Rice is just fancy grass, too. So are oats, barley, and rye. All fancy grass

But what’s the endgame? Dump a lot of oil on the market, crash the price, devastate the US oil industry?

We do not wonder that

Teehee…drug snuggling

Does Jamie Dimon not do work at a desk? If not, how the fuck does he work? Sounds replaceable by AI

All this just to keep Epstein out of the news…

In all seriousness though, what in the ever-loving fuck

Climate change is real and we’re causing it

“I definitely did not do this and won’t change anything I do.”

Blue M&Ms cause cancer

“How could the M&M people do this to me?”

I gotta say though, there are a ton of women lifting at the gyms I’ve gone to

Science classes

I still don’t understand what point you’re trying to make…

Russia doesn’t even have any functioning launch pads for manned flights after the Baikonur Cosmodrome was damaged in November

Sure, people are fish and insects are crstaceans, but that has nothing to do with edibility.

My point is that crabs and grasshoppers are separated by 400 million years of evolution, and are extremely different from one another, just like fish and people are extremely different from one another. I’m trying and failing to understand your point, and don’t at all get what you’re using the word “bugs” to describe

7 seconds old

Dawg. Insects broke away from the arthropods in the ocean and came on land in the fucking Devonian period. That makes crabs and insects about as related as you and a lobe-finned fish.

Literally nothing you have written ties any of this back to “queerphobia.”

Those versions support my interpretation too.

One of the greatest arguments ever constructed. Truly.

See, the modern use is actually based on popular media portrayals of narcissistic personality disorder

This is the opposite of true. The adjective “narcissistic” has been in common usage since the late 19th century to mean the exact same thing it means today, i.e. “self-centered.” The term “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” wasn’t coined until 1968.

Truly, you’re eager to manufacture outrage for some benign things. What’s up with that

No they don’t.

But there isn’t one single myth, you’re only citing Conon’s version, which is the only one that fits the narrative you’re trying to portray here. Why not Ovid’s version? Why not Parthenius’s version? Why not Pausanias’s version?