Humanities desk
< April 4	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 5

Do supermarkets allow people to wash produce in the public restrooms?

Do supermarkets allow people to wash produce in the public restrooms? What about collecting tap water at the water fountain? I have never seen people doing it. Not sure if people don't it because it's illegal or because it's not socially acceptable. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the public restrooms I've seen would be a very bad place to wash produce. I've filled a water bottle at store water fountains before and no one cared. Barring a drought, a law preventing people from using a water fountain would not be in the public's interest and so would be less likely to be passed. A store could still ask you to leave if you come in with no intention to buy anything, whether or not you start filling gallon jugs with water. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point; public restrooms are meant for washing your hands, and they're not cleaned to a standard that's acceptable for food. In particular, the lack of lids on the toilets means that you're likely to have toilet water in aerosol form in the sink areas; that's why restaurants have handwashing sinks in the food prep areas, since an employee should wash his hands in the restroom after using the toilet but then wash again in the prep area, because the restroom still isn't as clean. Barring little handheld water bottles, how would you propose to collect your tap water at the water fountain? Since they're made to serve someone who drinks the water stream from the side or from above, there's typically not much room for container placement; you'd have to do something like this, and I doubt that store management would be particularly appreciative. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual experience -- Customer: "Go wash your hands in the bathroom!" Me in my cashier days: "Ma'am, I have hand sanitizer." Customer: "That only kills 99.99% of the bacteria, you need to wash your hands in the bathroom! And don't you re-apply that hand sanitizer after!" Me: "Ok, ma'am, I'll wash my hands in the room covered with toilet germs before handling your produce." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand sanitizer, while good at killing germs, doesn't actually remove dirt from your hands. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my hand's didn't have any dirt on them. The customer's contention was seriously that the 0.01% of bacteria that survived would somehow be killed (and not aided) by washing my hands in an extremely busy public restroom that usually didn't have soap. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's two different questions. You'd have to ask your specific store what its rules and/or local laws have to say about it. As a practical matter, you wash stuff in a public restroom at your own peril. And you might be able to get away with taking a bit of water from the drinking fountain sometimes, but if you started making a habit of it, they might ask you to leave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would do this. Why would you want to wash produce at the store? Even assuming you found clean water and a store that didn't ask a bunch of questions about why you're hauling heads of cabbage into the shitter, you're not really doing yourself any favours. Produce should be washed, yes, but it also needs to be either dried (if going into storage) or eaten right afterwards. And if you're using reusable bags, the produce will be even more dirty than when you started. Matt Deres (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the store will care about the 0.5c worth of water as such. BUT, in my personal experience, many businesses DO have a problem with hordes of people using their bathrooms whilst not buying anything. (As long as you're buying stuff at the store, they won't care). EXCEPTION, some bars and pubs selfishly used to only supply warm water in the bathrooms, to stop people drinking water rather than buying alcohol. My own jurisdiction passed a law a few years ago that licensed venues (those which sell alcohol to be consumed on premises) must supply free drinking water to patrons, as a responsible-service-of-alcohol measure. As to hygiene issues, others have raised them. Eliyohub (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean is it either illegal or a customer prerogative, I'm sure it's neither. They'd be more likely to stop you from bringing unpaid-for merchandise into the bathroom as a shoplifting control measure. As for refilling water bottles at water fountains or in restrooms, I do that all the time and nobody has ever bothered me, though as with anything, if you cause hassle then you'll probably receive hassle. No idea about aerosolized toilet water in the air in bathrooms but hospitals definitely have sinks in patient rooms. Medical procedure is to wash your hands (it's ok to turn on the taps bare-handed) at the sink, then use a paper towel to turn off the taps, so you don't get germs transferred from the tap handles to your hands after you've washed them. I remember doing that when visiting a family member in the hospital, and the nurses saw me do it and assumed I was a doctor (nope).

When in a sketchy public restroom I sometimes use a paper towel to turn off the taps and re-use it to pull the door open. The trash receptacle is usually located near the door, making it easy to throw out the paper towel while exiting, after using it to open the door. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tearing clothes

Read any significant portion of the Hebrew Bible, and you'll encounter references to the custom of tearing one's clothes as a sign of severe distress; for example, 2 Kings 5:7, near the beginning of the account of Naaman, or Leviticus 21:10, regulations on the priesthood. It persisted into the classical period, as seen in New Testament references such as Mark 14:63, the trial of Jesus. Do we have an article that covers this topic, and if so, what is it? I checked Clothing in the ancient world, Biblical clothing, and Jewish religious clothing without finding anything, and none of the other articles in Category:Jewish religious clothing appears to be relevant. It's easy to find online mentions of the practice, but discussions of the practice I can't find.

My reason for asking this is the practice's pervasiveness: was this a particularly Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish custom, or was it practiced by other ancient Near Ancient peoples? And is it practiced at all in the present time, presumably by more conservative Orthodox Jews (e.g. Haredim or Hasidim), or is this seen only as a practice of the past? Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that it's unique to Judaism, but I can tell you that some Jewish funeral services have a "symbolic" rending of the garments. You wear a small piece of cloth pinned to your shirt, and the rabbi cuts it with scissors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the more reform I think. The more traditional ones rend an actual garment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Here's some info on the Keriah ritual.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keriah is alive and well in the orthodox Jewish community and will make an irreperable mess of a shirt/jumper/jacket. Mind you, by the end of wearing it for a week (see Shiva (Judaism)) you'd want to throw it away anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend -- you can find a lot of stuff through Google if you search using the more archaic terminology "rending of garments". There's a little bit at Bereavement in Judaism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's also a common custom for religious Jews from abroad, who visit Israel, to tear their clothing the first time they visit the Western Wall, to mourn the destruction of the Temple, of which the wall is the last surviving remnant. Some Jews avoid this either by switching shirts (as you're not allowed to tear something which isn't yours), or by paying their first visit on the Sabbath, when tearing clothing is prohibited. Others do indeed tear their clothes when they visit, and not attempt to "find a way around it". My father did so. Eliyohub (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel clamps

If a city or country (I associate it with the UK) allows wheel clamps instead of towing cars away: doesn't this imply that you can only go after cars that are actually not on the way of anyone? --Hofhof (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More or less; clamping is often as well as towing rather than instead of it. Clamping is associated with parking in a pay space without (adequate) payment, or unauthorised parking in a private car park. Clamped cars will eventually be towed from many such places if the fine remains unpaid, but there is less urgency than where a car is blocking traffic or access and immediate towing is used. jnestorius^(talk) 14:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, clamping is no longer permitted in a private car parks. This has largely been replaced by ANPR enforcement.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wheel clamps!" I suppose if a Brit was told "They put a boot on your car" he would be puzzled. Edison (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. They always seemed completely unacceptable to me. Consider the people who can't get to the hospital in time, kids who aren't picked up from school or day care in time, etc. It's not worth risking people's lives over a parking violation. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a very generalized assumption that everyone is either planning to do something neutral or good. Nobody ever intends to do something bad. I could ask you to consider the guy who was going to drink and drive and run through a line of kids crossing the road, but he couldn't. How about the guy who planned to blow up a train? How about the guy who planned to snipe random strangers in the park? In reality, nearly every person is planning to do something that doesn't really affect anyone else and it is just an annoyance. For the one person who couldn't get to the hospital, there is just as much probability that there's another who planned to kill someone. Of course, this is based on my view of the world through the emergency room. A gunshot victim means that there is a shooter. A car accident victim used to mean there was a drunk driver, but now means that some idiot was texting while driving - and around here, they almost always do a hit and run. An injured child is more likely to be the result of abuse than a real accident. For every innocent, there is a criminal. So, asking me to consider the innocents means that I think of the criminals. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Straw man argument is an Informal fallacy of refuting an assumption that no one has made. Blooteuth (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not worth risking people's lives" is an assumption that was made. "Consider the people who can't get to the hospital" is an assumption that was made. I directly responded to both. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An assumption is a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. IP user 209.149.113.5 claims StuRat makes a "very generalized" assumption but his post makes no such assumption viz. that "everyone is either planning to do something neutral or good", nor does his point depend on such a blanket claim. The claim is ridiculous and seems to have been introduced merely to launch a rant mocking StuRat's post, in transparent Straw man fashion. Quoting StuRat's sentences properly finds no untenable assumptions: It's not worth risking people's lives over a parking violation. is a humanistic value judgement that he has a right to express, and "Consider the people who...(3 categories described), etc." is an invitation to rational empathy. That invitation is wasted on someone whose "direct response" is the counterproductive "asking me to consider the innocents means that I think of the criminals". Blooteuth (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I jumped straight to what I read as his claim that clamping cars can cause harm, it is, to me a clear point. StuRat begins with "they always seemed completely unacceptable to me." He says "always," not "sometimes." Therefore, he assumes that there is always a reason they are unacceptable. He then explains why they are always unacceptable by concluding that they harm people. People cannot get to the hospital. Kids cannot get home. Play with it however you like, but it is clear that StuRat is making a blanket statement by using "always." The counterpoint is to ask if there is ever a case that harm could be deterred by clamping a car, which I did. Then, you decided it was necessary to argue that StuRat didn't make the claim that they are always unacceptable because they can cause harm. Looks like it is time for you to edit his post so you can win whatever prize you are seeking. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question that we should be addressing concerns the utility of wheel clamping cars. The first response is clear that clamping is a bad choice where a car is blocking traffic or access. Prolonging the blockage is harmful. StuRat's sentence can be read correctly as "[Wheelclampings] always seemed completely unacceptable to me." or be distorted into "[Wheelclampings] seemed always completely unacceptable to me" (my italicisations). The sentence reports StuRat's consistent personal perception, which is credible and is founded on the humanistic considerations that he itemizes. IP user 209.149.113.5 would deny StuRat his own perception! To this end (s)he pretends it is inevitable to ask "if there is ever a case that harm could be deterred by clamping a car", which (s)he also answers in the affirmative with a rant about scenarios starring various terrorists and mayhem. The notion that clamping car wheels has utility for pre-emptive interdiction of unidentified train wreckers and gunslingers is just ridiculous. To edit another's post without their consent is not allowed. I object to IP user 209.149.113.5 inciting that action, which I shall not take. Since none of this exchange after StuRat's post helps the OP, it is possible for anyone uninvolved to box it all under a hat marked WP:SOAPBOX violation. Blooteuth (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As to the silly argument that people are just as likely to be up to something bad as something good with their cars, if we accepted that premise, then, by reductio ad absurdum, we would do no harm if we permanently booted everyone's cars (or even crushed them). Most people use their cars to do something useful to society, like going to work or school, support the economy by shopping, dining out, etc., even if not doing something as dramatic as savings lives. The booting penalty is also a regressive one, as it's far more severe on somebody with no alternative transportation available then to a rich person. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Many British cars have boots, (unless they are hatchbacks). In the UK, the boot is what Americans call the trunk - so your car either has one, or would have nowhere to put one. Clamps are still used by local authorities, and by the police - but no longer by private car park operators. Cars which are causing an obstruction or are in a dangerous position can be towed immediately. Otherwise there is a requirement to allow the driver a short period to return and move the car. Wymspen (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2017 (UT)

"For every innocent, there is a criminal. So, asking me to consider the innocents means that I think of the criminals."

Not really. Some things are just accidental, Itsmejudith (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In the UK, clamping is no longer permitted in a private car parks." -- Still legal in Ireland under the Vehicle Clamping Act 2015. There are tighter rules for the clampers in "non-statutory clamping places" (typically private car parks) than "statutory clamping places" (such as public streets). jnestorius^(talk) 07:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP accidentally set a slightly misleading agenda by referring to "...a...country...the UK." The UK comprises four countries divided into three separate legal systems: Scotland, England & Wales, and Northern Ireland; thus many UK-related legal matters may have up to three different answers. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.3.250 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the car was "in the way of something", it will usually be promptly towed. If it's not in the way, clamping is usually the first resort - it's a lot cheaper to do. You can clamp many cars in the same time as a tow truck will need to devote to a single car.

In my jurisdiction, at least, a car can be promptly towed if it's blocking traffic, even for a first offence. You do usually need to pay the fine and towing fee before your car will be allowed out of the impoundment yard. Clamping, by contrast, is limited to circumstances where the car owner has defaulted on (failed to pay) a fine incurred by the vehicle, so to speak (speeding, parking, etc).

I think if they want to impound your car as "property" (due to fines you owe, but which were not incurred by the vehicle in question) they need to follow the same procedure as for seizing any other item of property, which I think involves a court order - and towing, not clamping. It's a somewhat different process, of a general "debt recovery" nature. I also believe that if it's your only car, and worth less than $6,000 or so, it cannot be seized in debt recovery, as per bankruptcy rules. I may be wrong here. And other jurisdictions may do things differently. Eliyohub (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A friend in London "forgot" to pay his Vehicle Excise Duty and woke up one morning to find that his car, parked in the street outside his house, had been clamped. A sign on the windscreen told him to ring and pay up, but it was a busy day at work, so he didn't get around to it. By the time he got home, his car had been removed like this, so he had to go to the pound to get it back (having paid his tax first) and then pay a removal fee, a storage fee and a release fee. Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Warrant of Execution can issue out of the county court. Bailiffs have no qualms about seizing cars. Section 283(2)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides protection for "such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the bankrupt for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation." For a summary of the rules on vehicles see [2].86.147.208.18 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]