I don't normally do this, but I see this from time to time, so just so you know:
wary: feeling or showing caution about possible dangers or problems.
leery: cautious or wary due to realistic suspicions
weary: feeling or showing tiredness, especially as a result of excessive exertion or lack of sleep
I'm sorry if this was annoying rather than helpful!
Groceries, in particular, are more of an effect than a cause. Lots of people live without cars in New York City, or London, or Paris, or Toronto, or Tokyo, and they manage to eat. The reason you need to buy 7 days worth of food for two people all at once is because you live in a field far away from everything. "Getting Groceries" becomes a special trip, because, while driving, leaving the highway, stopping and parking are inconvenient.
As a pedestrian in a city, I was going to walk past 5 food stores on my way between work and home anyway, and it's really not problem to walk in and buy only what I ran out of yesterday, or some special item I wanted for tonight's dinner. It's simple to shop for 5 or 10 minutes, five times a week, rather than one hour once a week, and never need more than a single bag of groceries at a time. And rather than being inconvenient, it's actually great because I'm only buying what I need right now, the things I'm going to use as soon as I get home, so it's very simple.
Allergies could be tricky, yeah. If you're lucky the local shop, by nature of being smaller and more local, actually knows you and knows you need this stuff and stocks it because they know you'll buy it from them. But that's not a guarantee, for sure. That having been said, if the only people driving were people with corn allergies, the roads would be a much safer place!
Also that's not even a prism, that's a pyramid...
Thank you for your honesty! I've asked another followup question to OP on their response to my message which I invite you to answer as well.
But I have a question for you regarding cartoons! So, I have encountered, in my travels, fan art / cartoons based on shows where the characters would be young. Bart Simpson would be a classic example, since he's supposed to be 10 or something, but there's a tonne of Simpsons fan art. But they write on the front "all characters depicted are 18", and more importantly he'll be drawn with a huge, clearly adult, penis and balls. But otherwise his character design is the same, it's not some "future" version of the character.
So my question is whether or not art like that -- young characters with post-pubescent sexual features -- is the sweet spot for you, or if instead that kind of ruins the comic for you because you were looking for a more child-like figure.
And feel free to not answer if you'd rather not, of course. This is the internet, after all!
Thank you for your honest and straightforward answer!
I imagine you're more sensitive to it, as someone in the community, but do you ever hear someone talking about their attraction to a 4 year old (for example, as someone outside your range) and think "that's so weird, I just don't get it"? Basically, I'm asking if you ever feel towards them the way that most people would feel towards you? (at least in terms of confusion, ignoring the hate). Or is it closer to feeling more like a preference, where you're more like "I guess I could see it, but it's just not for me", the way some guys might not find some celebrity attractive that other guys do find attractive.
Speaking of "deep child crush", I have a more direct question which could get into uncomfortable territory, so please feel free to not answer this one if it feels too invasive.
People who are into adults tend to have sexual or sexualized characteristics that they focus on. The classics would be "boobs" or "butts" or "legs" for people attracted to women (though of course there can be others), and "hands" or "butts" again or "forearms / shoulders /muscles" or "voice" or "hair" or "height" for women (though of course there can be others).
Many of those are post-pubescent features, probably not by accident. So, what features do pedophiles find attractive in kids? What separates some random kid from a crush?
Children, in my experience, have relatively few boundaries or concern for social space. How do you handle a situation where a child runs up to you, or hugs you, or crawls all over you, etc? Especially if the parents aren't aware of your preferences, and thus may not see the issue with "kids being kids".
To draw parallels to my own experiences, I may not want to sexually assault random attractive women, but I don't typically have them lay on top of me and hang off me non-sexually. It would at least be more temptation, I would assume... Adult women tend to keep a formal distance, because they know that attraction is present and don't want to encourage it, if they can help it.
Also, if I can add another question on here, what age range are we talking about? Does the pedophile community have identity labels for people who are interested in particular ages? Or is there instead some "golden age" that basically all pedophiles are attracted to, and virtually no one is attracted to kids younger than that, for example.
I agree with OP. If there's a puzzle in a game that's clearly some kind of water puzzle, but I can make a boat to solve it in 15 seconds and bypass the obvious intent of the puzzle, maybe I feel a bit clever. But if I can solve every puzzle with effectively the same boat... what's the point of doing the puzzles? I guess because I wanted puzzles? But on the other hand, if I know I can solve every puzzle with a 15 second boat, it feels kinda weird to pretend I don't have an answer and struggle through anyway. Like, the victory is hollow when I know I could have solved it faster the dumb way.
The number of times in that game I thought "oh, maybe I have to jump up through the floor here to get through this door" and then I peeked through the floor and was like "oh, nope. It's the damn final boss room again. Not supposed to be here yet, better go back through the floor and try another way to open this door" felt like I was babysitting the game so as to not entirely ruin the experience... and it kinda ruined the experience...
Okay, I trust that you'll all respect that I'm entering a Judgment Free Zone.
There was a period in my life where I would buy grocery store potato salad and use it as a dip for Cool Ranch Doritos, and it was actually pretty good!
I don't do that anymore, but all I can say is that it's possible. Thank you for respecting my experiences.
Well... That's actually probably fair as stated.
BestBuy etc don't sell Apple's products on commission, they bought them from Apple for a wholesale price, they've got them in a warehouse and on shelves right now on their dime, and the only way they make that money back is by selling them.
And the only way Apple makes money from a product being sold at Best Buy is that Best Buy will likely buy more stock to replace the stuff they sold, and they'll buy that from Apple.
So if it was banned everywhere it would be unfair to the retailers that already paid Apple for a product they now can't recoup, and it wouldn't impact Apple at all because they already made their money from Best Buy.
This way the retailers can get their money back, but can't get any more, which means only Apple is impacted.
The only other way that's semi-fair (but would be extreme) would be for Apple to be forced to do a recall or something and reimburse all the retailers the money they had already spent. Doable, and definitely more of a punishment for Apple, but a lot of extra work for everyone if the outcome of this is that Apple settles and then everyone can just go back to ordering more again.
I'm not 100% sure it's being used correctly here, but entrapment in general is when a police officer convinces or coerces a person into committing a crime, and then arresting them for that crime. So, if a police office is standing somewhere and you walk up to them and ask to buy drugs, they can arrest you for that. But if they are like "hey man, want to buy some drugs? Come on, it's only $10. You know what, for you, first time is free. Just take them", and then you take them, that is entrapment.
The reason entrapment is problematic is because it's hard to tell if you would have committed a crime, had the officer not pushed you into it. Maybe you were just feeling pressured and wanted the uncomfortable situation to go away, etc.
As for not exposing entrapped people, there is this moral dilemma in general that often gets dramaticized in cop shows and movies, which is that the person we know is guilty gets away on a technicality or procedural issue. And at first blush that looks like a flaw. But actually it's more like the lesser evil of a bad situation. Because what we don't want is police using powers that erode the freedoms of the innocent people, like breaking into people's homes and going through their stuff, or wire tapping, or torture, or whatever. Things we don't want police to do to innocent people.
If doing these things were "frowned upon", but we still used the information we gained from it anyway, then it would be a viable police strategy. It's a cost of doing business, but it gets the job done. Even if a single officer got fired for it, they could choose to matryr themselves to do the bad thing and get the guy. But we don't want cops doing these things, because anything they do against a person they think might be guilty is something they could be doing to a person that's actually innocent. So we kinda have to make the rule be that any information, no matter how good, that was gotten in a bad way becomes bad information that we all agree never to use. Because that's the only way to make sure the police don't want to do the bad things.
It may let some guilty people go free, when the police screw up, but in theory it protects all of us against an escalating police state.