|
On February 05 2016 15:13 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 15:03 Cascade wrote:On February 05 2016 14:05 Djzapz wrote:
A UNICEF report used some surveys in 30 countries and statistical modeling to estimate that 200 million girls/women had excisions (female genital mutilation/crude removal of the clitoris) in 2015. They consider that it's a conservative estimate.
The figure surprised me, so I went on google and checked how many births there are every year. The figure is about 131 millions. Let's round way the fuck up and say 70 millions of girls are born every year. Now, I have no idea how to determine how many of those are born in countries were excisions are not practiced, but I imagine it's a good number of them. So let's say 30 millions of girls are born in places where excisions are never practiced, that leaves 40 million girls who live under threat of senseless genital mutilation. Some countries have a near 100% excision rate, others are much lower.
From there, how the -FUCK- do we get to 200 million excisions in 2015? I understand that the procedure takes place occasionally a few years after birth, but surely there's not a backlog of excisions that somehow got unclogged in 2015. Someone care to explain? Maybe someone dug up a bunch of crates full of old rusty knives? What am I missing, this doesn't seem to add up. An article on Al Jazeera reports "Although the practice is more widespread than previously known, [the lead researcher] said that overall the global prevalence of FGM is declining."
How is the practice declining if the number of excisions is largely superior to the number of births in the countries where it is practiced? Are there repeat excisions when it failed the first time? I very well might be missing something, help
Yeah, that sounds a bit odd... You either misinterpreted something, or one of the two numbers (or both) is off by quite some bit. If you give us sources for the two numbers (200M and 131M) we may be able to figure out which one it is. Alright sorry if I misled anyone, I figured it out. It was pretty simple and I'm dumb. This is the article I learned about this in: http://www.lapresse.ca/international/201602/04/01-4947381-au-moins-200-millions-dexcisions-pratiquees-en-2015-estime-lunicef.phpThe title is misleading, it says "at least 200 million excisions practiced(?) in 2015, according to a UNICEF estimate". The article kind of hints at the truth but given the title it's a bit unclear, I didn't connect the dots because I'm tired. So I googled it to find another source. There is a total of 200 million women who have had the procedure, it's not 200 million a year, it's not 200 million excisions in 1 year. It's 200 million women who have had the procedure, now walking the Earth. Makes more sense, I don't understand why I didn't think of that.
Haha, I actually typed out a question asking exactly that, if they maybe meant 200M that had it done at some point, but then I deleted that sentence to keep it short...
Not that you have any reason to believe me, and I am quite frequently removing sentences that later on turn out to be fairly stupid indeed. 
Anyway, good that it's cleared uut.
|
On February 05 2016 15:16 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 15:13 Djzapz wrote:On February 05 2016 15:03 Cascade wrote:On February 05 2016 14:05 Djzapz wrote:
A UNICEF report used some surveys in 30 countries and statistical modeling to estimate that 200 million girls/women had excisions (female genital mutilation/crude removal of the clitoris) in 2015. They consider that it's a conservative estimate.
The figure surprised me, so I went on google and checked how many births there are every year. The figure is about 131 millions. Let's round way the fuck up and say 70 millions of girls are born every year. Now, I have no idea how to determine how many of those are born in countries were excisions are not practiced, but I imagine it's a good number of them. So let's say 30 millions of girls are born in places where excisions are never practiced, that leaves 40 million girls who live under threat of senseless genital mutilation. Some countries have a near 100% excision rate, others are much lower.
From there, how the -FUCK- do we get to 200 million excisions in 2015? I understand that the procedure takes place occasionally a few years after birth, but surely there's not a backlog of excisions that somehow got unclogged in 2015. Someone care to explain? Maybe someone dug up a bunch of crates full of old rusty knives? What am I missing, this doesn't seem to add up. An article on Al Jazeera reports "Although the practice is more widespread than previously known, [the lead researcher] said that overall the global prevalence of FGM is declining."
How is the practice declining if the number of excisions is largely superior to the number of births in the countries where it is practiced? Are there repeat excisions when it failed the first time? I very well might be missing something, help
Yeah, that sounds a bit odd... You either misinterpreted something, or one of the two numbers (or both) is off by quite some bit. If you give us sources for the two numbers (200M and 131M) we may be able to figure out which one it is. Alright sorry if I misled anyone, I figured it out. It was pretty simple and I'm dumb. This is the article I learned about this in: http://www.lapresse.ca/international/201602/04/01-4947381-au-moins-200-millions-dexcisions-pratiquees-en-2015-estime-lunicef.phpThe title is misleading, it says "at least 200 million excisions practiced(?) in 2015, according to a UNICEF estimate". The article kind of hints at the truth but given the title it's a bit unclear, I didn't connect the dots because I'm tired. So I googled it to find another source. There is a total of 200 million women who have had the procedure, it's not 200 million a year, it's not 200 million excisions in 1 year. It's 200 million women who have had the procedure, now walking the Earth. Makes more sense, I don't understand why I didn't think of that. Haha, I actually typed out a question asking exactly that, if they maybe meant 200M that had it done at some point, but then I deleted that sentence to keep it short... Not that you have any reason to believe me, and I am quite frequently removing sentences that later on turn out to be fairly stupid indeed. Anyway, good that it's cleared uut.
This all could've been avoided if I'd just read a second article about it ^_^
|
I read some article a long time ago about some thing that advertised i think it was juice or baby food or something as 100 percent apple or something and actually contained no apples (think it was back in 90s or 80s). any idea what I'm talking about
|
On February 06 2016 12:45 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I read some article a long time ago about some thing that advertised i think it was juice or baby food or something as 100 percent apple or something and actually contained no apples (think it was back in 90s or 80s). any idea what I'm talking about
Sounds like any advertisement today. The disclaimer you should have in your head is "any resemblance to actual events or products is purely coincidental".
|
On February 06 2016 12:45 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I read some article a long time ago about some thing that advertised i think it was juice or baby food or something as 100 percent apple or something and actually contained no apples (think it was back in 90s or 80s). any idea what I'm talking about
You are probably thinking of Beech-Nut's case (see www.nytimes.com or florinpopa.files.wordpress.com)
Basically, seems manufacturer switches supplier for costs reasons, but fails to act after realizing the "apple concentrate" bought is not what it should be.
|
On February 06 2016 18:31 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 12:45 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I read some article a long time ago about some thing that advertised i think it was juice or baby food or something as 100 percent apple or something and actually contained no apples (think it was back in 90s or 80s). any idea what I'm talking about You are probably thinking of Beech-Nut's case (see www.nytimes.com or florinpopa.files.wordpress.com) Basically, seems manufacturer switches supplier for costs reasons, but fails to act after realizing the "apple concentrate" bought is not what it should be.
that was it thanks.
|
Ok, i gotta ask here. If something is "100% apple", why not just eat an apple?
|
'cause first world problems - it's not squeezed
|
|
|
Because eating an apple is hard work and I'm lazy as fuck.
|
On February 06 2016 20:19 Simberto wrote:
Ok, i gotta ask here. If something is "100% apple", why not just eat an apple?
Well yeah apple juice is the dumbest shit on earth. Why would you destroy the fibers that make apples nutritionally exceptional in the first place?
Edit : also guys, learn to cut apples in hexagonal/octogonal shape instead of carefully peeling it. Faster & less effort.
|
|
|
On February 07 2016 07:14 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 20:19 Simberto wrote:
Ok, i gotta ask here. If something is "100% apple", why not just eat an apple? Well yeah apple juice is the dumbest shit on earth. Why would you destroy the fibers that make apples nutritionally exceptional in the first place? Edit : also guys, learn to cut apples in hexagonal/octogonal shape instead of carefully peeling it. Faster & less effort.
Who peels apples?
|
On February 07 2016 09:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 07:14 OtherWorld wrote:On February 06 2016 20:19 Simberto wrote:
Ok, i gotta ask here. If something is "100% apple", why not just eat an apple? Well yeah apple juice is the dumbest shit on earth. Why would you destroy the fibers that make apples nutritionally exceptional in the first place? Edit : also guys, learn to cut apples in hexagonal/octogonal shape instead of carefully peeling it. Faster & less effort. Who peels apples?
Yeah seriously... I've never heard of anyone peeling apples before. Oranges and bananas, sure... but apples???
|
your Country52798 Posts
On February 07 2016 09:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 09:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2016 07:14 OtherWorld wrote:On February 06 2016 20:19 Simberto wrote:
Ok, i gotta ask here. If something is "100% apple", why not just eat an apple? Well yeah apple juice is the dumbest shit on earth. Why would you destroy the fibers that make apples nutritionally exceptional in the first place? Edit : also guys, learn to cut apples in hexagonal/octogonal shape instead of carefully peeling it. Faster & less effort. Who peels apples? Yeah seriously... I've never heard of anyone peeling apples before. Oranges and bananas, sure... but apples???
Don't you peel them when making apple pie?
|
On February 07 2016 11:06 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 09:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 07 2016 09:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2016 07:14 OtherWorld wrote:On February 06 2016 20:19 Simberto wrote:
Ok, i gotta ask here. If something is "100% apple", why not just eat an apple? Well yeah apple juice is the dumbest shit on earth. Why would you destroy the fibers that make apples nutritionally exceptional in the first place? Edit : also guys, learn to cut apples in hexagonal/octogonal shape instead of carefully peeling it. Faster & less effort. Who peels apples? Yeah seriously... I've never heard of anyone peeling apples before. Oranges and bananas, sure... but apples??? Don't you peel them when making apple pie?
I believe so (although there's no indication that OtherWorld wasn't just talking about normal apple consumption), but for that you still need to peel them rather than just cutting them into different shapes.
|
I dunno, baked apple is really good with the skin on, but generally in pies no skin pls.
|
Canada11355 Posts
If I eat apples in their basic form (apple) I vomit every time.
Not if the apple is cooked, mashed, or juiced, though.
It's probably the skin or something, right?
Right I also had a stupid question.
When something says "Not for resale" or "Not for individual sale" what does that mean in practice? If I were to purchase small packages of product X in bulk where each of the individual small packages said "Not for individual sale" and sold them individually in an otherwise legal manner, could legal action really be taken against me?
|
I am not a lawyer.
I don't think that you are legally bound by something that is stamped onto something. I would guess that those are mostly informative, meaning "If you buy this, there is probably something weird going on, better look into it". I guess there could be some sort of trademark violation thing going against you, but other than that, if you haven't said anything saying that you aren't gonna resell them and it is not illegal to sell those things in general, i can't see how that would be legally problematic.
|
On February 07 2016 09:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 07:14 OtherWorld wrote:On February 06 2016 20:19 Simberto wrote:
Ok, i gotta ask here. If something is "100% apple", why not just eat an apple? Well yeah apple juice is the dumbest shit on earth. Why would you destroy the fibers that make apples nutritionally exceptional in the first place? Edit : also guys, learn to cut apples in hexagonal/octogonal shape instead of carefully peeling it. Faster & less effort. Who peels apples?
Asians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
