, that is, as of course the way etiquette conventions are established is through people deciding and agreeing on them.

    Insistence that local etiquette norms are universal (not that you are doing this, of course, but a general observation that I was thinking about as a result of this discussion) is a reason why there can be a lot of racism in the UK among some people - people from other countries are seen as rude, as they are not following the various unspoken etiquette norms. It is something I’ve noticed, that people who rigidly associate etiquette and rudeness with certain words and behaviours are more likely to want to stop immigrants coming to the UK, whereas people who see courtesy more in terms of the person’s intentions, and recognise variety in expression among different cultures and social groups, are more likely to be welcoming of immigrants. And the same with accepting young people as having different norms and looking at respect as something beyond certain specific etiquette codes.

    I particularly noticed this when I was invited to join a supposedly humorous ‘grumpy old women’ group on FB, and discovered it was a lot of Brexit voters who were grumbling quite seriously about foreigners, young people today, and us ‘remoaners’! And any comment from me that people may have courteous, friendly intentions but different etiquette norms was strongly disagreed with.
  • Personally I don't like soy milk either, but it's readily available and dairy free and so many of these milk alternatives are not all that great for the environment, including cows' milk and almond milk. The two milks suggested as the least environmentally damaging in this Observer article from November 2017 are coconut and pea. both of which have distinctive tastes by all reports. But I've never seen pea milk available locally. Coconut is available and I do use that in cooking and/or coconut milk yoghurt and butter alternatives.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Yes, my point was cow’s milk is worse, environmentally. The comparatively tiny amount of soy cultivated for soya milk is not the reason for huge amounts of rainforest destruction - that is primarily for the soy used in feeding of livestock. It does feel like a lot of environmental judginess is directed at relatively tiny things and ignoring the far bigger problems - gets a bit daft. Anyway, I’m not going to stop my weekly soy cappuccino, unless a milk I like better is available.

    Hemp milk is lovely, by the way -apparently it makes the best latte art too - but none of the coffee shops near me have it.
  • fineline wrote: »
    And if your circle represented the entire English-speaking world, we could definitively say ‘can I’ is rude. Provided that everyone you interact with agrees with you, that is, as of course the way etiquette conventions are established is through people deciding and agreeing on them.
    And here lies a problem. The establishers of etiquette are rarely the entire group, they are typically the elite.
    Insistence that local etiquette norms are universal (not that you are doing this, of course, but a general observation that I was thinking about as a result of this discussion) is a reason why there can be a lot of racism in the UK among some people - people from other countries are seen as rude, as they are not following the various unspoken etiquette norms. It is something I’ve noticed, that people who rigidly associate etiquette and rudeness with certain words and behaviours are more likely to want to stop immigrants coming to the UK, whereas people who see courtesy more in terms of the person’s intentions, and recognise variety in expression among different cultures and social groups, are more likely to be welcoming of immigrants. And the same with accepting young people as having different norms and looking at respect as something beyond certain specific etiquette codes.

    I particularly noticed this when I was invited to join a supposedly humorous ‘grumpy old women’ group on FB, and discovered it was a lot of Brexit voters who were grumbling quite seriously about foreigners, young people today, and us ‘remoaners’! And any comment from me that people may have courteous, friendly intentions but different etiquette norms was strongly disagreed with.
    Your experience really doesn't surprise me. Hate is abetted by discomfort with things "different".

  • *fart*
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Talking of farts (which perhaps isn't good manners to talk about) I used to work supporting an older woman with Down Syndrome, who was very quiet and demure. When I bathed her, she would sometimes let out a huge ripper of a fart, and then would say delicately, 'Oh, pardon my tummy.' That, I guess, was the good manners she had learnt, though I observe in polite society one never owns up to such things!
  • I prefer the kind of society where such things are badges of honour.
This discussion has been closed.