I love boobies! - Page 7 - Politics and Economics

LirvA · 12-20-2010, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLOwed

They dont get payed equally bc they are discriminated against in the work place imo

FYP

Chips Ahoy · 12-20-2010, 04:12 AM

Props to MissileDog for posting a lively pair of boobies.

LirvA · 12-20-2010, 04:15 AM

they're uneven ...

GermanGuy · 12-20-2010, 06:01 AM

Then take a look at these great tits:

Spoiler:

UtzChips · 12-20-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hadis

Btw i'm extremely disappointed Carlin's 7 dirty words haven't been mentioned yet.

Boobies were not on the list, man.

UtzChips' 7 words you'll never heard said on t.v.:

It won't make a good reality show.

pvn · 12-20-2010, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autocratic

I'd bet the impact on funding is actually kind of massive. The "awareness" aspect, less so.

Really, how so?

I'm not talking about the money you donate to BUY a pink bracelet or a pink garbage can, or the money the NFL donates as part of their pink shoes month. That money was not directed to research as a result of the pink items. I'm talking about someone seeing Ochocinco with a pink chinstrap and saying, "yow, that's def, where's my checkbook?"

pvn · 12-20-2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

The "awareness" aspect is not separable from the "funding impacts." In fact, they're inexorably linked.

This is partly why I think NVE and pvn have their hearts in the wrong place, and I'll grant for the sake of the argument that they're making totally good faith criticisms.

Because even assuming the absolute worst about "cancer awareness whores" self-aggrandizing motives, who cares? The means are not very burdensome (omg, pink socks on my favorite football team ohnoes!!!! Facebook profile changes WTF!!!!! pink garbage cans, I love boobies shirts, bracelets, et al -- the means that people are criticizing here have no real impact on anyone) and (assuming we're correct that the funding impacts are substantial), then the ends are laudable. Even if those ends (increased funding for cancer research) are secondary or lower in the hierarchy to the "cancer awareness whores" who are just signaling or drawing attention to themselves.

I don't consider it burdensome. I am just pointing out that it's probably not very effective. And I found the idea of pink garbage cans to be pretty odd. Have all the pink you want, sorry you got butthurt about NVE's comments (DUCWIDT?).

Money2Burn · 12-20-2010, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_van_exel

Should a young girl be allowed to wear shirt at school that just says 'boobies'.

Only if there is an exclamation point after. Like "boobies!" that way it will teach kids they are something to get excited over, because they are.

Nichlemn · 12-20-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissileDog

Hey the bartender had two of these boobies things tonight. And those pink bracelets too. This has already gotta have set the record for worst thread ever... a boobies thread with no pictures. So let me at least help out...

Spoiler:

Boobies:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanGuy

Then take a look at these great tits:

Spoiler:

Yeah, right. Nothing compares to these breasts:

Spoiler:

HT: MrWookie

ColbertFan · 12-20-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_van_exel

So F-word shirts ok at public school?

Ok? No, not at all. It's entirely inappropriate and I wouldn't like it one bit. But if you apply the First Amendment to the states and the counties then it's unconstitutional to ban it. Damn Constitution always getting in our way!

Also, "boobies" is to the "F-word" as "cake" is to the "F-word".

ColbertFan · 12-20-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

FYP

I seem to recall seeing a study recently that indicated that if you remove women who are at risk of taking maternity leave in the next 5 years from the equation that women actually make more. I don't know if it's true or not, but you might want to try and avoid being too rigid in your thinking on that subject. There are a lot of factors involved.

DVaut1 · 12-20-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

I don't consider it burdensome. I am just pointing out that it's probably not very effective.

Maybe? This is almost surely an empirical question we can answer:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...oes-it-add-up/

Quote:

The big loser in the cancer funding race is lung cancer. It is the biggest cancer killer in the country, yet on a per-death basis receives the least N.C.I. funding among major cancers. In 2006, the N.C.I. spent $1,518 for each new case of lung cancer and $1,630 for each lung cancer death, according to data from the institute and the American Cancer Society.

Among the big cancers, breast cancer receives the most funding per new case, $2,596 — and by far the most money relative to each death, $13,452. Notably, prostate cancer, the most common cancer, receives the least funding per new case at just $1,318. But on a per-death basis it ranks second, with $11,298 in N.C.I. funds.

What autocratic and I are arguing is -- and in fact, what Chips Ahoy had a decent response to, but one that concedes the argument I'm about to make -- you can't separate out the bolded fact (money for breast cancer far outstrips other forms of cancers with respect to diagnoses/death ratios) from the "awareness" stuff. All the work for "awareness" has probably led to breast cancer receiving more money than other cancers when taking deaths/diagnoses into account. That is, we have alot of "saturation" of breast cancer awareness stuff -- you and nick are clearly noticing it -- and breast cancer receives an uneven share of funding dollars relative to other forms of cancers when it comes to diagnoses/deaths. That's at least a correlation. I'd argue it's not separable from pink garbage cans, I love titties shirts, Ochocinco's pink chin strap, etc. How else to explain what looks like a market inefficiency? I'd say "effective marketing techniques of breast cancer awareness crowd" is a pretty decent answer.

Maybe we really have hit a saturation point, but I would doubt it. I suspect breast cancer will continue to be successful in metrics like these for some time to come, and I doubt you can separate that from "pink saturation" and efforts of the pink awareness crowd.

pvn · 12-20-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

What autocratic and I are arguing is -- and in fact, what Chips Ahoy had a decent response to, but one that concedes the argument I'm about to make -- you can't separate out the bolded fact (money for breast cancer far outstrips other forms of cancers with respect to diagnoses/death ratios) from the "awareness" stuff. All the work for "awareness" has probably led to breast cancer receiving more money than other cancers when taking deaths/diagnoses into account. That is, we have alot of "saturation" of breast cancer awareness stuff -- you and nick are clearly noticing it -- and breast cancer receives an uneven share of funding dollars relative to other forms of cancers when it comes to diagnoses/deaths. That's at least a correlation. I'd argue it's not separable from pink garbage cans, I love titties shirts, Ochocinco's pink chin strap, etc. How else to explain what looks like a market inefficiency? I'd say "effective marketing techniques of breast cancer awareness crowd" is a pretty decent answer.

facepalm

obviously it HAS BEEN effective. I'm talking about diminishing returns going forward.

DVaut1 · 12-20-2010, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

facepalm

obviously it HAS BEEN effective. I'm talking about diminishing returns going forward.

I understood the argument and I conceded that's a possibility. We'll have to put this in the predictions thread and see how the numbers shake out in 5 years or whatever. I'd guess breast cancer is still going to be at the top of the heap with respect to money per diagnosis/death, and that won't be separable from the awareness stuff that continues. We've seen how effective it's been in the past, so I don't see any reason to think it will suddenly stop working. In fact that nick van exel is one party who thinks it will should probably be reason to place your bets in the other direction, knowing nothing else.

pvn · 12-20-2010, 12:37 PM

I have no idea what you're even saying at this point. I don't think there's going to be a backlash. I don't think it's likely to be surpassed as the most cash-generating cancer out there, either. I'm sure plenty of people will continue to pay $75 extra to have a pink garbage can, and I'm sure the NFL will continue to have a bunch of guys wear pink shoes for a month each year.