Then I think you should be apologising for misinterpreting what he wrote.

It’s not misinterpretation, just a different and equally valid interpretation. It is in fact closer to the literal meaning than what JY intended it to mean. If he didn’t want people to think he equated LA’s actions with those of the Nazis then he should have chosen his words more carefully.

You seem to think I’m grossly offended by the statement. I’m not because I understand that it wasn’t meant in that sense, but unlike some I recognise that it could give offence.

Ok, take the swastika out of this discussion. After all it has nothing to do with the OP’s discussion.
Replace with Orange bikes. How cool were they in the 90’s. That lust has been destroyed by the Audi driving it consultants.

belugabob – Member

Excpet for that, in this case, Junkyard made no racist jokes (or any kind of joke, for that matter) and was merely pointing out that symbols become tainted by the actions of the people who use them. To give a simpler example, I’d never wear a hoody – no matter how comfy or practical they are – because their image has been forever tainted by the feral youth who show a preference for wearing them.

Londineroz was simply noting that being scared to mention certain things, for fear of upsetting people, is in some ways counter productive, because that stops the subject from ever being raised in a constructive manner.(“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it” is the phrase, I believe)

Whatever the interntion, he told a Jewish person that they’re being “over sensitive” by reacting to mentions of the swastika. I’m no expert on these matters, but given the scale and horror of what happened to Jewish folks, if I inadvertently offended someone with a throwaway remark, I’d quietly apologise, instead of steaming in and accusing them of over-sensitivity. But I’m reasonable that way.

His statement that the LS band is as tainted as the Swastika is open to such an interpretation and therefore has potential to cause offence.

So it is the potential you have an issue with and wish to challenge? Seems largely futile.

So it is the potential you have an issue with and wish to challenge? Seems largely futile

I came into this thread because I thought it alarming that some posters were not willing to acknowledge the potential of that statement to give offence and were being highly critical of those who did.

And also because I can’t resist an argument…

anyway………..

As for Livestrong, after their initial few years, they almost totally moved away from raising cash for cancer research, and instead funded “cancer awareness”. Make your own mind up as to whether you think that’s worthwhile

They only ever paid lip service to research

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

” The foundation gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005, the year it began phasing out its support of hard science. A note on the foundation’s website informs visitors that, as of 2010, it no longer even accepts research proposals”

so thats $20m, from a total of $500million raised; from

http://www.livestrong.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Strength/Financial-Information

” Since our inception in 1997, the Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised more than $500 million to support our mission to inspire and empower people affected by cancer.”

so $480million spent on seminars, conferences etc with the likes of LA, Phil Liggett appearing as (paid) speakers.

This flowchart

http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/lance-armstrongs-business-links-a-flowchart-by-dimspace/

showed how well connected and influential he was.

And also because I can’t resist an argument…

There you go.

Feels good to be honest about it I would imagine.

Grow up.

Who?

crashtestmonkey – Member

” Since our inception in 1997, the Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised more than $500 million to support our mission to inspire and empower people affected by cancer.”

so $480million spent on seminars, conferences etc with the likes of LA, Phil Liggett appearing as (paid) speakers.

That number seems… made up, really. You can’t just take away the research total and assume everything else was conferences etc.

There you go.

Feels good to be honest about it I would imagine

Imagine how boring it would be if we all agreed.

$500m and $20m are Livestrongs own figures. Their own mission statement talks about inspiration, empowerment and advocacy. All vague terms that cover a multitude of activities, and their site is big on inspirational talks, where LA was paid massive appearance fees. Nothing made up, I may have been flippant but my point is most of their money is not spent “fighting” cancer by any well meaning band wearers definition of the term. Do you think all $480m was spent advising people on how to make benefits and insurance claims (one of the few practical, tangible activities they describe).

crashtestmonkey – Member

$500m and $20m are Livestrongs own figures.

Yep, and the bit where you say everything that isn’t in the 20m research is “seminars, conferences etc with the likes of LA, Phil Liggett appearing as (paid) speakers.” is made up.

crashtestmonkey – Member

my point is most of their money is not spent “fighting” cancer

Cancer awareness is one of the best ways to fight cancer- or so say the WHO anyway, and Cancer Research UK, and… well, everyone who has anything to do with it, really. Early treatment makes the biggest single difference we can make at this point.

Livestrong went more for general awareness rather than the more specific healthcare messages but I don’t think you can just throw that away as useless. Like it or not, they got people thinking about cancer, and they helped get it more talked about.

It’s not misinterpretation, just a different and equally valid interpretation.

It is misinterpretation – somebody misinterpreted what Junkyard said. They may have a different interpretation to another observer of the thread, but they can’t have a different interpretation to Junkyard, as hid didn’t interpret it in the first place – he simply stated it.

he told a Jewish person that they’re being “over sensitive”

This just goes to show how easy it is to misintrepret things, as Junkyard actually said “I think you need to recognise you’re more sensitive” – ‘more’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘over’. (i.e. ‘I inflated it more’ is not the same as ‘I over-inflated it’)

See – the English language is a tricky thing to get right, so why don’t we all just agree that somebody said something and somebody took it the wrong way, then let it ride – or it’ll just turn out to be one of those petty things that started an argument which eventually turns out be blood-feud and years later nobody can remember what it was all about (but the other guy is the bad guy so I’m gonna hate him anyway)

Life’s too short, and there’s not enough bike riding time as it.

Also, just to add, we tend to look at these things from a UK perspective… **** he might be but in the US, cancer used to be stigmatised, things are now much better and he and livestrong did play their part in that. How much? Who knows really, probably not $500m worth.

he said that the taint is equal which implies that the cause of the taint is morally equal

No i said it was as tainted i made no mention of the reason and the statement did not allude to moral equivalence merely the fact both symbols no longer represent what they once are are equally tainted in that respect

He directly equated the level of moral taint on a Livestrong band with that of Nazi use of the swastika.

Had i said they were equally morally tainted you would have a point but i did not say that.

Have you considered the possibility that statements can have interpretations and ramficaions other than those intended by the writer?

yes yu can indeed misinterpret what I mean or argue i expressed what i meant poorly you however want to argue i said something i did not

It is in fact closer to the literal meaning than what JY intended it to mean.

I am perfectly capable of saying what i meant as i have had to do many times on this thread to those who

Whatever the interntion, he told a Jewish person that they’re being “over sensitive” by reacting to mentions of the swastika

Firstly I did not say anything to them after they said they were Jewish so nothing i typed was to a Jewish person simply a poster. I never said anything about their sensitivity one way or the other- that is just utterly false
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cancer-and-the-livestrong-band/page/2#post-5357059
there you go it was londonerinoz and I am am offended by your slur.

if I inadvertently offended someone with a throwaway remark, I’d quietly apologise, instead of steaming in and accusing them of over-sensitivity. But I’m reasonable that way.

I explained that i had not said what they thought so I cannot apologise for saying something they think i said when I did not say it. I clarified what I meant [ a not unreasonable position supported by most posters on this thread]

FWIW my first reply included this

Sorry if that was unclear.

Thanks for the flaming, the false claims- indeed you are

reasonable that way

Awaits apology !

Had i said they were equally morally tainted you would have a point but i did not say that

Well perhaps you could explain what the quote below means because I’m genuinely confused:

IMHO it is as tainted as the swastika

It looks to me like it means ‘the Livestrong band is as tainted as the swastika.’

I’ve always thought that when you say X is as something as Y you are drawing a direct comparison. For example: Peter is as tall as Paul.

Well I maintain that at the height of the yellow band wearing, most wearers of said band couldn’t give a stuff about cancer. They didn’t wear it to raise awareness any more than they wore North Face gillets to go climbing. Despite its intentions, honourable or otherwise, it was a fad.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cancer-and-the-livestrong-band#post-5355969

HTH
If not plenty of other people explain it for you in this thread.
If the peter is peter sutcliffe I doubt you have compared Paul to him morally.

My goodness what have I started!
As usual it seems people are proffering opinions as definitive statements of fact. The original question implied the band is tainted because of the association with Armstrong. The degree in comparison to other things is a different argument. My question was does it still have validity in the fight against cancer, excepting that the effects of cancer are not just the biology.

Ok, I understand now: although what you wrote was a direct comparison you didn’t mean it to be read as a direct comparison because that would be ludicrous.

I’m sure you can see why some folks got confused by that.

Thanks for taking the time to clear it up.

Junkyard – lazarus

Firstly I did not say anything to them after they said they were Jewish so nothing i typed was to a Jewish person simply a poster. I never said anything about their sensitivity one way or the other- that is just utterly false
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cancer-and-the-livestrong-band/page/2#post-5357059
there you go it was londonerinoz and I am am offended by your slur.

I was referring to londonerinoz – I found that comment far more objectionable than anything you said.

yes re read and my error , no offence meant and sorry

Junkyard – lazarus
yes re read and my error , no offence meant and sorry

None taken.

I’m sure you can see why some folks got confused by that.

The number of people who were confused by what he said was statistically insignificant compared to those who weren’t confused by it in the slightest.

But you love an argument as you pointed out, so I expect some Wikipedia education from you shortly on statistical analysis.

Is redpanda still here, or is he taking a rest?

It wont be about an outlier Neil I assure you of that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier

an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data

TBH I can neither see why you would get confused nor why you would fail to understand the explanation – must be the like a good debate thing