Yes, she mentioned broccoli in the context of the problems the poor often face when preparing food. That is not the sum total of her piece. That isn't even really what the piece is about. You've focused on it, I suspect, because the actual tenor of the piece is not something you can easily address. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and been polite enough to answer your questions and comments on it. This was plainly a mistake.
g: Yes, and I think baby seals should be clubbed.
Yes, yes, the ritual invocation of baby seals, and the implication that concern about other human beings is equivalent to silly sentimentality about fuzzy animals.
Now that you've got that out of the way...
g: I'm not the one who thinks poor people can't prepare vegetables.
Nobody has said that poor people lack the ability to prepare vegetables. The question is whether it is always practical or possible for them to do it in their current circumstances.
Are you prepared to address what was actually said in the article, or are you going to keep casting about for things you can misattribute to the writer?
no subject
g: Yes, and I think baby seals should be clubbed.
Yes, yes, the ritual invocation of baby seals, and the implication that concern about other human beings is equivalent to silly sentimentality about fuzzy animals.
Now that you've got that out of the way...
g: I'm not the one who thinks poor people can't prepare vegetables.
Nobody has said that poor people lack the ability to prepare vegetables. The question is whether it is always practical or possible for them to do it in their current circumstances.
Are you prepared to address what was actually said in the article, or are you going to keep casting about for things you can misattribute to the writer?