mcity: (Default)
http://www.lvrj.com/news/attacked-by-bees-only-way-was-up-a-mountain-151669205.html

"The bees were in my ears. They were in my nose. They were in my mouth," he said Tuesday as he recounted his ordeal from the parking lot of Lone Mountain Park, at the west end of Craig Road. "I was in a hell of a mess."
That's...not how I'd describe it.
mcity: (Default)
The SA Goons mock him openly. In the style of Rucks

Saw him day after day, starin' at that infernal machine. Starin' at that li'l views number next to his li'l internet show. Wonderin' why no one was watchin'. Hurt me inside, seeing the Kid so confounded by that drat number. Told him it didn't matter. Told him there were a million other things he could be doin'. But the Kid never was one to be orderin' his priorities properly. Never looked at me. Never looked at the girl, drat near broke her heart. Just the views number, 's all he saw. But it never rose. Kid pressed F5 once, twice, again and again. It never rose.
mcity: (Default)
A Few Excerpts

Your father or male guardian does not have the luxury of knowing your suitors like you do.
Men's opinions on women < women's opinions on men. Got it. Someone who used to be a teenage boy is going to know a lot more about them than a teenage girl. The suitors specifically, probably not. In general, yes.

If things are going well between your guardian and your gentleman caller, your male guardian will dislike your new boyfriend. He'll play with guns if he has them.
Iceowl seems to have gotten their ideas about courtship entirely from sitcoms.

Under no circumstances are males to be trusted. They can be controlled for brief periods during which they are safe. But then they must be either released into the wild or neutered. Domestication is not possible. Under the proper conditions, any male will return to his natural illogical, biologically unrestrained state.
There is a recurring topic in feminist discussion; saying sexist things against women is Not Okay, even as a joke. Broadly, I agree. I would also extend that to men, and am, in fact, personally offended by being compared to an unfixed and untamed dog.

There is nothing more dangerous than an insecure male. All the world's worst wars have been started by insecure men who blame their failures on the weather or other people, and feel their minor successes are worthy of Nobel prizes.
I'm sure Boudica, Queen Elizabeth, and Maggie Thatcher would be surprised to know that. No, wait, you said the "world's worst wars". That's remarkably specific, especially considering that most of the people in and leading the military have overwhelmingly been men, meaning that even if the rate was the same for both genders, it would still give the edge to men. This is only slightly better than the canard "All wars are started by men."

All teenaged boys prefer the company of their male friends to female company. They need time to grow into a non-physical appreciation of women. Right now, the only reason they date women is to practice spawning and then to go back to their friends and brag.
First dogs, now toads. Lovely.

All men have a contemplative side.
Finally, something positive.

Your job is to stay away from it until you can handle what's inside there. Take ten or fifteen years before venturing there. It's full of landmines and useless whining.
Okay, I've got a sneaking suspicion this list was actually written to recruit new lesbians.

Because men deny this contemplative side of themselves as their "feminine side" many are troubled by this aspect of themselves
I like how the closest thing to a positive side in men is the part that's associated with women.

Teenaged boys have a difficult time figuring out how to negotiate their first relationships.
True, but so do gi-

They don't understand the meaning of the term. There is only "doing" or not "doing". Everything in the middle is detritus to them.
...Screw you.

As is true for you, for young males there is a "point of no return" at which for the prospect of sex the male will abandon all common sense and commence the process whether you are ready or not.
Note how no comment is made on the incidence of this state among young men (and exclusively young men). Perhaps it's during the full moon.

However, in both cases, it is nearly unstoppable--and I say "nearly" because the only possibility of getting out clean lies in your ability to generate substantive and believable ridicule. You must be totally disappointed in him. Presuming you're not dating a rapist ( in which case both you and soon your male guardian will be in a whole lot of awful grief. For you bear the physical and mental scars, and he will spend the rest of his life in jail for premeditated murder)
Not only are young men animals who only want to have sex with girls, but their dads turn into murdering monsters the second their daughters are raped.

letting your male friend know the prospect of sex with him is a major yawn is probably the best deterrent.
Because there's no chance a young man will politely respect a young woman's desire not to have sex, and her only hope is being passive-aggressive. I mean, it's not like young women would actually want to have sex with boys, right?

(I'm being sarcastic, but at no point does the essay mention women having any desire for sex. It mentions them having it, sure, but men are the initiators, and women are unlikely to actually enjoy it because men can't understand female sexual pleasure.)

Make no mistake. Your male guardian will cause grievous physical injury (or death) to anyone who harms you. Every day he prides himself on imagining he will do that. Do not pull that trigger unless you are serious. You have seen the movies. Be careful. Some things cannot be undone.

Seeing as movies are well known for their accuracy in depicting healthy human relationships.

Young men do not understand female sexual response. To put a finer point on it: they have zero concept.
Um.

Male sexual response, despite what stand-up routines and sitcoms claim, is often a lot more complicated than "10 stimulate penis 20 goto 10". I know that, and I'm waiting until marriage. The list makes no reference to what men like; merely penetrating the goddess called women is assumed to be enough. No man, ever, likes foreplay, or small boobs, or Albanian Pudding Wrestling, and sex is a burden to be borne by the heterosexual woman, since it is entirely impossible that an inexperienced lover can become a better one by listening to his female partner, so she shouldn't even try.

Your mother has probably told you by now, men talk about themselves obsessively
"A wise and sensible woman has probably told you a generalization."

Three, they're afraid you'll start talking about something that interests you...
Because young men are only attracted to young women for their bodies, and under no circumstances would be interested in someone they actually shared interests with.

The best way to get a guy to stop talking about himself is to go to the movies, feed him, or tire him out. Then, when he's not talking, he'll be dead silent and you'll be tempted to ask what's on his mind. Don't. Wait twenty years. He'll start having a genuine interest in what you're thinking. Until then, watch a lot of DVDs.
So, let's review. Men are animals, sex isn't fun because young men don't know what women want, and men don't learn how to take non-physical interest in women until their mid-thirties, at least.

Young men are frequently ill equipped to handle the emotions that arise from having sex.
And so are young women. In fact, studies indicate people's brains don't fully develop until their late teens, lacking critical decision-making structures.

One, most people have more sense than to sleep around like sluts if only because of the horrible deadly STDs out there not to mention the fact that confident people don't need sex for affirmation (remember the caution about insecure partners!),
"Liking having sex means you're insecure, like a man."

and two, nothing other than bullets or drugs has the ability to wreck your life more than a rotten sexual relationship.
That's not exactly true. Any romantic relationship, sexual or otherwise, can have negative effects on people's health, especially after breakups.

I especially like how it says men aren't interesting, then denigrates men for not being interested in women. Double standards much?

Here's a post about the double standards in gender-based t-shirts.
mcity: (Default)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2012/04/10/my-big-pax-post?
Last year we were given all kinds of [poo-poo] for the Duke Nukem booth babes. How could we allow women to be used as sex symbols just to sell a game? How could we allow them on the show floor in their school girl outfits while children and families were walking around? We were vilified for not kicking them off the show floor on the very first day. Now, exactly one year later I am also a monster, but now it’s because I am “punishing women” by asking them to cover up. I’ve been asked why I find the female body to be “obscene” and told that I must really hate women.

Hopefully you can see now why I find this so [gently caressing] ridiculous.

How about all of you that hate me get together and have your own conference. I need you to decide if half naked girls are empowered or exploited because I’m doing my [gently caressing] best here and it’s apparently always wrong. I swear to God I don’t understand how I’m supposed to know if I’m promoting the patriarchy or criminalizing the female body.
Incidentally, this was the same comic that was incorrectly accused of condoning rape, even long after they categorically denied that they condoned rape. They were also said to be ignoring complaints about the strip in question, when they specifically stopped selling t-shirts based on it because it would make people uncomfortable at PAX.

Everything you do is wrong? This is what it's like being famous, Mike. Get used to it.
mcity: (Default)

[link] haniemohd:

“…Though no one would ever think of using the term honor violence (we reserve that descriptor for brown people who live somewhere else, motivated by religious something-or-other or tribal something-or-other), one-third of women murdered every year in the United States are killed by their intimate partners. In 2005 that amounted to 1,181 women, or three women every day. To put that in perspective, the UN estimates there are 5,000 honor killings every year in the entire world. 5,000 in a world of 6 billion versus nearly 1,200 in a single country of 300 million. In other words, a woman in America runs a greater risk of being killed by her husband or boyfriend than a woman in Pakistan. Those are scary numbers.”

- an excerpt from an extremely interesting and insightful article by one of my favourite comic artist and writer, G. Willow Wilson (which you can access by clicking the link above)

The logic is not sound.

Male on female relationship murders can be committed outside of honor killings. Wilson's questionable analysis assumes that those are the only ways women in the developing world are killed by their spouses, which is itself inherently...problematic, to put it nicely. Heck, honor killings are sometimes committed by other relatives. Ironic that Wilson snarks at imaginary people for thinking honor killings are just something done by "brown people" somewhere, and then exposes her own ignorance and faulty logic.

Statistics indicate that both men and women in the US abuse their SOs at about the same rate, and men are much less likely to report it or have it acted upon. In fact, if a man calls the police on his girlfriend or wife, he could end up arrested in some parts of the US. There's an entire TVTropes page about this. Guy kills his wife, he's a vicious killer, a woman kills her husband, he drove her to it; see Lifetime's "Snapped".

I also began to see, with frightening clarity, the malice. It would be too broad to say that men hate women, men are afraid of women, men desire power over women–though there are certainly men of whom all these things are true, there are many more men of whom none of these things are true. Yet there’s the malice. Creeping and ugly and everywhere, as though it has a life of its own.

Should I get a stake, or a silver bullet?

mcity: (Default)
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/03/ff_reddit/all/1
Of course, like any site that thrives on pseudonymity, Reddit attracts its share of the sick and the deluded. There’s a subreddit, MensRights, “for people who believe that men are currently being disadvantaged by society,” and for years the site admins tolerated subreddits devoted to pictures of underage girls.
Men's Right's advocates are, far too often, misogynists. I'm not denying it. However, there is some gold in the muck, and anyone saying Internet Feminism should be thrown out because of the vast amount of misandry and double standards it has would have the sky come down on them. Ironically, such people are often accused of being MRAs merely for negatively criticizing Internet Feminism. I like how merely saying that men are disadvantaged by society is "sick and deluded" and comparable to distributing kiddie porn. Good job, Wired. Real good job.
mcity: (Default)
http://permutationofninjas.tumblr.com/post/18114790312/the-cost-of-child-support
In a nutshell, we’ve proven that paying child support is in fact a greater burden in most senses of the word than pregnancy.  As such, from a moral standpoint, we can state that all arguments of rights aside, it is less moral to force a man to pay child support than it is to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.  Let it be clear that this is not advocating forcing women to carry pregnancies to term!  It’s saying it isn't moral to do either.
mcity: (Default)
NSFW blog name and URL
That feminism managed to convince the world that the oppression of patriarchal societies placed women at the bottom in every single facet of life (even areas where they were elevated), in a position where they were utterly powerless and incapable of inflicting oppression, or where their only avenue to power and agency was through their usefulness as brood mares, domestic slaves and receptacles for male ejaculate, while men alone had the power necessary to oppress anyone, is a feat of sociopolitical chicanery worthy of Charles Ponzi.
mcity: (Default)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2118403/As-Susanna-Reid-bemoans-public-fixation-breasts-long-suffering-DD-cup-wearer-sympathises.html
After a while, I took to wearing baggy jumpers in the hope of diverting wandering eyes. In student bars, cafes and even libraries, meanwhile, I was constantly being propositioned by floppy-haired boys freshly released from boarding school.

Even though I had a boyfriend back home, the fact I had big boobs seemed to send out a message to them that I must be fair game.

Ignoring my far more attractive female friends, they would slip notes into my bag or leave them in my pigeon hole asking me out for a date.
I know I'm expecting a lot of the Daily Mail, considering it's the Daily Mail, but is this woman actually complaining that people find her more attractive than others because she has bigger boobs? I can understand the dislike of the unwanted attention, but to declare your friends "more attractive" as if that's an objective, universal assessment seems...odd.

But he scuppered the relationship when he admitted I ‘reminded him of a secretary’. By that, I assume he meant the clothes I wore were a little too revealing. But like Madeline, I didn’t see why I should dress like a nun just because I happened to be a DD cup.
Wait, wait, you "assume" that's what he meant? When I think 'secretary' or 'receptionist', my first thought isn't 'skimpy clothes'. Actually, I think of Harvey's secretary on "Suits", who dresses nicely but not in a particularly provocative fashion. And why are the only two options nun or secretary? Even assuming it's exaggerated, there's a middle ground.

At work, though, as a reporter starting out on a local newspaper, the only way to be taken seriously was to dress as conservatively as possible.

I invested in a selection of androgynous black suits and I kept the jackets buttoned up at all times.

Even that didn’t deter a room full of firefighters from giving me the once over when I arrived at the local fire station to shadow a night shift.
From the photos supplied with the article, the writer is an attractive woman. Yet she's complaining that men looked at her like she was, well, an attractive woman.

When I was sent off to learn how to Morris dance, I ended up rapping my dancing partner over the knuckles with my bells after catching him gawping down my top.
She considers physical attack an appropriate response? Would she have done the same if the gawker had been another woman? How about if a woman was caught gawking at a man?

I once even caught the local mayor taking a quick peek. I was there to cover a town council meeting, but his eyes were certainly not on my notebook.

Show a little cleavage and you are likely to be gawped at, no matter where — or who — you are.
So even if you wear low-cut tops, men should not even peek at one's boobs, ever, and it's entirely their fault if they do. I think I got it.

There are some disgusting allegations of apparent sexism from her ex-colleagues later on, though I wonder how she caught them "red-handed" lusting at her photos. It seems more likely that it would be some other color than red, if you catch my drift.
mcity: (jawdrop)

This photo is from a reproductive rights protest in Virginia. It's been making the rounds of Tumblr stressing out that a)this was at a peaceful protest, and b)it was in Virginia, not, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.

You may find this offensive. )
mcity: (Default)
Gender[blam];
Question: I'm what you would call a cis man, and the thought that I'm complicit in any kind of comprehensive, systematic oppression doesn't sit well. I can't take responsibility for the actions of everyone who shares this place in the universe, but I can take full responsibility for my own actions. As a human, what specifically can I do in my daily life that will tangibly mitigate injustice against non-cis people?
Answer
The [gently caress] is this [poo poo]?

Systems. How the [gently caress] do they work? Your individual actions boost a system cuz they’re coupled with individual actions of other people like you. You perpetuate it. You ARE responsible for the system because you work for it for free, to keep it running.

And expecting us to be your vending machine of knowledge is yet another fucked up thing that perpetrates cissupremacy. Rediscover the fucking internet and do some research.
I've mentioned this transwoman transsexual activist before, specifically on the matter of Shakesville's inability to recognize its own flaws. And yet, she seems perfectly content to fall into the same rage-based rhetorical nonsense many social justice advocates like; raging at people who ask you for information for not knowing said information. It's a high-level passive-aggressive technique, and if it was used in a film about a domineering spouse, then the audience would declare that character a villain. Even her profile says

She swears a lot, isn’t an activist or here to [gently caressing] educate you, has no interest in justifying her continued existence to bigoted piles of excrement and really just doesn’t give any [gently caresses] about your precious privileged feelings.
"I am activist, hear me roar."

In fact, judging by the latest post on her tumblr, Ms. Hope is not merely an activist--despite her claims--but a transsupremacist. In fact, she thinks all "privileged people" are "bigoted piles of excrement", and when someone points out she assumed they were privileged just because they disagreed with her, her response, not in so many words, was that they must be cisgendered because they disagreed with her and aren't explicitly saying they're trans. Apparently, only trans people--and cis people who agree with them--can hold valid opinions on what is, to say the least, a really complicated set of issues.

Speaking of which, Ms. Hope seems to have quite a lot of those. I mean, Melissa "Shakesville" McEwan-level, which is ironic considering how much she hates McEwan and her website.

Still, at least she hasn't reached Ginmar levels of crazy. Not quite.

The funny thing is that if you take the idea that cissexual people are responsible for the negative actions of other cissexuals, and change it to apply to, say, Black people, or Muslims, or women, it looks exactly like bigotry and prejudice.
mcity: (Default)
Blog: We shouldn't question the stories of female rape victims.
Rape victim: I recant. I wasn't raped.
Blog: How do we know she's telling the truth about not being raped? We don't really know what happened!
http://feministing.com/2009/09/18/hofstra-rape-culture-and-the-bigger-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-90655

Also from that blog; http://feministing.com/2007/04/12/you_will_not_shame_me/
Moreover, innocent until proven guilty only applies to certain people.
+++
So, if these guys were in fact falsely accused, they got a taste of how black men are treated EVERY DAY by the criminal justice system.
Speaking as a black man myself who had an encounter that may or may not have been racism on my way to church this morning; if it's so bad, why do you want anyone to go through it?

The funny thing is that in the Hofstra case, the same blog came down on the side of the defendant, even though the accused were black, and tried to soft-shoe around the whole "black men false accused of rape" with "we need to look at the bigger picture!" and "there are more reasons for someone to rape than to falsely accuse!" and "how will this affect future victims?". GOOD JERB WITH THE CONSISTENT MORAL STANDARDS THAR.

http://feministing.com/2009/09/18/hofstra-rape-culture-and-the-bigger-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-90668
THIS.
The whole “let’s look at the bigger picture here” glosses over such a huge component of this issue that it’s downright nuts. The fact that these guys were African American played a huge role in every step of this case.
It seems callous to try to go macro scale before looking at the micro. This kind of stuff matters to folks who are troubled by the fact that they’re perceived as sex-crazy beasts driven by lust, especially in the context of the legal system.


EDIT: Here's a more recent post, where the blogger seems actively offended by the discussion of bias against men who are accused of rape. She also thinks they should've mentioned rape right on the poster, which she would've doubtless decried as insensitive and a trigger. in fact, she specifically showed up just to hijack the topic, and wants backpatting and hugs for it. Ironically, as some commenters pointed out, she did the exact same thing as men who make it "all about the menz" in feminist discussions.
mcity: (Default)
http://www.theroot.com/views/why-i-am-male-feminist

The following day, I attended a workshop about preventing gender violence, facilitated by Katz. There, he posed a question to all of the men in the room: “Men, what things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?”

Not one man, including myself, could quickly answer the question. Finally, one man raised his hand and said, “Nothing.” Then Katz asked the women, “What things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?” Nearly all of the women in the room raised their hand. One by one, each woman testified:

“I don’t make eye contact with men when I walk down the street,” said one.
“I don’t put my drink down at parties,” said another.
“I use the buddy system when I go to parties.”
“I cross the street when I see a group of guys walking in my direction.”
“I use my keys as a potential weapon.”

The women went on for several minutes, until their side of the blackboard was completely filled with responses. The men’s side of the blackboard was blank. I was stunned. I had never heard a group of women say these things before. I thought about all of the women in my life — including my mother, sister and girlfriend — and realized that I had a lot to learn about gender.

This all sounds very inspiring until you remember that women are several times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted then men. The proportionate risk is objectively greater, and women are broadly physically and physiologically different from men. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it doesn't prove anything other than that men and women have different ways of dealing with sexual threats because they face different sexual threats and are different, and that Hurt was not aware of this. Neither I nor Hurt can speak for the other men in the course. I knew that fact and I still don't cover my tuchus, so to speak. I do, however, take several measures against non-sexual assault, and some of them are awfully similar to those the women take.

I'm betting that the person running the workshop did not then go "okay, what do you do to protect yourself against any violent assault? How about accusations of rape? If you are so inclined, do you initiate most of your romantic interactions with the other gender? If you report a rape or sexual harassment incident, are you likely to be believed, or to get people fired even from a false allegation? If you're walking behind someone at night, do you worry that they think you're some kind of criminal, such as a rapist?" Because being a big Black man who has actually been sexually harassed, I kinda worry about these sorts of things a lot. The writer? Also a big Black guy. And I kind of have to wonder; for a gender relations class, what did the women learn about men?

Also on this person's tumblr was a little tidbit about how women are twice as likely as men to be sent home from the ER when presenting all the "classic" symptoms of a heart attack. Except that those symptoms are male, and women often present different symptoms. The really infuriating part is that this was off a reblog about billboards in Austin about womens' symptoms for heart attacks, and some guy saying he didn't know women had different symptoms. And the bulk of the post was specifically how women present different symptoms in men in regards to heart disease.

It's like arguing that a woman with a large stomach who walks into an ER and says her water broke is less likely to be treated like she's pregnant than a man with a large stomach who walks into an ER and says the same. Yes, he could be a pre-op transman, but I think the medical staff can be forgiven for not jumping straight to that possibility.
mcity: (Default)
Surprisingly accurate.

The telephone rang.

Jason Wilkins roused himself out of his dough-and-flour-addled stupor, and gazed at the ringing noise emanating from the receiver. He was tall, even for an American, this despite his father's very average height and his mother's petite build. Some had suggested -- in hushed tones and never to his face, of course -- that it was because his mother had long ago taken an ... interest in the very tall mailman who'd graced their neighborhood mail delivery route for so many years. Mail delivery was one of those necessary evils of modern American life; a citizen could send his friends and colleagues e-mail faxes that arrived in the blink of an eye, but there was always the reactionary old contingent who'd never wanted to bother with these "modern contraptions" who insisted on writing letters on paper and sending them through the antiquated network of delivery trucks and post offices, and so long as this contingent existed the mail would also have to exist.
mcity: (amazing)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7434133/1/Blue_Sky

Hello! It's me! Wheatley, from Portal 2! I'd like to just point you in the direction of this fanfic, and it stars me! Wheatley! And if that weren't enough--can't imagine why it wouldn't be--it stars Chell, and GLaDOS, and, um, others, that's all I'm going to say right now. I'd tell you more, but it'd, well it'd be spoiling the fic and Portal 2, and I am fairly certain that would be a very bad idea. Just take my word for it, it's brilliant. Click the link up top there! Or if you'd rather--if you'd rather see the Livejournal version with some nice pictures, you could just click here instead! Just keep clicking "Next 10". You know, if you feel like it.

No pressure.

Nooo pressure.
mcity: (Default)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2011/12/27/just-wow1

From: Ocean Marketing
To: Dave
Dec 26, 2011 2:19 PM


LOL Thanks for the Free PR I know the Editor N Chief of Kotaku , IGN , Engadget I’ll be meeting them at CES .The noise complaint was for people high up on the food chain in a corporate world of real estate you have no clue about. Thanks for the Rice Rocket Compliment too love me some motorcycle . Send that over to Engadget you look like a complete moron swearing and sending your customer service complaints to a magazine as if they will post it or even pay attention do you think you’re the first or the last what are they going to do demand us to tell you were your shipment is or ask for a refund on your behalf … Really ... Welcome to the Internet ? Son Im 38 I wwebsite as on the internet when you were a sperm in your daddys balls and before it was the internet, thanks for the welcome to message wurd up. Grow up you look like a complete child bro. I Don’t have my controller so im gonna cry to the world … Really ?? Hey take that free time and do something more productive. All you had to do was check the like everyone else , people have inquired but you’re the douchiest of them all J
mcity: (RAEG)
http://teh-no.livejournal.com/667057.html

"Comedy uses familiar stereotypes to get laughs!"

"How do you feel about the fact that audiences see comdies by creators like Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, and James Franco as more genuine and authentic than female-centric rom-coms?"

"Having Chinese slang in Firefly shows the influence of Eastern culture a lot better than actually having any Asians on the show."

"I think it's antifeminist to say real gay men should have any say in slash."
"Arkham City isn't misogynist, just heavy-handed in portraying misogyny!"

"Rose Tyler was objectively the best companion!"

"If it's wrong to erase bisexuality and homosexuality, then isn't it wrong to ignore canonical heterosexuality for the purposes of fanfic?"

"Shouldn't you be more considerate of the feelings of people you disagree with?"

Ah, this is fun.
mcity: (amazing)
Basically, they said that the tomato sauce on a slice of pizza is enough to be counted as a serving of vegetables.

Note how the comments have the obligatory people who are twisting logic into a pretzel to try and make it fit into the original misconception. Specifically, saying pizza contains a serving of vegetables "means" schools can say Pizza is a vegetable.

Morderkaine wrote:
Congress is IN EFFECT saying that pizza contains 1 serving of vegetables/fruit. That is a HUGE difference from saying pizza is a vegetable. It also contains a serving of grains, possibly part of a serving of meat, dairy from the cheese, etc. Its just pointing out that there are some fruits/veggies in it. Not saying its not a fatty, unhealthy food, just that veggies/fruit is in there somewhere. Count onion, green peppers, etc that can be added and its closer to a full sized serving.

What Washpost45 just said is that saying a plate of fried chicken, corn and spinach contains 2 servings of vegetables is almost no difference from saying fried chicken is a vegetable. The meal contains 2 servings of veggies, but that doesn't mean the entire thing is.


And then there's the logical soft shoe over to "This isn't important! What's really important is that Congress isn't doing the job we put them in office to do!" No one making that argument, oddly enough, seems to bother to say what that job actually is.

October 2012

S M T W T F S
  12 3456
78910111213
14151617181920
21 2223242526 27
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 17th, 2017 08:29 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios