Post: #26

[/thread]

Post: #27

(10-02-2012 08:46 PM)Single Dad Swag Wrote:  Alright, now you're being a little TOO sensitive and acting feminine, yourself.

I coach my sons little league football team (6-8 year olds) and even WE'RE rocking pink shoe laces and pink socks for all the boys AND the coaches in the month of October.

This isn't a feminist issue, its a HUMAN ISSUE. I have absolutely no objections to this show of support and feel like people that do take issue are grasping at straws for attention. Try harder.

In 20 years your son will find a forum like this and write about growing up with a beta male father who taught him to supplicate before women.

Or you can change your attitude and stop teaching your son that his job is to serve women.

Post: #28

(10-02-2012 11:02 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  [/thread]

These pissing contests between cancers is misguided. Prostate cancer occurs later in life; the median age at death for prostate cancer is 80, compared to 68 for breast cancer.

Comparing cancers by the number of deaths alone is pretty dumb. People are going to die eventually, it's not like if they avoid this one cancer they'll live forever. It's better to look at in terms of life years - eg, if breast cancer was completely cured, how many more years of life would people have? 5, 10? Multiplied by the number of cases, 200k life years, per year, saved? Breast cancer wins over prostate cancer on that score. Of course, that doesn't settle everything - maybe a dollar spent on prostate cancer brings us closer to a cure than a dollar for breast cancer research - who knows?

Where are we really underspending? On cars. Traffic deaths number 30,000 a year, and the average age of the people dying is much lower than it is for any common cancer - the average age of people dying from accidents is probably in the 30s. We spend to the tune of about a billion per year all told on breast cancer research. The money would probably be better spent on automotive research, specifically driverless cars. But it looks like Google and automakers are already down that path.

We live in a gerontocracy, where massive massive amounts of money are pissed away to let Old Henry die at 87 instead of 85, mostly because no one individually is paying for it. Of course, it's all bullshit.

Post: #29

(10-02-2012 11:22 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 11:02 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  [/thread]

These pissing contests between cancers is misguided. Prostate cancer occurs later in life; the median age at death for prostate cancer is 80, compared to 68 for breast cancer.

Comparing cancers by the number of deaths alone is pretty dumb. People are going to die eventually, it's not like if they avoid this one cancer they'll live forever. It's better to look at in terms of life years - eg, if breast cancer was completely cured, how many more years of life would people have? 5, 10? Multiplied by the number of cases, 200k life years, per year, saved? Breast cancer wins over prostate cancer on that score. Of course, that doesn't settle everything - maybe a dollar spent on prostate cancer brings us closer to a cure than a dollar for breast cancer research - who knows?

Where are we really underspending? On cars. Traffic deaths number 30,000 a year, and the average age of the people dying is much lower than it is for any common cancer - the average age of people dying from accidents is probably in the 30s. We spend to the tune of about a billion per year all told on breast cancer research. The money would probably be better spent on automotive research, specifically driverless cars. But it looks like Google and automakers are already down that path.

We live in a gerontocracy, where massive massive amounts of money are pissed away to let Old Henry die at 87 instead of 85, mostly because no one individually is paying for it. Of course, it's all bullshit.

Decent points. Of course it's possible to account for those worries, and it turns out that the conclusion doesn't change very much:

http://www.csulb.edu/~acarter3/pdfs/cart...alysis.pdf

Figure 3 on page 6 is the money chart (although their other outcome measures are also broadly consistent with the main results). Even after accounting for quality/quantity of life considerations, breast cancer research is significantly overfunded (interestingly, so is prostate cancer, though to a lesser degree).

You're right that the chart I posted doesn't have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, but if you do the analysis right it's still true that we spend too much on breast cancer research relative to other cancers, especially lung cancer which if you read the fine print on those plots isn't even included because it's so severely underfunded that it would be an extreme outlier. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why.

Post: #30

(10-02-2012 09:28 PM)bacon Wrote:  singledadswag you seem like a real sensitive guy so keep wearing pink if you think that will help breast cancer. BUT i dont think i am alone in wanting to watch the nfl without the parade of pink being thrown in my face.

btw if your soo concerned about women
10times as many women die from heart disease
2 times as many women die from lung cancer

source this penn and teller video exposing the pink for the cause bullshit

Interesting video. Thanks for posting it.

Post: #31

I just spoke about this topic today after watching the Giants vs the Browns. Would woman switch roles and promote awareness of Prostate cancer? Another question, what is the color of prostate awareness? Brown for DooDoo? ...kidding. Its Skyblue, but who really knows that?

Honestly Lizards don't give a fuck about men unless it's their seed.
Beyond that the most important thing of this is that the promotion of Breast Cancer Awareness is so God Damn Lucrative.
You can bet that Pink Jerseys will be sold and TV Ratings WILL skyrocket along with the egos of these Bitches because everyday all we do on TV is DLV and give more reason for them to act fucked up.

AMERICA.

Post: #32

In that context, it doesn't seem feminine.

Post: #33

You guys need to expand your thinking a little bit.

Of course its about money ......... but beyond that there is a bigger issue.

You need to understand that above a certain point ( a billion or so), money is irrelevant - for at that point there is no good or service you can't buy.

So what is left ??????? CONTROL. The elites of our society no longer need money for money's sake - its all about CONTROL. - Social engineering and eugenics: getting people to do what you want, when you want........

For example: why would Goodell jeopardize player safety and the integrity of the game by lowballing the refs ??? What the refs were getting is peanuts (considering NFL profits), and further more what the NFL wanted to cut from the refs was also peanuts..... So why did he/they attempt to do it ??????????????????

Certainly not money.....but CONTROL. This is the name of the game after certain level of money has been achieved.

-The NFL is slowly being slated for existinction: it too manly and warlike - a threat to the "controllers".

in that vein, gender confusion will be introduced, rules changed will be made to lessen the warlike characteristics, minor issues will be plastered on the fron pages (concussions) in order to tarnish the game in peoples minds - propaganda.

Yes, it is a plan. And yes, it is intentional. Entertainment is one of the main ways to control and socially engineer the masses - its not "just football"

Post: #34

I might call this "pink knighting," but it's probably the closest thing to real chivalry that still exists in the US. Hyper-masculine alpha males wear some pink on their uniforms in solidarity with the weaker sex to support a serious disease. I find it hard to fault them for this, I'm sure you can find many more serious examples of alpha males with nothing to lose carrying water for feminists.

And no, it's not part of a conspiracy to feminize the game, although such a movement might exist elsewhere.

(10-02-2012 11:02 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  <funding per death by cancer type graph>

Colon cancer should get more attention. The lung cancer numbers are misleading though because of cigarette smoking.

Post: #35

I mean, it's only shoes, gloves, tape and towels, with a ribbon decal on the helmets. Coaches wear caps with pink bills, or some just have a little pink trim on them. If they had them wear special pink uniforms (some NBA and MLB teams sport green St. Patrick's Day uniforms), that would be somewhat emasculating. It's and opportunity for the league's business partners (manufacturers of the gloves, towels, shoes, caps etc.) to produce some limited edition stuff to sell.

Post: #36

(10-07-2012 08:43 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I mean, it's only shoes, gloves, tape and towels, with a ribbon decal on the helmets. Coaches wear caps with pink bills, or some just have a little pink trim on them. If they had them wear special pink uniforms (some NBA and MLB teams sport green St. Patrick's Day uniforms), that would be somewhat emasculating. It's and opportunity for the league's business partners (manufacturers of the gloves, towels, shoes, caps etc.) to produce some limited edition stuff to sell.

I feel like the pink is everywhere when I watch these games. Wonder what the teams pay for those items or maybe the league fronts it...just cleats can run a few hundred a pair. And they only use them what 3-4 times? What a waste.

Post: #37

(10-07-2012 08:26 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 11:02 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  <funding per death by cancer type graph>

Colon cancer should get more attention. The lung cancer numbers are misleading though because of cigarette smoking.

They're only misleading if you take a position like "we shouldn't try to help people with lung cancer because many of them bring it on themselves by smoking and therefore deserve whatever they get." I disagree with this position for a couple of reasons:

1. We don't apply this standard to many other diseases that are linked to lifestyle factors (nobody's calling for less funding for heart disease research because some people have poor diet and exercise habits that contribute to it). Not to mention that this reasoning would have to be applied to cervical cancer (many cases are due to HPV), liver cancer (many cases due to alcoholism), oral cancer (also often caused by tobacco use), and skin cancer (can be prevented by sunblock use) as well. For one more example, I don't think any of us would argue that someone who critically injured himself by getting drunk and doing something foolish shouldn't still get good medical treatment. I don't think it's good medical practice to start taking some people's illnesses less seriously for the reason that they brought it on themselves and hence somehow deserve it.

2. Not all cases of lung cancer are attributable to smoking (admittedly most of them are, but the 10-15% of all lung cancer cases in nonsmokers is still a lot of people once you consider that lung cancer kills more people than any other kind of cancer).

Post: #38

(10-07-2012 08:46 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 08:43 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  I mean, it's only shoes, gloves, tape and towels, with a ribbon decal on the helmets. Coaches wear caps with pink bills, or some just have a little pink trim on them. If they had them wear special pink uniforms (some NBA and MLB teams sport green St. Patrick's Day uniforms), that would be somewhat emasculating. It's and opportunity for the league's business partners (manufacturers of the gloves, towels, shoes, caps etc.) to produce some limited edition stuff to sell.

I feel like the pink is everywhere when I watch these games. Wonder what the teams pay for those items or maybe the league fronts it...just cleats can run a few hundred a pair. And they only use them what 3-4 times? What a waste.

They probably only use the cleats once. Gloves might get used again, but wristbands and towels probably get tossed. Some players may throw them into the crowd after the game, and things like cleats sometimes get autographed and auctioned off to make money for charities, etc. Pink ribbons are painted on the field, and you probably see more pink in the stands also, with fans wearing it also.

Post: #39

Quote:2. Not all cases of lung cancer are attributable to smoking (admittedly most of them are, but the 10-15% of all lung cancer cases in nonsmokers is still a lot of people once you consider that lung cancer kills more people than any other kind of cancer).

You make valid points, there are many factors that go into research funding. My only point was that if you were apply that 15% number to the infographic, it would be a lot less dramatic.

Post: #40

fuk the feministists

Post: #41

(10-07-2012 10:13 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:2. Not all cases of lung cancer are attributable to smoking (admittedly most of them are, but the 10-15% of all lung cancer cases in nonsmokers is still a lot of people once you consider that lung cancer kills more people than any other kind of cancer).

You make valid points, there are many factors that go into research funding. My only point was that if you were apply that 15% number to the infographic, it would be a lot less dramatic.

Yeah but my point was there really isn't a good reason to only consider the 15% of lung cancers that occur in nonsmokers. If you really want to go down that road of not counting people who have risk factors for their diseases that are under their control, remember that risk factors for developing breast cancer include not having children, oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy use, lack of breastfeeding, alcohol use, overweight/obesity, and lack of exercise. You can play that game all day but I personally think that kind of "blame the victim" approach to medicine is ridiculous.

Post: #42

(10-02-2012 09:32 PM)kdolo Wrote:  I addressed this issue on a prior post about the death of the NFL.




Having big burly aggressive and largely Negro men wear pink is a psyop. This is planned at the highest level to introduce and contribute to gender confusion.

1. Pink is a colors for females. This cannot be disputed

2. Breast cancer is a disease that affects females: none of whom play in the NFL and this is not marketing either because sports fans in general are overwhelmingly male.

- When will the WNBA start wearing Blue to support Prostate Cancer Awareness ??

this is all about introducing gender confusion (see the father above who "sees nothing wrong with letting young boys wear girl colors)
....in the vein of 'it doesnt matter - pink or blue - it doesnt matter boy or girl.male or female .....)

all about denigrating the male and exalting the female .....

-the controllers must keep real men down and confused while exalting women - since confused men and exalted women are easier to control ........

there is nothing casual about this - I wish a player would refuse to do it........then again NFL players are not known for their intelligence and ability to think through these kinds of issues.....

I agree that its just marketing to make money. Theres no over-arching plan to create gender-confusion. Its not that women are trying to feminize there sons in little-league.

Unfortunately just because there isn't a conspiracy to make these things happen doesn't mean they aren't happening. A feminist conspiracy would be the best-case scenario. A conspiracy at least has the potential to one day be discovered. Unfortunately whats happening is just the result of female electoral and economic liberation, and the resulting feminization of the entire country.

Some people will disagree with Kdolo's premise and thus reject his conclusion, but just because there isn't a grand scheme to feminize the nation doesn't mean its not happening.

Post: #43

Today I've heard an argument that prostate cancer will get the attention only when women decide to push for it, because men as a whole are disinterested in the issue and have an additional incentive of staying "tough" in the public image. There is a grain of truth in that, although it still doesn't make the Pink Ribbon attention whoring fair.

p.s. Wargasm has an excellent reasoning on conspiracy theories

Post: #44

"Theres no over-arching plan to create gender-confusion. Its not that women are trying to feminize there sons in little-league."


I disagree. If you watched any of the games this past weekend then you noticed a number of commercials where a mom is bringing her son back from PoP Warner practice and then thanks everybody: Pro players, coach, the kid , for working hard to protect her son from concussions..................


Since when do women - have anything to do with football or male youth sport at all ?? This is an attempt to insert the female into what is a purely male domain in the most masculine of sports.

Furthermore, the bugaboo of concussions is being used to generate a feminine-type hysteria over the safety of football. The subtle suggestion is that maybe we should not allow youth to play football or maybe we should radically change the game ........i.e. reduce its violence - manly character.

Look out for efforts introduce women in to the game: special teams/kicker
-to drastically reduce the physical contact

Name of the game: gender confusion, suppress masculinity, reduce physicality and violence.

Post: #45

Quote:Some people will disagree with Kdolo's premise and thus reject his conclusion, but just because there isn't a grand scheme to feminize the nation doesn't mean its not happening.

No, that's pretty much exactly what I think. There is a movement to pacify and eliminate risk and violence from sports, a movement which is difficult, at times, to distinguish from legitimate evidence-based progress on making competitions less pointlessly dangerous. Avoiding slippery slopes is as important as recognizing that just because a slippery slope is there doesn't mean you're sliding down it. There's also a movement to pander to women's pocketbooks and make sports more accessible to them, although I think that's less gender-confusing than you might think since at the end of the day women and men both admire winners and that's what competition is all about. My traditionally feminine grandmother (RIP) was a basketball fan.

But breast cancer month has nothing whatsoever to do with gender confusion. Just the opposite, in fact. Football's inherent masculinity is so well-established that pink sneakers aren't remotely confusing and even underscore the players' strength relative to women. In fact I'd say fretting about the issue on a web forum is infinitely less masculine than wearing a pink ribbon decal on your body armor. When you're a running back looking across the line of scrimmage at the 250 pound linebackers who can hit you hard enough to end your career, the last thing you're worried about is what color sneakers they are wearing.

Post: #46

(10-07-2012 11:05 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  Yeah but my point was there really isn't a good reason to only consider the 15% of lung cancers that occur in nonsmokers. If you really want to go down that road of not counting people who have risk factors for their diseases that are under their control, remember that risk factors for developing breast cancer include not having children, oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy use, lack of breastfeeding, alcohol use, overweight/obesity, and lack of exercise. You can play that game all day but I personally think that kind of "blame the victim" approach to medicine is ridiculous.

I mostly agree, which is why I'm not really interested in debating how the smoking/lung cancer link is so different from diseases with other risk factors, but it is.

Post: #47

"Some people will disagree with Kdolo's premise and thus reject his conclusion, but just because there isn't a grand scheme to feminize the nation doesn't mean its not happening.

No, that's pretty much exactly what I think..........."

And this is what I am trying to et you guys to understand. Theses things aren't "Just Happening.....".

They are being done. There are in fact powerful, influential, super wealthy people who do sit in rooms and decide that these types of things are going to be done. We have to try to be aware of this ......it is not random.

the feminization of US society is not random - it is part of planned agenda.

Post: #48

(10-08-2012 12:46 PM)kdolo Wrote:  "Some people will disagree with Kdolo's premise and thus reject his conclusion, but just because there isn't a grand scheme to feminize the nation doesn't mean its not happening.

No, that's pretty much exactly what I think..........."

And this is what I am trying to et you guys to understand. Theses things aren't "Just Happening.....".

They are being done. There are in fact powerful, influential, super wealthy people who do sit in rooms and decide that these types of things are going to be done. We have to try to be aware of this ......it is not random.

the feminization of US society is not random - it is part of planned agenda.

you should listen to alan watt he helped open me up to seeing things differently

Post: #49

(10-08-2012 12:46 PM)kdolo Wrote:  "Some people will disagree with Kdolo's premise and thus reject his conclusion, but just because there isn't a grand scheme to feminize the nation doesn't mean its not happening.

No, that's pretty much exactly what I think..........."

And this is what I am trying to et you guys to understand. Theses things aren't "Just Happening.....".

They are being done. There are in fact powerful, influential, super wealthy people who do sit in rooms and decide that these types of things are going to be done. We have to try to be aware of this ......it is not random.

the feminization of US society is not random - it is part of planned agenda.

I agree with this. Likewise, do guys really believe its an accident or purely a product of market pressures and viewer demand that there's now a glut of sitcoms and reality shows with homosexual characters, promoting gay marriage and adoption, and the gay lifestyle as "The New Normal" or "The Modern Family"? Nope, it's a conscious decision shaped not just by advertising dollars but by the political preferences of the media elite and their desire to reshape society.

Post: #50

(10-08-2012 07:46 AM)kdolo Wrote:  "Theres no over-arching plan to create gender-confusion. Its not that women are trying to feminize there sons in little-league."


I disagree. If you watched any of the games this past weekend then you noticed a number of commercials where a mom is bringing her son back from PoP Warner practice and then thanks everybody: Pro players, coach, the kid , for working hard to protect her son from concussions..................


Since when do women - have anything to do with football or male youth sport at all ?? This is an attempt to insert the female into what is a purely male domain in the most masculine of sports.

Furthermore, the bugaboo of concussions is being used to generate a feminine-type hysteria over the safety of football. The subtle suggestion is that maybe we should not allow youth to play football or maybe we should radically change the game ........i.e. reduce its violence - manly character.

Look out for efforts introduce women in to the game: special teams/kicker
-to drastically reduce the physical contact

Name of the game: gender confusion, suppress masculinity, reduce physicality and violence.

Did you play youth sports? Who was it that took you to practice/games? In my case it was my mother because my father was working. I'm sure that is the case for a majority of kids in sports. What about team moms? Are you telling me that they have no use in youth sports?

The fact of the matter is that the way American Football is played today is too violent. You have gigantic men colliding at full speed and that's what makes in on E!SPN. We've seen two former well known players (Dave Duerson and Junior Seau) shoot themselves in the chest to preserve their brains for research into concussions. If we want to see the game continue as it has, something needs to be done about concussions. The game will not survive if 1) you have retired players killing themselves and 2) kids no longer play the game because of the threat of injury.

On point #2: I had a student whose father played o-line for Rutgers and his uncle played o-line in the NFL for a few seasons before a knee injury ended his career. He was not allowed to play football because his father knew the long term damage the game could do to the body. I would love to see someone claim that these guys are feminized bitches.

Rugby is just as physical a game as American Football, but doesn't have nearly the amount of head injuries. Just some food for thought.