Obama administration Proves once and for all Patriarchy REAL

[Riviera de la Mancha]

God-The-RapistV2.0

By trying to completely remove Prostate Cancer funding to the CDC.

Because nothing proves that we live in a society that has only men's interests in mind and hates women like making sure more men die of a treatable disease.

Handy Dandy Graphic that is too big to post.

I have no idea how prostate cancer funding in any way implicates patriarchy at all. About the only way it does is if you think that the decision to fund prostate cancer was in some way motivated by patriarchal or feminist concepts. How you come to that conclusion based solely on a funding decision is beyond me.

[Lord of the Vine]

Divine_Malevolence

The20

My argument is simple: People die from it. Cutting all funding is a bad idea.

And you're positing that it presently necessitates additional funding.
That it doesn't presently have enough left over, or in fact hasn't come to the conclusion that additional funding simply isn't necessary.

'Re you qualified to posit that?
Are you capable of saying that the prostate cancer prevention needs more funding? Or is even asking for it?

'Cause if not, why even bother bringing it up? Is the administration seeking to kill cancer patients, or could the budget perhaps be balanced according to the actual need of individual entities as opposed to the wont to indiscriminately throw money at problems?

Also, it doesn't matter in the slightest what you're going to accept, because the only people the administration have to answer to on funding prostate cancer dealings are the people who're actually dealing with it.
Which, now that you've pointed out one of my points of stupidity, leads to a rather glaring possibility.

Perhaps, just a thought, maaaaaybe, the fact that we now have an ******** healthcare system allows individual insurance companies to cover the complications of prostate cancer without government assistance, as it had already been demonstrated to be something that requires less funding overall.
Because I'm looking back at that little chart.
The first and second rows seem to be the same, wherein the third row is presumably the allotment of funding for the next year and the last row is the difference.
The uniform cuts to government spending on these things implies to me that, ********. Our medical system may well just need less government assistance for this s**t.
And as the prostate cancer research visibly seems to have taken less of a flat cut than literally any other area even after taking into account positive changes, there is actually a visible possibility that it's just no longer expensive enough to require government assistance.



And as a final note, damn, I was giving the OP too much credit.
I thought it was on research because that's something you'd be more likely to find the government actually funding far's I can see.
But, no, it's on treatment.
He was basically pointing out that dealing with prostate cancer is cheaper.
Which is far more pathetic that I originally thought.


But still.
Don't take my word on anything, I'm just pointing out possibilities.
If you've got a problem with this s**t, ask an actual healthcare professional instead of a forum of people who have no idea what the ******** goes into the funding decisions of our healthcare system.

So...because less people die from prostate cancer, we should just cut all funding to it.

...

K.

[God-The-RapistV2.0]

Riviera de la Mancha

God-The-RapistV2.0

By trying to completely remove Prostate Cancer funding to the CDC.

Because nothing proves that we live in a society that has only men's interests in mind and hates women like making sure more men die of a treatable disease.

Handy Dandy Graphic that is too big to post.

I have no idea how prostate cancer funding in any way implicates patriarchy at all. About the only way it does is if you think that the decision to fund prostate cancer was in some way motivated by patriarchal or feminist concepts. How you come to that conclusion based solely on a funding decision is beyond me.

It doesn't. At all. It was hyperbole.

[toasega]

Very Horrorshow

Pretty shitty move all around, but please, spare us the "disposable" male rhetoric. When your gender is still the vast majority of all leadership roles in the government, military, and the corporate sectors, you're not disposable.

I think the "disposable" idea comes in when it's like any man in any position can easily be replaced. A guy can die, people are shocked for a few seconds, and then they move on with their lives. If anything happens to a woman, it's much more terrible for some reason. Maybe it's because they seem more vulnerable, I guess. I suppose people think "Oh, well a guy is so big and strong, he can take it", and it sort of gets out of hand after a while, like you can do whatever you want to a guy and it won't really matter.

But for women, the idea is that they're so fragile, vulnerable and emotional, that to do anything to them would be the ultimate evil. There's also the whole child-birthing thing; women are generally seen as more valuable because they are able to have children, and men have always been tasked to protect them. Now if any man refuses, society either rejects him or mercilessly beats him into submission or death.

This is where the feeling comes from (for men) that men are expendable (in my opinion).

[Divine_Malevolence]

Mayor of Murderwood

So...because less people die from prostate cancer, we should just cut all funding to it.

...

K.

The post you quoted had a different, far more informed conclusion that an individual who knew how to read probably would've picked up on.
So I'd cut the snark until such a time's you picked up on what was actually being said in the characters that you were responding to.




And don't ******** respond to me if you don't have the decency to even comprehend my argument. Far as I had held before you were someone who could be held to some standard.
Let's try'n keep that rep intact.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Divine_Malevolence

Mayor of Murderwood

So...because less people die from prostate cancer, we should just cut all funding to it.

...

K.

The post you quoted had a different, far more informed conclusion that an individual who knew how to read probably would've picked up on.
So I'd cut the snark until such a time's you picked up on what was actually being said in the characters that you were responding to.




And don't ******** respond to me if you don't have the decency to even comprehend my argument. Far as I had held before you were someone who could be held to some standard.
Let's try'n keep that rep intact.

Yeah, we get it, you think it takes a qualified individual to even begin to understand how adding funding to a research program where someone dies can help. Your argument, ultimately, leads to that, because the rest is all crap at the end of the day. Common sense alone is likely sufficient to understand a problem of this nature. It's not so much that it should or should not need more funding, they could have completed their research on the issue, or have funding in other areas than just that one, 16,000 dollars seems a little low for a form of cancer. That's not even a whole scientist's annual salary. Most likely, it's just a portion; but, that's not the part they're weighing in on, just the idea that cutting all funding would be a bad idea. The people who actually have to deal with cancer aren't the administrator's, but the victims, and that's what people tend to focus on. Also, you have a near equal rate of death as breast cancer, and 10 times as many men get it, and die much more slowly and painfully.

Unless you really think the world works like this:

[Divine_Malevolence]

Suicidesoldier#1

Yeah, we get it, you think it takes a qualified individual to even begin to understand how adding funding to a research program where someone dies can help. Your argument, ultimately, leads to that, because the rest is all crap at the end of the day. Common sense alone is likely sufficient to understand a problem of this nature. It's not so much that it should or should not need more funding, they could have completed their research on the issue, or have funding in other areas than just that one, 16,000 dollars seems a little low for a form of cancer. That's not even a whole scientist's annual salary. Most likely, it's just a portion; but, that's not the part they're weighing in on, just the idea that cutting all funding would be a bad idea. The people who actually have to deal with cancer aren't the administrator's, but the victims, and that's what people tend to focus on. Also, you have a near equal rate of death as breast cancer, and 10 times as many men get it, and die much more slowly and painfully.

Unless you really think the world works like this:

Yeah, it don't have anything to do with research.
I was wrong on that.
I mean, the point still stands that only the people who deal with the funding really know what's going on there, but the spreadsheet wasn't about research.
By appearances it was on government assistance to the medical system. Probably somewhat akin to food stamps, except instead of food it's chemo.
Or whatever you do to prostate cancer if it isn't chemo.

It's, visibly, the type of thing the government would only be paying for if it couldn't pay for itself.
And funnily enough there was a recent change to the medical system that would make it far easier for things like this to pay for themselves, and thus need less government assistance.
This is reflected in the document, as literally every form of cancer treatment has been given less government funding. The thing to grasp from this is not, in fact, that funding for prostate cancer prevention has been entirely cut.
It's that basically every form of cancer prevention now requires less funding.
In such an amount that prostate cancer prevention simply doesn't need any more government assistance.

[Michael Noire]

Divine_Malevolence

A total of 2.1% of prostate cancer patients die in five years.
Wait, strike that, I'm being generous. 1.1%.
Quick google search..... I believe that is actually less than the amount of people who die simply because a surgery went wrong.

Meanwhile, breast cancer deaths in the same period is 10.8.
Near ten times as common.

So, according to your little sheet....
What exactly is the problem?
A smaller problem gets less funding? No ******** s**t. And I'm decently sure that talking to any given medical professional or researcher would demonstrate yet more reasons for this decision.

Men aren't like women. Men don't go around saying they have cancer dicks. Men don't set up giant d**k ribbon campaigns at the grocery store. You dont see any cancer d**k steak & potatoes fund raisers.

People used to say rape went largely unreported. You think those numbers are bad, imagine how many people don't want to talk about their prostates?

[Divine_Malevolence]

Michael Noire

Men aren't like women. Men don't go around saying they have cancer dicks. Men don't set up giant d**k ribbon campaigns at the grocery store. You dont see any cancer d**k steak & potatoes fund raisers.

People used to say rape went largely unreported. You think those numbers are bad, imagine how many people don't want to talk about their prostates?

Sounds like their own damn problem, then.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Divine_Malevolence

Michael Noire

Men aren't like women. Men don't go around saying they have cancer dicks. Men don't set up giant d**k ribbon campaigns at the grocery store. You dont see any cancer d**k steak & potatoes fund raisers.

People used to say rape went largely unreported. You think those numbers are bad, imagine how many people don't want to talk about their prostates?

Sounds like their own damn problem, then.

ITT: Cancer is everyone's problem when it kills women, but men need to just suck it up and deal.

[Silent Mule Man]

Doesn't the graph you posted also suggest that breast and cervical cancer lost $102,993 in funding in the eighth line?Are gun violence and rape prevention really things that should be addressed as a matter of healthcare using healthcare funding? I swear I saw that in the original pdf.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Keltoi Samurai

ITT: Cancer is everyone's problem when it kills women, but men need to just suck it up and deal.

If they don't speak about it it's their business to let their cancer kill 'em.

[God-The-RapistV2.0]

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

ITT: Cancer is everyone's problem when it kills women, but men need to just suck it up and deal.

If they don't speak about it it's their business to let their cancer kill 'em.

Just like women in abusive relationships or rape victims. If they don't tell, they deserve it, right?

[Yoshpet]

Divine_Malevolence

Michael Noire

Men aren't like women. Men don't go around saying they have cancer dicks. Men don't set up giant d**k ribbon campaigns at the grocery store. You dont see any cancer d**k steak & potatoes fund raisers.

People used to say rape went largely unreported. You think those numbers are bad, imagine how many people don't want to talk about their prostates?

Sounds like their own damn problem, then.

You just keep opening these cans of worms. gonk There's simply no way to oppose prostate cancer funding and be the good guy.

[Divine_Malevolence]

God-The-RapistV2.0

Just like women in abusive relationships or rape victims. If they don't tell, they deserve it, right?

In a way.
But in that case there's a second factor that makes it very different.

Someone who wants more prostate cancer awareness doesn't really have anything that could threaten 'im.
Someone who got raped has an individual who they find to be dangerous.

So th'straws y'grasp at aren't really there.

Yoshpet

You just keep opening these cans of worms. gonk There's simply no way to oppose prostate cancer funding and be the good guy.

Well, m'name's not Benevolence, it's Malevolence. And in the words of River Tam,
"Mal. Bad in the Latin."
And I never once opposed it, I just find that there's a heavy possibility that it simply isn't necessary at the moment.
Much how you might find that the government isn't giving Donald Trump as many food stamps as they are that one guy on the street.
The Don just don't need no food stamps, y'know.