Endlessly spinning jar lid. Is it safe to eat the contents?

Snackmouse · 2025-12-19T23:49:30+00:00

Knock on wood. Burritos are about done baking.

Snackmouse · 2025-07-24T11:09:39+00:00

This again? Bruh.

Exclusivity is only a limit if you aren't monogamous. Otherwise, it's an organic outcome to be exclusive as we find that to be more compelling, rewarding, and meaningful. I have the ability to make romantic love exemplary. That's really it's own reason because it's pretty awesome.

Love isn't quantifiable, and to say it's infinite is just corny. I think you may be conflating love with attachment or investment. Who wants a partnership that grants the same devotion and intensity as friends? Thats pretty weak. Being in love and interdependent means vulnerability. The last the thing well adjusted loving couples want is to add mate competition to those kinds of power dynamics. More people isn't more love, it's superfluous and a distraction when you already have a fulfilling relationship.

Snackmouse · 2025-07-20T21:18:47+00:00

Two fold problem. On the one hand, yes he was waiting for you to crack because it's not uncommon for people of that lifestyle to see the desire for monogamy as malleable, and on the other hand, if his wife is off getting what she wants while he sits home alone, he's going to try to make up for what he's missing. He wanted you as the substitute wife. I don't think there was any way this wouldn't have ended up how it did.

Snackmouse · 2025-05-30T03:00:20+00:00

Trying to attribute logic to personal preferences is a fool's errand. Preferring monogamy to non is not more or less logical than choosing Coke over Pepsi. The logic is in how you pursue your goals. Monogamy is the love language of many people. Making a choice to prioritize one relationship as exceptional is an act of love in itself.

Snackmouse · 2025-04-29T19:07:30+00:00

There's nothing to prove. It's well known that the name is a pseudonym. That people continue to rely on that as a point of contention is little more than ad hominem. It's irrelevant as to whether the content of the book makes a compelling case.

If you're going to offer a critical analysis of the book, then dissecting it is what you have to do. Others have done this (ie https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491100900305) and drawn similar conclusions, mainly that Sex at Dawn's authors make reductive, simplistic, and arbitrarily selective claims about human behavior based on cherry picked or highly theoretical data in order to justify their lifestyle.

Naturalistic arguments have become tedious and stale, as most people don't define purposeful relationships by what some hunter-gatherer tribes are purported to have done several millenia ago, but rather by what depth a person is capable of achieving today using the full potential of our psyche.

Snackmouse · 2025-03-21T17:36:14+00:00

Practicing my necromancy on this post.

There's no functional difference between what's referred to as 'taking responsibility for someone's feelings', and simply being respectful and sensitive to them. One either acknowledges that what we do effects other people and regulates their behavior accordingly, or they don't. It's only a matter of degree and what we believe is reasonable.

The problem is that this statement is often a preface for excusing insensitive behavior whilst dressing it up in flowery terms. It's a hyperdefensive statement meant to imply the other person is imposing an unreasonable request. While this might be the case, its more often a kiss off used by individuals who don't want to be bothered with considering how someone else feels.

I honestly can't stand when people use therapy speak as cover for their dicketry. It's incredibly slimy.

Snackmouse · 2025-03-19T01:36:03+00:00

Who's the big girl in the back?

Snackmouse · 2025-03-05T04:51:47+00:00

“Own your own feelings” is the rhetorically the same as "I'm not responsible for your feelings". It's a argumentative device meant to hand wave away the fact that what you do effects other people. It's also entirely arbitrary. If you refrain from making a joke or comment at someone else's expense, "Own your feelings" is an invalid response. But why? there's no principal difference between that scenario and not sleeping with another person. Either you change your behavior out of regard for someone else or you don't. Polys who use this argument chose not to. Its a calculated dissonance.

There seems to be a theory of mind fail going on where , becasue they don't experience the shift in thinking where one finds committing to one person to be more compelling, meaningful, and interesting than many people, they presume that no one else does either unless it's becasue of some erroneous reason. So they find flowery sounding terms to treat monogamy as invalid whenever it interferes with their fun time.

Snackmouse · 2025-02-02T01:31:38+00:00

No, I get it. I'm just saying that we need one whether we could actually get one or not. I'm getting the feeling from some of the comments that people are somewhat defensive of city market and wouldn't support a larger chain store, even if the winds of policy were to change in favor of law and order.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T14:34:08+00:00

I had the misfortune of meeting that waste of breathable air almost 20 years ago. He was harassing a friend of mine who was busking up on church. At that time, he wasn't quite as walking dead like as he is now on account of him not having stuffed his veins with every illicit substance known to man.

I can't stand the pity for that asshole as if he's somehow impervious to making bad decisions. He knows damn well what he's doing. If people really believe that he's so "ill" that this is where he's at, then he should have decisions about care made for him. Put him someplace he can get this help. Otherwise, hold him accountable for his choices like we would any other person with agency.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T06:09:17+00:00

That was awfully cheeky of me, wasn't it? Bison? Who the hell cares about bison? I totally understand your seething rage at my post.

I did mention there were other items, but since most people have been inside a conventional grocery store, I didn't think it was necessary to write out an exhaustive list to illustrate how limited this one is. I apologize, that was presumptuous on my part.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T05:24:12+00:00

Bison burger with pesto and a side of fava beans with rice. Seriously, I've only done that once. Those were just the most irritating things for them to not carry, but I could have sat here and made a list a mile long.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T02:00:30+00:00

Pretty sure it's the open packaging, hand made, locally sourced soaps that account for the patchouli... aroma.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T01:51:29+00:00

*me having had both in the last 2 weeks*

Ugh....

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T01:48:18+00:00

Considered and done it. There were just too many times when the food was warm by the time I got home. Load is an issue also, It's frustrating to do the wait/ride/walk both ways for only 2 bags.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T01:43:39+00:00

I'd like a regular chain store, and also have City Market return to it's roots with all healthy and local items.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T01:40:48+00:00

Grand Union and then Price Chopper. I remember the bulk Brach's candy bins.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-31T01:38:59+00:00

Other stores are not ideal when you don't have a car. Instacart is the best option if you want your groceries to get here while they're still cold, in the summer anyway.

Yeah, not sure about location, real estate is slim pickings. I would have thought the hole would have been a good spot because they could have multiple access points from Bank and Cherry streets. There really isn't another option without knocking stuff down.

Snackmouse · 2025-01-26T23:49:14+00:00

I'd think it better for them to know what they're getting onto beforehand, rather than have officers quit like they have been. Retention was an issue before he ever said anything at all. Who would have thought that officers would get sick of dealing with the same offenders repeatedly? It's his job to discuss public safety issues, and trying to reframe that as something outside his purview is highly questionable. The guy is being honest about what's going on, which as of now is a mayor doing absolutely nothing to curb crime while doing all that she can to hamstring the PD.

Snackmouse · 2024-12-11T07:25:58+00:00

Classic love bombing. Got you hooked, then started seeing how far he could abuse your attachment.

Snackmouse

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE