[Closed] Cancer and the Livestrong band

IMHO it was always about publicising LA the man rather than his cause which he serves in a very odd way " survival promotion" rather than research
There are better ways to support your friend and the fight against Cancer

IMHO it is as tainted as the swastika [ which actually auspiciousness in the east] and I never understood the appeal of his , and I use it in the loosest possible sense of the word, charity.

IMHO LA is as big a **** as cancer is

Give money and support to cancer research, not cancer PR. Livestrong does nothing in the fight against cancer but raise awareness, largely by paying Lance astronomical amounts to appear at his own charity events. Livestrong is nothing short of a scam. If only all that money went to research, we would all be better off. I'm not bitter much.

It's a great name for a band.

IMHO LA is as big a **** as cancer is

Oh get a grip!! You really need to get a bit of perspective.

As above, support Cancer Research.

I've never really seen what Livestrong [i]actually[/i] do. At least Cancer Research are actively seeking a cure to cancer rather than making a living off it effects.

There's an interesting story told about one of Lance's charity efforts - charged 50K a head for some charity road ride - "Ride with the seven time winner", et. Load of rich types shelled out, and at the end, all got 25K (or so) receipts for their donations, as they can claim back tax on charitable donations in the US. "What happened the rest?", the all asked? "That goes to Lance".

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.

Pretty certain that the cancer is the only thing that Lance didn't make up.

Support Cancer Research in the UK.

On the other hand, I would never of heard of cancer if [s]the messiah[/s] Lance hadn't told me about it.

You really need to get a bit of perspective.

IMHO it is as tainted as the swastika

What an incredibly ignorant and insensitive thing to say. LA was indeed a ****, but to equate what he did to the actions of the Nazis is just incredible. Seriously; have a think about what you've written there.

I have a few friends who used to wear the Livestrong bands; none of them do any more. They do however still consider helping fight cancer as very important, so I doubt the LS brand has damaged the cause much.

I said the symbol is is as tainted as the swastika I did not compare him to the Nazis in any way shape or form.The band used to symbolise hope now it does not just as the swastike used to mean something different.
Sorry if that was unclear.

Apologising, rather than attempting to justify your insensitivity, would be the best thing to do here.

I got what you meant
its like his cameo in dodgeball, films a bit different now 🙂

As I denied doing what you claim it is most unlikely i will be apologising for it. Do your friends, who stopped wearing the tainted symbol, also need to apologise?
Its a tainted symbol as is the swastika.

That was the point would you like to disagree or would you like to labour this false point that I called him or equated him with the Nazi's?

On balance its not my most well crafted or sensitive post on here and it is OTT and hyperbolic in parts [ as i accepted above]. I can see why i am getting some grief and deservedly so. However your claim is just not true.

I used to wear a live strong band and my son had nothing but admiration for the guy - but now I detest the things
Won't touch any brand he's associated with or have live strong links

Apart from that he's a cheat

I'm sure you meant no malice, nor intended to be insensitive, and I get what you're saying about the LS brand being 'tainted'. But the swastika, a symbol that has become synonymous with fear, hatred, xenophobia and brutal violence is really, really not an appropriate symbol to compare it to.

I claimed you are insensitive and ignorant. I stick by that claim, as it's clear you are. It seems your internet ego is more important to you than the need to understand and respect others' points of view, and to perhaps take their comments on board, and develop as an individual. I therefore see no point in continuing this discussion, as I see nothing can be gained in doing so.

Good day.

Disappointingly though, it doesn't seem that anyone is disgusted enough to rid themselves of tainted merchandise.. My first instinct when it all unfolded was to hit eBay as contrary to the party line, LA's attitude encapsulates my ethos perfectly.. I was dying to proudly sport my US Postal jersey st every opportunity, but I can't get hold of one anywhere

Apologising, rather than attempting to justify your insensitivity, would be the best thing to do here.

Admitting you didn't understand what he wrote, rather than making up what you thought he meant, would be the best thing to here.

Clearly, I did understand what he wrote:

I'm sure you meant no malice, nor intended to be insensitive, and I get what you're saying about the LS brand being 'tainted'.

I merely pointed out that using a swastika was a very, very bad example to use, to explain just how the LS brand is 'tainted'. That you failed to understand that simple point, is not my fault.

If he did not want his comment to be interpreted as suggesting LA is comparable to the Nazis, then why claim that the LS brand is 'as tainted as the swastika'?

Disappointingly though, it doesn't seem that anyone is disgusted enough to rid themselves of tainted merchandise..

Maybe it's because they don't actually see it as all that 'tainted', perhaps...

Have a look at the wikipedia entry on swastika.

It is an ancient symbol with plenty going for it until the nazi party adopted it in 1920.

really not an appropriate symbol to compare it to.

I claimed you are insensitive and ignorant.I stick by that claim, as it's clear you are.

It seems your internet ego is more important to you than the need to understand and respect others' points of view,

to explain just how the LS brand is 'tainted'

IMHO it is as tainted as the swastika

I merely pointed out that using a swastika was a very, very bad example to use, to explain just how the LS brand is 'tainted'. That you failed to understand that simple point, is not my fault.

Why is it a "Very very bad example" ?

If I wanted to illustrate a tainted symbol, I would use a famous tainted symbol as an example.

It seems that's exactly what he did. And made his point perfectly well.

There is a big difference between the "symbol" (which is what he was talking about) and the actions going on behind the symbol.
That you failed to understand that simple point, is not my fault.

I am well aware of the origins of the swastika. I am also aware that most people in the western world associate it with the Nazi Holocaust that claimed the lives of countless innocent people.

Which is why it's really not an appropriate symbol to claim the LS brand is as 'tainted' as. To claim thus is to equate the two organisations in some way. Hence why I don't feel it was a good choice of symbol to use. I am saddened that others don't understand this, as I am with ignorance of historical event and the impact they had on countless lives, and the legacy such horror has left us with. As I've already stated, I'm sure Junkyard meant no malice with his insensitivity. I do think he and others should take my comments on board, and have the moral courage to admit their error.

I really do hope that clears things up.

One day there will be an invention where people what ride about internet forums upon lofty equine steeds will be zapped by a space ray that renders them unable to type for a month..
Kind of like the holocaust, but positive

So in essence we are all wrong and you are right and its us who need to reconsider

I still loves the interwebz

One day there will be an invention where people what ride about internet forums upon lofty equine steeds ...

I do think he and others should take my comments on board, and have the moral courage to admit their error.

I do think you need to wind your neck in 🙄

I hope that clears things up.

Redpanda...wind yer neck in...if you knew the original meaning of the Swastika you would be able to link the similarities together - it meant something to many people, it was then adopted by others and then the meaning changed...nothing difficult to understand in that and the similarities are there - previous Livestrong meant something about fighting/raising awareness of cancer, Lance then comes out as a complete cheat and liar and now Livestrong means nothing about fighting/raising awareness of cancer - it is purely about the cheat and liar.

Anyone who then somehow managed to think that Armstrong was as bad as the Nazis quite clearly takes things far too literally.

Not difficult to understand so stop trying to get an argument going...

Can we all agree Lance was a cheating Texan dope taking up to no good cowboy?

So in essence we are all wrong and you are right and its us who need to reconsider

You conceeded "On balance its not my most well crafted or sensitive post on here and it is OTT and hyperbolic in parts [ as i accepted above]. I can see why i am getting some grief and deservedly so."

I'll be generous and accept that as a sort of apology. Fair enough. I see no point in continuing with any animosity.

Like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles? He had a point though..

if you knew the original meaning of the Swastika you would be able to link the similarities together

You'll find I've already stated that I am aware of it's origins.

As for symbols and brands; they represent a product, organisation, concept or ideology.

LS represented fighting cancer.

The Swastika in a modern western context represented the ideals of the National Socialist party of Germany; a party who's aims were to rid the world of those they considered 'subhuman' and undesirable.

I fail to see how either could be equated to the other.

it is as tainted as the swastika

Therefore, it is equal in 'taint'. This is the bit I have a problem with, you see. Because it's not. It really, really, is not.

I'll be generous and accept that as a sort of apology

Redbanda, you didn't spend long establishing your fake identity before you started trolling.

I would have give it least a couple of months personally.

Junkyard; if you wish to continue this discussion, my email is in my profile.

Nealglover; that I have my own opinions which differ to your own is 'trolling'? Get a grip. The only troll here is you, as you seem bent on stirring up an argument.

Aye fair point which one of the ignoble fallen has returned

Only if you promise to say who you really are 😉

Nealglover; that I have my own opinions which differ to your own is 'trolling'? Get a grip. The only troll here is you, as you seem bent on stirring up an argument.

Welcome back, whoever you actually are.

Redpanda strikes me as a bit of a window Nazi.

Nealglover and Crikey; I've reported you both to the moderators for trouble making, as you've added nothing to the discussion other than to try to get a rise. Either come up with something constructive, or just don't bother posting at all.

Nealglover and Crikey; I've reported you both to the moderators for trouble making, as you've added nothing to the discussion other than to try to get a rise. Either come up with something constructive, or just don't bother posting at all.

Well.

I've read your points, disagreed with them, And I've explained why.

That's what a discussion is.

If you can't get to grips with that, it's no real wonder that you failed to understand the simple point junkyard was making.

Hence why I don't feel...

Redpanda you lost me at "hence why".

As for the OP, this might not be a popular viewpoint but weren't the wristbands only ever really a fashion accessory that were trendy among try-hards for a couple of years a decade ago? I doubt most wearers gave much thought to cancer to be honest.

Either come up with something constructive, or just don't bother posting at all.

Um, it's STW, not the Oxford Debating society.
If we all have to come up with constructive comments it won't work, Adolf.

were they the first charity wristband?
first i saw for a few years anyway, then it just got stupid and most of them weren't for charity or anything just coloured bands

The question is, and I don't know the answer, what has the Livestrong charity actually done in terms of how much its raised and what its done with its funds? If the answer to that is positive, then at least it is one positive thing that has come out of this whole debacle. Other than that he's clearly a cheating **** and he's now been exposed as a cheat and a pretty arrogant and unpleasant character too.

My brothers son has thankfully got through Leukaemia, and for the 2 - 3 yrs or so when he was suffering, there were many small charities that did alot of things that helped him and kids like him, as well their families, get through the nightmare they were facing. From small things like funding people to come into the wards and entertain them, to taking them and their families away for small holidays (in many tragic cases the last holiday they would all spend together), through to the cutting edge of research. All helped tremendously and are all worthy of support. If the Livestrong charity is engaged in similar activities that is bringing real help to sufferers and their families, then it deserves continued support. Maybe it should change its name if the Lance association is harming it. If there are lots of rich people out there who still like and believe in Lance, then at least the charity can benefit from their disillusionment. I'm assuming Lance has nothing to do with the charity anymore?

If we all have to come up with constructive comments it won't work, Adolf.

Classy. I'm Jewish. Some of my ancestors died in the Holocaust.

I've reported you because I find your comment incredibly offensive.

You wouldn't say that to my face, so why say it on here?

You are fully aware that my comments are related to this thread and this thread alone, and that I have no idea of your personal life. If you choose to take offence at that you are free to do so.

I am more than prepared to apologise if my comments have upset you, they were not intended to do so.

Now a Livestrong Power Balance band, that would be something....

What tyres for chat about mass genocide?

unknown - Member

weren't the wristbands only ever really a fashion accessory that were trendy among try-hards for a couple of years a decade ago?

Nah, they're a cheap and easy fundraiser- cost nowt to make, and give people a feeling of getting something back for their donation, as well as being a little bit of useful advertising. They've done their job as soon as you drop money in a tin

This is quite an interesting article

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

forget the nazi thing, prob better to compare it to a "jim fixed it for me" badge.

i never got the whole band thing especially when i found there was roaring trade in fake ones???

sterling work by doh 😀

although, won't somebody please think of the children

For my money the important thing is the intent - I wore a band as a gesture of support for cancer sufferers and the charities that support them and look for a cure. If other people have a different interpretation, that's fine - what was important was what it meant to me.

I am well aware of the origins of the swastika. I am also aware that most people in the western world associate it with the Nazi Holocaust that claimed the lives of countless innocent people.

Which is why it's really not an appropriate symbol to claim the LS brand is as 'tainted' as.

To claim thus is to equate the two organisations in some way.

In fact, you could argue that JY is wrong that they're equally tainted. The Livestrong yellow band is a short-lived thing and has only ever been linked to the cheating Texan. It is likely that, as a symbol, it is doomed - tainted forever. The swastika on the other hand has been around for millennia. It is quite possible that given enough time it will be rehabilitated.

Yawn city

redpanda, I think you need to recognise you're more sensitive to topics associated with the Nazis than most and that you're taking offence from that perspective which would probably differ from most people. I'd imagine you'd want the Holocaust remembered, and in a sense an ordinary person using the swastika as an example in an unrelated discussion helps preserve that history in a very small way in the momentary allusion. A sure way for it to be forgotten is if people never mention it for fear of someone taking offence, especially when for most people it doesn't have the significance it does for you, so why would they bother?

I'm not totally sure, but I think that the red panda is an endangered species.

londonerinoz - Member

redpanda, I think you need to recognise you're more sensitive to topics associated with the Nazis than most and that you're taking offence from that perspective which would probably differ from most people. I'd imagine you'd want the Holocaust remembered, and in a sense an ordinary person using the swastika as an example in an unrelated discussion helps preserve that history in a very small way in the momentary allusion. A sure way for it to be forgotten is if people never mention it for fear of someone taking offence, especially when for most people it doesn't have the significance it does for you, so why would they bother?

You should try that method on some black folks, tell them they're a bit more sensitive to racist jokes than most people, and they should recognise that and chill out a bit.

You should try that method on some black folks, tell them they're a bit more sensitive to racist jokes than most people, and they should recognise that and chill out a bit.-

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)

IMHO it is as tainted as the swastika

Whether you intended it or not the above is a direct comparison between the livestrong band and the swastika and it's understandable that redpanda thought it stupid at best and offensive at worst.

In no way, shape or form can the livestrong band be said to be as tainted as the swastika.

Redpanda's suggestion that you apologise is entirely appropriate.

Spot on BelugaBob

IMHO it is as tainted as the swastika

If you want proof of how wrong this statement is then look around at the number of people still openly wearing Livestrong Bands.

I'll wager you'll see more of them than Swastikas.

Also, the whole Livestrong thing did have positive impacts. Many people have said that it inspired them to fight on or to raise money. These positive impacts stand apart from the downfall (pun intended) of Lance and remain positives. I'm not aware of the Swastika as used by the Nazis having any such positive connotations, so to compare their level of 'taint' is wrong.

If you want proof of how wrong this statement is then look around at the number of people still openly wearing Livestrong Bands.

I'll wager you'll see more of them than Swastikas.

Possibly not if you live in India though.

Possibly not if you live in India though.

Yes, we all know the Swastika is an ancient religious symbol.

In no way, shape or form can the livestrong band be said to be as tainted as the swastika.

That's your opinion, we have heard other peoples opinions already.

Redpanda's suggestion that you apologise is entirely appropriate.

Is he apologising because his opinion is different to someone else's ?

There is nothing remotely offensive about the comparison he made. Even if its not a very good comparison in some peoples view, so what ?

There is nothing remotely offensive about the comparison he made. Even if its not a very good comparison in some peoples view, so what ?

I'm being critical of what he wrote not what he meant by it. He has clarified that he didn't intend a literal comparison. If he had said "like the Swastika, the Livestrong band has become tainted by subsequent events" I would question the taste of the statement but not its veracity. Unfortunately he didn't say that but made a direct comparison between the moral taint of each. This is offensive and I'm sure you understand why.

but made a direct comparison between the moral taint of each. This is offensive and I'm sure you understand why.

I don't think is offensive.
you could claim its wrong, the symbol is tainted but not AS tainted as the swastika
but not offensive
IMO

I'm sure you understand why.

I understood what he meant when he wrote it. And left it at that.

You seem to need to find something offensive about it. I'm sure if you try hard enough you will twist his meaning around enough and you will succeed.

What he wrote still won't [b]actually[/b] be offensive though.

Good luck.

Here's a topical LOL for the boringly argumentative amongst us. You must constantly have black eyes if you get on like this in [i]real life[/i].

[img] [/img]

I don't think is offensive

It's offensive because he said that the taint is equal which implies that the cause of the taint is morally equal. This grossly belittles the suffering caused by the Nazis in WWII.

I'm genuinely surprised that you don't see this.

You seem to need to find something offensive about it. I'm sure if you try hard enough you will twist his meaning around enough and you will succeed.

I don't need to twist it. That's my whole point. He directly equated the level of moral taint on a Livestrong band with that of Nazi use of the swastika.

which implies that the cause of the taint is morally equal. This grossly belittles the suffering caused by the Nazis in WWII.

He didn't say that bit though, you made it up.

But keep twisting it, it's getting more offensive the more stuff you make up.

He didn't say that bit though, you made it up

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

IMO, JY has nothing to take back or apologise for. Guilty of minor hyperbole perhaps but that often makes threads interesting and frankly any more stuff on LA needs an angle!! I agree the Livestrong brand and by association Livestrong products are tainted. Similarly, in relation to Nazism, the swastika is a tainted symbol although not in all associations. If there is any trolling here, it's to make an issue of something that clearly was neither intended nor even there in the first place.

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

Are they the bits that you are making up so you can find it offensive ?

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

Indeed, so turn this on its head. We have a choice to be offended by what we read or to ignore it. IMO, the latter would have been the best policy here for those who say offence in the first place.

Are they the bits that you are making up so you can find it offensive ?

I think you need to read my posts again but to summarise in case you can't be arsed:

I'm satisfied that JY did not intend to suggest that LA's actions were comparable to those of the Nazis.

However,

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.

His statement that the LS band is as tainted as the Swastika is open to such an interpretation.

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

Despite the fact that he was forced to explain it by the first person who chose to misinterpret it so they could be offended.

We have a choice to be offended by what we read or to ignore it. IMO, the latter would have been the best policy here for those who say offence in the first place.

Well firstly I'm not sure we do have a choice about what offends us and secondly if someone is offended by a statement whether intentional or not it's important to say so.