My child swears!

Exactly the question in my post. Why is there a double standard that depends on a person's motive for opening a package and eating in the store? If it is eventually being paid for, what difference does it make?

Thank you Chai, you know it's the little things that make the difference, over here we'd call that a change purse, and we'd order prawn crackers in a Chinese restaurant.

Ok, ok, you're right. I can't remember my last canape experience. Must've been someone's wedding.

Dim sum for all.
In Toronto.
ehBeth knows all the best places..

you betcha

was just talking about dim sum places today with a colleague - plans to be made

Depends on the nature of the canape.

Some are lovely. I like nibbles of lots of different things...hence I also love yum cha.

nix on the canapes - they've been breathed on by who knows how many people - maybe poked at by someone <shudder>

weird, I can share food with someone directly - but if I don't know who's been around something, I'm very suspicious of it

Goims are good for us.

For the brave of heart re the taste of anchovy - some bagna cauda:



(That may be all for me, given how much people avoid anchovies)



Referring to the original subject, bagna cauda might make a child cry....

I think you have a valid point Butrflynet, but I come at it from the opposite direction.

First of all, not eating food before you pay for it (if you are going to pay for it anyway is a silly rule). This is an example of a rule for rule's sake. There is no good reason for it.

Not only does eating food before you pay for it not hurt anyone. I am quite sure it actually benefits the stores. They don't mind me snacking because it is in their economic interest. I start snacking while I am shopping I am more likely to buy to buy something I wasn't planning on (snacks are an impulse buy). Further, if I am hungry or bored I am more likely to be rushed meaning that likely I will buy less. Make me comfortable and products have more of a chance to call out to me.

I hate rules like this that don't have any logic behind them. I don't teach my kids to mindlessly follow them, and I certainly don't follow them myself.

My goal is to live a good life, this means living according to my own standards of what it means to be a good person, and it means finding as much enjoyment as I can for myself and people I care about. Rules that help me meet my goal I am happy to follow. Rules that are in the way I don't.

Kids need to learn to break rules that don't make sense.

Well that says it all really - the world has to fit with what makes you and your kids happy. I can't argue with that kind of thinking.

You left out the part about being a good person, but sure. Why should you have to fit to what makes the world happy especially when the world is so often wrong? I believe you should focus on being a living a good life (which includes both being happy and making the world a better place). Often the rules get in the way. Sometimes it is even impossible to be a good person without breaking the rules.

Tell me who are the people you respect the most for having a positive impact on the world?

Mine include Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Harvey Milk, the Suffragettes. Do you see a theme there?

I definitely teach my kids to not care at all what the people around them think.

yadda yadda yadda, just make sure you never move into my neighborhood!

That's funny Jane. People felt the same way about Rosa Parks, Harvey Milk and the Suffragettes.

You're not it max, so don't even put yourself into the same row as them.
These people changed the world for their minority groups, what you're doing
is being obnoxious while leaving bread crumbs all over the supermarket.

You missed the point Jane.

Living a good life is more important than following rules, and sometimes living a good life is impossible without breaking rules. This is why I teach my kids to focus on what it means to live a good life and not worry about rules. Again, living a good life means making the world a better place as well as finding enjoyment for yourself and you loved ones.

You say I am not in the same "row" as people who were looked down upon because of who they chose to love, or how they chose to live. You don't know my life, but you are right (although I have experiences that help me relate to them).

But the point is that their rule-breaking is an example of how to be a good person.

And consider the people who opposed them. What drives people to set up a rigid idea of "acceptable behavior" and then looks down on and derides people who break them? The people who tried to stop the Suffragettes and who attacked Freedom riders were people who put rules and their ideas of acceptable behavior above anything else.

Sure, eating in a Supermarket is a silly example of living a better life. But probably getting upset with people eating in a supermarket is a better example of where rules are making your life (and perhaps the lives of people around you) a little worse.

Maxdoncona said

Harvey Milk and the Suffragettes.


Not the best band by any means. You'd be better off listening to the Rolling Stones.

At one period, in elementary school, my son started to curse very often and in a very ugly manner. No explanations helped. Banning was not my education style, so I decided to ask him to curse even more. For every curse he would say, I would ask him to go to the bathroom, shut the door and repeat the word 10 times, but loud enough so I can hear him in the living room.
He may be "shocked" by himself, or he realized the absurdity of words he repeated, but he stopped swearing, soon.

Here's a really good example of satire and irony. I was watching reruns of Harry Enfield and chums last night, and had to share this with you. If you don't get irony you'll hate it. Hopefully you do, and you'll find it as funny as I do.

I disagree with this part actually (after agreeing with parts of your previous posts).

There are several disadvantages for the stores that I can see. For one thing, I'm certain that I buy more when I'm hungry. (If I'm hungry and need to go food shopping, I purposely eat something at home first since the results of a too-hungry shopping trip can be expensive!)

Another has already been mentioned, that if you ingest something that is sold by weight, you can't pay for it (unless you're at Linkat's fancy newfangled store, that's cool).

A third is that if you're eating from a package -- so the price will be the same even if you have some -- that means opening the package, which means that in the whole cart-to-conveyor-belt-to-bag process, it's much more likely to spill and create a mess.

I completely agree about mindless rules -- but this seems like a pretty mindful rule actually, from the stores' perspective.

If they don't give you a hard time about it, I think it's more "the customer is always right" than because it actually benefits them. (They tolerate it rather than encourage it.)

Which is pretty much my position too. It wouldn't upset me if I saw someone doing it (I never seem to) even though it's not something I do.

Excuse me? You are "living the good life" while breaking the rule of eating in the supermarket? That's so great and I wish you well with that one, really!

Living the good life (whatever that means) is quite subjective to people, but
one thing is for certain: if you teach your children they only will live the good life if they break the rules, than good luck, as you will need it!

Your way of thinking is exactly what's wrong with America! You have this same sense of entitlement that so many people display nowadays.