[milesrout]

Should is a commonly used word and a fine one. You should feel free to use it. If someone gets hot under the collar because you said he should do something then he is an idiot.

"Ought to" is essentially a synonym. Anyone that gets upset when you said they should do something but is fine when you say that they ought to do something is truly a moron.

[heresie-dabord]

    > If someone [test] then he is an idiot.
    > Anyone [test] when [test] is truly a moron.

These structures are worse habits in communication than subtle, colloquially interchangeable word choices.

[milesrout]

This isn't a habit of communication. I honestly mean it: if you get upset that someone said you "should" do something, but you are fine when they say you "ought to" do it, then you must be stupid. They mean the same thing in modern English.

[jjk7]

Yes but words hold memories to others. Since 'ought to' is less frequently used it doesn't 'trigger' people the same way.

Most people are emotion-first, how the words make them feel is more important than the definitions of them. Being emotion-first doesn't make them stupid.

[milesrout]

Being so emotional they react wildly to one of the most common words in the English language does in fact make them stupid.

[Loughla]

The only time to avoid command words like should is when the person could conceivably see them as a command. Because then you're being a dick.

Otherwise, if someone wants to take the time to dissect meaning from add-on meaningless words like should in a sentence, they should find something better to do with their time. Or just ask instead of being a moron.

[milesrout]

How are you being a dick?! There are loads of reasons why you may want or need to instruct someone to do something. I prefer the imperative mood. It is more direct. "Sudo make me a cup of tea".

[hammock]

Most people are more moronic than one might think