New Nike Just Do It Spot with Lance.
07-01-09, 02:42 AM
#201
Big Blade
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here's why I usually can't stand cancer survivors: they are often totally insensitive to those who didn't make it. They usually credit one of two things for why they survived. Either they fought really hard, or they prayed really hard and god saved them. They will tell you all about both of those things, in excruciating, self-congratulatory detail. If that doesn't describe any of you here or your relatives you are writing about, then great: you're not the kind of survivor I'm talking about. But you know the ones I am talking about. We encounter their stories every day.
Well...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. (America's cancer myth is kind of like the "American Dream" concept that if one tries hard, he will be a success and the flip side of that is of course the attitude that those who aren't successful have no one to blame but themselves because they just haven't tried hard enough in life. yeah, sure, that explains everything.)
From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not. To take credit for saving oneself or inspiring another person to save themselves is a little too much for those of us whose loved ones didn't survive to stomach. Call that attitude despicable if you want, but it's one that's been dumped on me. Trust me, I'd much rather not have had the experiences that have led me to adopt that attitude.
The bottom line to me is that cancer sucks and the focus needs to be on research and prevention and truly effective treatments, not personal motivational bs and prayer. Actual scientific research is what will save people of the future. Cancer needs to be seen as a science problem, a research problem, a societal problem, a global crisis, and so on... and not be viewed as a series of singular personal struggles.
Well...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. (America's cancer myth is kind of like the "American Dream" concept that if one tries hard, he will be a success and the flip side of that is of course the attitude that those who aren't successful have no one to blame but themselves because they just haven't tried hard enough in life. yeah, sure, that explains everything.)
From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not. To take credit for saving oneself or inspiring another person to save themselves is a little too much for those of us whose loved ones didn't survive to stomach. Call that attitude despicable if you want, but it's one that's been dumped on me. Trust me, I'd much rather not have had the experiences that have led me to adopt that attitude.
The bottom line to me is that cancer sucks and the focus needs to be on research and prevention and truly effective treatments, not personal motivational bs and prayer. Actual scientific research is what will save people of the future. Cancer needs to be seen as a science problem, a research problem, a societal problem, a global crisis, and so on... and not be viewed as a series of singular personal struggles.
what you have expressed is why I have my feelings about the whole Lance thing, and his exploits.
He is coming off as if because of his determination he beat cancer, when really, it was luck and money, and secondly, his return to a successful career only 18 months after the hospital was aided by powerful drugs, not his talent. His talent would have gotten him back into pro racing, but not rocket him to the top by-passing everyone else who was training just as hard and not recovering from a fatal illness.
This commercial is all wool over peoples eyes and all about making money off of a feel good story.
07-01-09, 03:22 AM
#202
.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 40,375
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times
in
12 Posts
Thank you for this post.
what you have expressed is why I have my feelings about the whole Lance thing, and his exploits.
He is coming off as if because of his determination he beat cancer, when really, it was luck and money, and secondly, his return to a successful career only 18 months after the hospital was aided by powerful drugs, not his talent. His talent would have gotten him back into pro racing, but not rocket him to the top by-passing everyone else who was training just as hard and not recovering from a fatal illness.
This commercial is all wool over peoples eyes and all about making money off of a feel good story.
what you have expressed is why I have my feelings about the whole Lance thing, and his exploits.
He is coming off as if because of his determination he beat cancer, when really, it was luck and money, and secondly, his return to a successful career only 18 months after the hospital was aided by powerful drugs, not his talent. His talent would have gotten him back into pro racing, but not rocket him to the top by-passing everyone else who was training just as hard and not recovering from a fatal illness.
This commercial is all wool over peoples eyes and all about making money off of a feel good story.
07-01-09, 04:34 AM
#204
Still can't climb
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Limey in Taiwan
Posts: 23,024
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
6 Posts
i only just opened this thread after seeing it had legs and previously assuming it was a usual love/hate lance frothy thread, but it is actually one of the more serious discussions.
I was very much moved and a bit astounded that this should generate trolling and hate posts. How can anyone be hostile to cancer awareness and supporting victims and cheering survivors?
But on reflection, i think we can give a bit of leeway to those with negative thoughts. I remember when it hit a relative and apart from the worry, fear etc. there was a huge sense of anger. Anger at the unfairness, anger at the "we did everything we were advised so we shouldn't get this fing disease". "Aholes who live unhealthy lifestyles don't get this, why should we?"
Luckiliy the incident did not have a tragic ending and fingers crossed long may it remain that way. But if the outcome was not so positive, i can imagine the intense anger and resentment.
I was very much moved and a bit astounded that this should generate trolling and hate posts. How can anyone be hostile to cancer awareness and supporting victims and cheering survivors?
But on reflection, i think we can give a bit of leeway to those with negative thoughts. I remember when it hit a relative and apart from the worry, fear etc. there was a huge sense of anger. Anger at the unfairness, anger at the "we did everything we were advised so we shouldn't get this fing disease". "Aholes who live unhealthy lifestyles don't get this, why should we?"
Luckiliy the incident did not have a tragic ending and fingers crossed long may it remain that way. But if the outcome was not so positive, i can imagine the intense anger and resentment.
07-01-09, 04:40 AM
#205
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,485
Bikes: Trek, Giant, PoS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not sure if you're serious or not, but what I meant was the other Lance said, something along the lines of, the freezing cold, the dehydration, the starvation is easy compared to cancer. Or something like that.
07-01-09, 04:51 AM
#206
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,485
Bikes: Trek, Giant, PoS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here's why I usually can't stand cancer survivors: they are often totally insensitive to those who didn't make it. They usually credit one of two things for why they survived. Either they fought really hard, or they prayed really hard and god saved them. They will tell you all about both of those things, in excruciating, self-congratulatory detail. If that doesn't describe any of you here or your relatives you are writing about, then great: you're not the kind of survivor I'm talking about. But you know the ones I am talking about. We encounter their stories every day.
Well...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. (America's cancer myth is kind of like the "American Dream" concept that if one tries hard, he will be a success and the flip side of that is of course the attitude that those who aren't successful have no one to blame but themselves because they just haven't tried hard enough in life. yeah, sure, that explains everything.)
From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not. To take credit for saving oneself or inspiring another person to save themselves is a little too much for those of us whose loved ones didn't survive to stomach. Call that attitude despicable if you want, but it's one that's been dumped on me. Trust me, I'd much rather not have had the experiences that have led me to adopt that attitude.
The bottom line to me is that cancer sucks and the focus needs to be on research and prevention and truly effective treatments, not personal motivational bs and prayer. Actual scientific research is what will save people of the future. Cancer needs to be seen as a science problem, a research problem, a societal problem, a global crisis, and so on... and not be viewed as a series of singular personal struggles.
Well...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. (America's cancer myth is kind of like the "American Dream" concept that if one tries hard, he will be a success and the flip side of that is of course the attitude that those who aren't successful have no one to blame but themselves because they just haven't tried hard enough in life. yeah, sure, that explains everything.)
From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not. To take credit for saving oneself or inspiring another person to save themselves is a little too much for those of us whose loved ones didn't survive to stomach. Call that attitude despicable if you want, but it's one that's been dumped on me. Trust me, I'd much rather not have had the experiences that have led me to adopt that attitude.
The bottom line to me is that cancer sucks and the focus needs to be on research and prevention and truly effective treatments, not personal motivational bs and prayer. Actual scientific research is what will save people of the future. Cancer needs to be seen as a science problem, a research problem, a societal problem, a global crisis, and so on... and not be viewed as a series of singular personal struggles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS36ZuCW-7c
Last edited by gabdy; 07-01-09 at 04:56 AM.
07-01-09, 05:03 AM
#207
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,198
Bikes: 2007 Orbea Onix, 2007 Windsor The Hour, 2008 Kona Jake
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is what I love about BF.
1. Someone posts, "Nike is awesome because they don't make a penny off Livestrong".
2. A bunch of people post "Yeah! We love Nike because they don't make a profit".
3. I post, "That's wrong, they make a ton off it through brand loyalty".
4. A bunch of people post, "You're a stupid insensitive idiot. Nike deserves to make a profit for all they've done"...
Thank you all for proving my point.
1. Someone posts, "Nike is awesome because they don't make a penny off Livestrong".
2. A bunch of people post "Yeah! We love Nike because they don't make a profit".
3. I post, "That's wrong, they make a ton off it through brand loyalty".
4. A bunch of people post, "You're a stupid insensitive idiot. Nike deserves to make a profit for all they've done"...
Thank you all for proving my point.
07-01-09, 05:05 AM
#208
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,198
Bikes: 2007 Orbea Onix, 2007 Windsor The Hour, 2008 Kona Jake
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I know, they're a bunch of selfish *******s for living. That's about as tasteful as this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS36ZuCW-7c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS36ZuCW-7c
07-01-09, 05:07 AM
#209
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,198
Bikes: 2007 Orbea Onix, 2007 Windsor The Hour, 2008 Kona Jake
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
For those of you who love Lance, he's on the top placement add on CNN.com right now.
07-01-09, 05:13 AM
#211
Peloton Shelter Dog
Thread Starter
Some of the responses here are unfathomable. But they can say whatever they want. I didn't start this thread for them.
07-01-09, 05:17 AM
#212
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,941
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12192 Post(s)
Liked 1,496 Times
in
1,108 Posts
Love the spot, also gave me chills.. My Dad just fought Prostate Cancer and has been just given a clean bill of health.. Still love the old lance spot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjcZN...e=channel_page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjcZN...e=channel_page
07-01-09, 05:27 AM
#213
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,485
Bikes: Trek, Giant, PoS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Survivor, survivor's, or survivors guilt or syndrome is a mental condition that occurs when a person perceives himself or herself to have done wrong by surviving a traumatic event. It may be found among survivors of combat and natural disaster, and in non-mortal situations among those whose colleagues are laid off. The experience and manifestation of survivor's guilt will depend on an individual's psychological profile. When the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) was published survivor guilt was removed as a recognised specific diagnosis, and redefined as a significant symptom of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_guilt
Edit - why shouldn't they rejoice and speculate on what caused the recovery?
Last edited by gabdy; 07-01-09 at 05:34 AM.
07-01-09, 05:58 AM
#214
Token Canadian
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Gagetown, New Brunswick
Posts: 1,555
Bikes: Cervelo S1, Norco Faze 1 SL, Surly Big Dummy, Moose Fatbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here's why I usually can't stand cancer survivors: they are often totally insensitive to those who didn't make it. They usually credit one of two things for why they survived. Either they fought really hard, or they prayed really hard and god saved them. ...
...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. ...
...From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not.
...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. ...
...From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not.
First off, you are absolutely correct that beating cancer is largely a matter of luck. Early detection before it has spread too far to deal with, coming down with a "treatable" vs "non-treatable" form, having the cancer respond favorably to the treatment (getting the right treatment in the first place rather than cycling through several ineffective methods first) - these all have large luck components.
And you are also quite correct to point out that if you have a luck deficit, no amount of fighting or praying will make up the difference.
THAT is one of the key facts driving cancer research. You shouldn't have to be lucky to survive. It should be a matter of a diagnosis followed by a cure. Clearly it is not - yet.
Lance didn't survive cancer because he was stronger, a better fighter, prayed harder, or was a better human being than those who did not survive. He survived because the cancer was discovered early enough, was of a treatable form, and he got the right treatment. In short, because he was lucky.
But when he came through the other side, he did have the personal fortitude to both rebuild his form back up to winning, and the foresight to go "Wow, that SUCKED!" and leverage his fame, success, etc into creating a foundation to help reduce the reliance on luck to get through the cancer, and to help the lucky ones who do make it rebuild their lives and get back to living.
How is that not admirable?
That commercial celebrates those who, having made it through the other side, shattered and brutalized by a disease whose treatments are almost as bad as the disease itself, pick themselves up and start rebuilding their lives. There is a strength to that and yes, it should be celebrated.
DG
07-01-09, 06:10 AM
#215
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,198
Bikes: 2007 Orbea Onix, 2007 Windsor The Hour, 2008 Kona Jake
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
07-01-09, 06:13 AM
#216
Life is Good
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 137
Bikes: 2008 Specialized Tarmac Expert - Rival/Force, 2002 Colnago Classic
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
And oh yeah, I can't figure out why so many knock Lance - on or off the bike. It also is odd that the majority of anti-Lance folks seem to be the so-called purist roadies. I don't get it.
07-01-09, 06:20 AM
#217
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,941
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12192 Post(s)
Liked 1,496 Times
in
1,108 Posts
Holy cow have you missed the point.
First off, you are absolutely correct that beating cancer is largely a matter of luck. Early detection before it has spread too far to deal with, coming down with a "treatable" vs "non-treatable" form, having the cancer respond favorably to the treatment (getting the right treatment in the first place rather than cycling through several ineffective methods first) - these all have large luck components.
And you are also quite correct to point out that if you have a luck deficit, no amount of fighting or praying will make up the difference.
THAT is one of the key facts driving cancer research. You shouldn't have to be lucky to survive. It should be a matter of a diagnosis followed by a cure. Clearly it is not - yet.
Lance didn't survive cancer because he was stronger, a better fighter, prayed harder, or was a better human being than those who did not survive. He survived because the cancer was discovered early enough, was of a treatable form, and he got the right treatment. In short, because he was lucky.
But when he came through the other side, he did have the personal fortitude to both rebuild his form back up to winning, and the foresight to go "Wow, that SUCKED!" and leverage his fame, success, etc into creating a foundation to help reduce the reliance on luck to get through the cancer, and to help the lucky ones who do make it rebuild their lives and get back to living.
How is that not admirable?
That commercial celebrates those who, having made it through the other side, shattered and brutalized by a disease whose treatments are almost as bad as the disease itself, pick themselves up and start rebuilding their lives. There is a strength to that and yes, it should be celebrated.
DG
First off, you are absolutely correct that beating cancer is largely a matter of luck. Early detection before it has spread too far to deal with, coming down with a "treatable" vs "non-treatable" form, having the cancer respond favorably to the treatment (getting the right treatment in the first place rather than cycling through several ineffective methods first) - these all have large luck components.
And you are also quite correct to point out that if you have a luck deficit, no amount of fighting or praying will make up the difference.
THAT is one of the key facts driving cancer research. You shouldn't have to be lucky to survive. It should be a matter of a diagnosis followed by a cure. Clearly it is not - yet.
Lance didn't survive cancer because he was stronger, a better fighter, prayed harder, or was a better human being than those who did not survive. He survived because the cancer was discovered early enough, was of a treatable form, and he got the right treatment. In short, because he was lucky.
But when he came through the other side, he did have the personal fortitude to both rebuild his form back up to winning, and the foresight to go "Wow, that SUCKED!" and leverage his fame, success, etc into creating a foundation to help reduce the reliance on luck to get through the cancer, and to help the lucky ones who do make it rebuild their lives and get back to living.
How is that not admirable?
That commercial celebrates those who, having made it through the other side, shattered and brutalized by a disease whose treatments are almost as bad as the disease itself, pick themselves up and start rebuilding their lives. There is a strength to that and yes, it should be celebrated.
DG
Which makes both of you right, in your own way.
07-01-09, 06:27 AM
#218
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
07-01-09, 06:41 AM
#219
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Actually the responses are very interesting. The amount of emotional energy uselessly expended by people for nothing more than establishing to a bunch of strangers that they are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG is interesting.
Negativity feeds on itself. Let it. Those who live on it will eventually be consumed by their own negativity in one way or another. Trying to convince someone of this is difficult, especially when they would rather be RIGHT than HAPPY.
Resume idiocy.
Negativity feeds on itself. Let it. Those who live on it will eventually be consumed by their own negativity in one way or another. Trying to convince someone of this is difficult, especially when they would rather be RIGHT than HAPPY.
Resume idiocy.
07-01-09, 06:49 AM
#220
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Posts: 12,275
Bikes: are better than yours.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Holy cow have you missed the point.
First off, you are absolutely correct that beating cancer is largely a matter of luck. Early detection before it has spread too far to deal with, coming down with a "treatable" vs "non-treatable" form, having the cancer respond favorably to the treatment (getting the right treatment in the first place rather than cycling through several ineffective methods first) - these all have large luck components.
And you are also quite correct to point out that if you have a luck deficit, no amount of fighting or praying will make up the difference.
THAT is one of the key facts driving cancer research. You shouldn't have to be lucky to survive. It should be a matter of a diagnosis followed by a cure. Clearly it is not - yet.
Lance didn't survive cancer because he was stronger, a better fighter, prayed harder, or was a better human being than those who did not survive. He survived because the cancer was discovered early enough, was of a treatable form, and he got the right treatment. In short, because he was lucky.
But when he came through the other side, he did have the personal fortitude to both rebuild his form back up to winning, and the foresight to go "Wow, that SUCKED!" and leverage his fame, success, etc into creating a foundation to help reduce the reliance on luck to get through the cancer, and to help the lucky ones who do make it rebuild their lives and get back to living.
How is that not admirable?
That commercial celebrates those who, having made it through the other side, shattered and brutalized by a disease whose treatments are almost as bad as the disease itself, pick themselves up and start rebuilding their lives. There is a strength to that and yes, it should be celebrated.
DG
First off, you are absolutely correct that beating cancer is largely a matter of luck. Early detection before it has spread too far to deal with, coming down with a "treatable" vs "non-treatable" form, having the cancer respond favorably to the treatment (getting the right treatment in the first place rather than cycling through several ineffective methods first) - these all have large luck components.
And you are also quite correct to point out that if you have a luck deficit, no amount of fighting or praying will make up the difference.
THAT is one of the key facts driving cancer research. You shouldn't have to be lucky to survive. It should be a matter of a diagnosis followed by a cure. Clearly it is not - yet.
Lance didn't survive cancer because he was stronger, a better fighter, prayed harder, or was a better human being than those who did not survive. He survived because the cancer was discovered early enough, was of a treatable form, and he got the right treatment. In short, because he was lucky.
But when he came through the other side, he did have the personal fortitude to both rebuild his form back up to winning, and the foresight to go "Wow, that SUCKED!" and leverage his fame, success, etc into creating a foundation to help reduce the reliance on luck to get through the cancer, and to help the lucky ones who do make it rebuild their lives and get back to living.
How is that not admirable?
That commercial celebrates those who, having made it through the other side, shattered and brutalized by a disease whose treatments are almost as bad as the disease itself, pick themselves up and start rebuilding their lives. There is a strength to that and yes, it should be celebrated.
DG
No, it doesn't.
__________________
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
07-01-09, 06:54 AM
#221
Surf Bum
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
3 Posts
THAT is one of the key facts driving cancer research. You shouldn't have to be lucky to survive. It should be a matter of a diagnosis followed by a cure. Clearly it is not - yet.
Lance didn't survive cancer because he was stronger, a better fighter, prayed harder, or was a better human being than those who did not survive. He survived because the cancer was discovered early enough, was of a treatable form, and he got the right treatment. In short, because he was lucky.
But when he came through the other side, he did have the personal fortitude to both rebuild his form back up to winning, and the foresight to go "Wow, that SUCKED!" and leverage his fame, success, etc into creating a foundation to help reduce the reliance on luck to get through the cancer, and to help the lucky ones who do make it rebuild their lives and get back to living.
How is that not admirable?
Lance didn't survive cancer because he was stronger, a better fighter, prayed harder, or was a better human being than those who did not survive. He survived because the cancer was discovered early enough, was of a treatable form, and he got the right treatment. In short, because he was lucky.
But when he came through the other side, he did have the personal fortitude to both rebuild his form back up to winning, and the foresight to go "Wow, that SUCKED!" and leverage his fame, success, etc into creating a foundation to help reduce the reliance on luck to get through the cancer, and to help the lucky ones who do make it rebuild their lives and get back to living.
How is that not admirable?
Of course I'm happy for those who have survived. I just wish they wouldn't credit the survival itself to their own hard work or faith in their god, because I don't like where that leaves those who didn't survive.
Patentcad, you'd really rather have us view cancer as a private struggle for each patient, and focus on their positive thinking and strength and all that than see it as something that leaves us all victims and we all need to invest in and find a solution via scientific research? Well, good luck with that. Makes for good drama, but many more dead.
07-01-09, 07:26 AM
#222
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That is, of course, admirable. Rebuilding one's life is a whole different conversation.
Of course I'm happy for those who have survived. I just wish they wouldn't credit the survival itself to their own hard work or faith in their god, because I don't like where that leaves those who didn't survive.
Patentcad, you'd really rather have us view cancer as a private struggle for each patient, and focus on their positive thinking and strength and all that than see it as something that leaves us all victims and we all need to invest in and find a solution via scientific research? Well, good luck with that. Makes for good drama, but many more dead.
Of course I'm happy for those who have survived. I just wish they wouldn't credit the survival itself to their own hard work or faith in their god, because I don't like where that leaves those who didn't survive.
Patentcad, you'd really rather have us view cancer as a private struggle for each patient, and focus on their positive thinking and strength and all that than see it as something that leaves us all victims and we all need to invest in and find a solution via scientific research? Well, good luck with that. Makes for good drama, but many more dead.
Would you prefer that survivors never speak of their struggle again? When you are diagnosed with cancer you immediately realize just how helpless you are in the fight and that your fate rests in the hands of doctors, technology, medicine and luck.
There are very few weapons you personally can bring to the fight and some of them are; the will to fight, your family, prayer and motivational factors such as ribbons, wristbands, commercials etc.- Everything you bring with you is placebo but, if you happen to survive, those placebos take on a powerful meaning to you and you are compelled to share those with others who are struggling with the disease- The survivor wants to feel they had a hand in their survival because it lessens the sense that they are clearly powerless over their own mortality.
If I read you right, you would prefer that those people keep their survival experiences to themselves and I don't why that would please you. I am sincerely sorry that your personal experiences with cancer ended in death but I continue to find personal survival experiences to be motivating and inspiring and I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that prayer and posters should be used instead of medicine and technology.
07-01-09, 07:32 AM
#223
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here's why I usually can't stand cancer survivors: they are often totally insensitive to those who didn't make it. They usually credit one of two things for why they survived. Either they fought really hard, or they prayed really hard and god saved them. They will tell you all about both of those things, in excruciating, self-congratulatory detail. If that doesn't describe any of you here or your relatives you are writing about, then great: you're not the kind of survivor I'm talking about. But you know the ones I am talking about. We encounter their stories every day.
Well...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. (America's cancer myth is kind of like the "American Dream" concept that if one tries hard, he will be a success and the flip side of that is of course the attitude that those who aren't successful have no one to blame but themselves because they just haven't tried hard enough in life. yeah, sure, that explains everything.)
From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not. To take credit for saving oneself or inspiring another person to save themselves is a little too much for those of us whose loved ones didn't survive to stomach. Call that attitude despicable if you want, but it's one that's been dumped on me. Trust me, I'd much rather not have had the experiences that have led me to adopt that attitude.
The bottom line to me is that cancer sucks and the focus needs to be on research and prevention and truly effective treatments, not personal motivational bs and prayer. Actual scientific research is what will save people of the future. Cancer needs to be seen as a science problem, a research problem, a societal problem, a global crisis, and so on... and not be viewed as a series of singular personal struggles.
Well...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. (America's cancer myth is kind of like the "American Dream" concept that if one tries hard, he will be a success and the flip side of that is of course the attitude that those who aren't successful have no one to blame but themselves because they just haven't tried hard enough in life. yeah, sure, that explains everything.)
From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not. To take credit for saving oneself or inspiring another person to save themselves is a little too much for those of us whose loved ones didn't survive to stomach. Call that attitude despicable if you want, but it's one that's been dumped on me. Trust me, I'd much rather not have had the experiences that have led me to adopt that attitude.
The bottom line to me is that cancer sucks and the focus needs to be on research and prevention and truly effective treatments, not personal motivational bs and prayer. Actual scientific research is what will save people of the future. Cancer needs to be seen as a science problem, a research problem, a societal problem, a global crisis, and so on... and not be viewed as a series of singular personal struggles.
I and probably else everyone realize of course that there is some element of luck in all things.....so what.
07-01-09, 08:15 AM
#224
Peloton Shelter Dog
Thread Starter
Patentcad, you'd really rather have us view cancer as a private struggle for each patient, and focus on their positive thinking and strength and all that than see it as something that leaves us all victims and we all need to invest in and find a solution via scientific research? Well, good luck with that. Makes for good drama, but many more dead.
The people who don't get this are inconsequential.
And while you appear to have missed this essential Truth, The American Dream is what drives this nation, what gets the most productive workers on the planet out of bed in the morning, the spark that drives the most innovative economy the world has ever known, and the magnet that attracts the most talented, ambitious and creative people from around the globe to the USA.
Even your negativity and twisted logic can't kill that. Thank God.
07-01-09, 08:24 AM
#225
Descends Like Avalanche
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Somewhere between Funkytown and Margaritaville, PA
Posts: 5,769
Bikes: Lynskey R240, Sportive, and a Helix Sport disc model in the works; Eddy Merckx MX Leader; Specialized Rock Hopper Comp (1988!)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Here's why I usually can't stand cancer survivors: they are often totally insensitive to those who didn't make it. They usually credit one of two things for why they survived. Either they fought really hard, or they prayed really hard and god saved them. They will tell you all about both of those things, in excruciating, self-congratulatory detail. If that doesn't describe any of you here or your relatives you are writing about, then great: you're not the kind of survivor I'm talking about. But you know the ones I am talking about. We encounter their stories every day.
Well...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. (America's cancer myth is kind of like the "American Dream" concept that if one tries hard, he will be a success and the flip side of that is of course the attitude that those who aren't successful have no one to blame but themselves because they just haven't tried hard enough in life. yeah, sure, that explains everything.)
From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not. To take credit for saving oneself or inspiring another person to save themselves is a little too much for those of us whose loved ones didn't survive to stomach. Call that attitude despicable if you want, but it's one that's been dumped on me. Trust me, I'd much rather not have had the experiences that have led me to adopt that attitude.
The bottom line to me is that cancer sucks and the focus needs to be on research and prevention and truly effective treatments, not personal motivational bs and prayer. Actual scientific research is what will save people of the future. Cancer needs to be seen as a science problem, a research problem, a societal problem, a global crisis, and so on... and not be viewed as a series of singular personal struggles.
Well...by telling us how they beat cancer, by creating the myth that one is in charge of his own destiny against cancer and that it's all about the personal fight against it and that's what will beat it, what does that say about the people who didn't make it? I guess they just didn't fight hard enough or just didn't pray hard enough.
I've seen a lot of cancer in my friends and family, and I'm here to tell you that the idea above is crap. For your consideration: I buried my mother at 49 and my father at 58. Both lived very healthy lifestyles. Both followed all their doctor's advice and suffered through chemo. Both fought hard. Both prayed to their god and had the support of their communities. Neither lived more than a year after diagnosis.
So to be bombarded with the American cancer myth, the concept that all one needs to do to survive is fight hard and pray is terribly insulting. (America's cancer myth is kind of like the "American Dream" concept that if one tries hard, he will be a success and the flip side of that is of course the attitude that those who aren't successful have no one to blame but themselves because they just haven't tried hard enough in life. yeah, sure, that explains everything.)
From what I've seen out there, I'm pretty convinced it's just pretty much luck if one beats cancer or not. To take credit for saving oneself or inspiring another person to save themselves is a little too much for those of us whose loved ones didn't survive to stomach. Call that attitude despicable if you want, but it's one that's been dumped on me. Trust me, I'd much rather not have had the experiences that have led me to adopt that attitude.
The bottom line to me is that cancer sucks and the focus needs to be on research and prevention and truly effective treatments, not personal motivational bs and prayer. Actual scientific research is what will save people of the future. Cancer needs to be seen as a science problem, a research problem, a societal problem, a global crisis, and so on... and not be viewed as a series of singular personal struggles.
I do agree that luck can be a factor in whether or not someone recovers from any potentially fatal disease or accident. However, I would definitely not disregard the importance of someone's mental attitude while confronting those challenges. It's not so black and white. I think in facing a complex challenge, one's mental attitude can influence, but not completely determine, the outcome. A poor attitude will greatly lessen their chance of succeeding, but it doesn't totally eliminate it either. Likewise a great attitude can help, but it doesn't guarantee success by any stretch of the imagination.
Thanks for elaborating on your previous post.
__________________
The rider in my avatar is David Etxebarria, not me.