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 - Memberweren'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
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 think you are confusing 'band' with 'brand'. The Livestrond band was part of, but not the entirety of the Livestrong brand.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.
In your head. It is you making the connection between the symbol and the organisation. JY was talking about the symbols being equally tainted.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 - Memberredpanda, 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.
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 - MemberExcpet 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
" 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?