I am not a Cancer Patient
How a change in perspective can change your life. Written by a person living with cancer.
I have a hand, but I am not a hand. I have a leg, but I am not a leg. I have fat, but I am not fat. I have many tumors, but I am not my tumors
Therefore, from this logic. I am not a cancer patient. I am a person living with cancer.
I strive everyday to be the best person I can be. I strive to be optimistic, and cheerful. I look for ways to see the beauty in everything, ways to help others, and ways to improve myself, both mentally and physically.
I try to wake up everyday with joy. I see each day as a new beginning, a fresh start, and a chance to try something new. Every minute, every second, is a chance to do something amazing. I believe I can do anything. Life is good to me.
Let me repeat, I am not a cancer patient. I am a person living with cancer. Now you may ask, what is the difference? Are you not saying the same thing?
Let me tell you, I am not. It is about the art of using the subtleties of the English language to manipulate how you see the world. A cancer patient sounds like symptoms, medicine, and pain. A person LIVING with cancer sounds like life, adventure, and spark, despite the difficulties of having cancer.
Or at least it does to me.
I am not a cancer patient. I am a person living with cancer. I don't know when I will die, but all I know is that I am here now, living in the moment.
I feel like my life's purpose is to help people. I want to spark joy in your life, I want to inspire you, I want you to feel better after reading what I say.
When I viewed myself as a cancer patient, I felt hopeless, because I thought I wouldn't be able to do this. I felt like I was looking at an hourglass, with the sand running low. I will never be able to fulfill my true calling. My life will be a wasted one.
Now, as a person living with cancer, I live day by day. Since death is uncertain, I do little things to help someone every day. I look for adventure, and knowledge. I am working to overcome some of my fears, and become the best person I can be.
Perspective can change everything. I went from miserable to joyous just by changing the way I viewed myself. I encourage you to do the same.
Think of your thoughts as seeds. If they are self encouraging, joyous, uplifting, and pure, they will give rise to trees with delicious fruit. If they are self defeating, negative, and self blaming. they will give rise to trees with grotesque fruit.
Change your thoughts by changing your perspective. For example, if you have a disease/disorder, you are not that disease. For example, one would say. "I am a person living with bipolar", instead of "I am bipolar".
Be kind to yourself. For example, if you have issues with forgetting stuff, don't say "I am forgetful and I have memory issues". Instead say "I have some memory problems, and I forget things sometimes, but I am human. I am working on it, and I am getting better each day."
By doing so, your thoughts will slowly change from negative to positive, and this can change your life. Just like how a seed takes time to sprout, this process can take a long time. Don't be discouraged. Be patient with yourself as you learn this new skill. With practice, patience, and love, you can change your thoughts, which will change your life.
I am not a cancer patient, I am a person living with cancer.
About the Creator
Day 4 of Quitting
If this is how sobriety feels, maybe it’s better to go through life a little buzzed… this, along with other hits like, I want to kill myself, I wish I was dead, and I’m going to throw myself off a bridge have been the only thoughts on rotation these past few days. I promise myself that if, in a month, I still feel like this (‘this’ meaning despondent, full of rage, and simultaneously numb) I can go back to smoking. Until mid-February though? Nicotine is off the table.
By sleepy drafts7 days ago in Longevity
The Return of the Aircraft Carrier Truman Is Being Seen as a Snub to the Navy in the War of the Future
The return of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman to active deployment has sparked debate far beyond naval circles. While some see it as a show of enduring American naval power, others interpret the move as a symbolic snub—particularly in the context of how modern warfare is rapidly evolving. In an era dominated by drones, cyber warfare, hypersonic missiles, and artificial intelligence, the decision to once again lean heavily on a traditional aircraft carrier has raised uncomfortable questions about whether the Navy is preparing for the wars of tomorrow or clinging to the strategies of yesterday. A Floating Symbol of 20th-Century Power For decades, aircraft carriers have been the ultimate symbol of U.S. military dominance. These massive floating airbases project power thousands of miles from American shores and allow the U.S. to strike almost anywhere in the world. The Truman, like other Nimitz-class carriers, represents this legacy—housing nearly 5,000 sailors, dozens of fighter jets, and unmatched logistical capability. However, critics argue that what once made carriers indispensable now makes them vulnerable. Their sheer size, cost, and visibility turn them into high-value targets in a battlefield increasingly defined by precision strikes and long-range weapons. The “War of the Future” Looks Very Different Modern conflict is no longer limited to sea, land, and air. Cyber attacks can cripple infrastructure without a single shot fired. Drones can swarm targets at a fraction of the cost of traditional aircraft. Hypersonic missiles can reach targets faster than current defenses can respond. In this context, sending a massive carrier strike group into contested waters can appear less like a strategic necessity and more like a risky gamble. Critics argue that the return of the Truman reflects an outdated mindset—one that prioritizes visible force projection over adaptability and technological evolution. A Snub to Naval Innovation? Many analysts and serving officers believe the Navy’s future lies in distributed lethality—smaller, more agile platforms networked together, harder to detect and cheaper to replace. Unmanned surface vessels, autonomous submarines, and land-based missile systems are increasingly viewed as the backbone of next-generation naval warfare. Against this backdrop, recommitting to a traditional carrier is seen by some as sidelining innovation. It sends a message that, despite years of discussion about transformation, the Navy still defaults to familiar tools when tensions rise. This perception has led to frustration among those advocating for faster modernization. They argue that resources devoted to maintaining and protecting carriers like the Truman could instead accelerate investment in emerging technologies that are more relevant to future conflicts. The Strategic Signal to Allies and Rivals Supporters of the decision counter that the Truman’s return is not about nostalgia—it’s about deterrence. Aircraft carriers remain powerful political tools. Their presence reassures allies, signals commitment, and demonstrates readiness in a way few other assets can. Yet even here, the message is mixed. To technologically advanced rivals, the deployment may signal predictability rather than strength. Adversaries have spent years developing strategies specifically designed to neutralize carriers, including anti-ship ballistic missiles and advanced surveillance systems. Cost Versus Capability The financial reality cannot be ignored. A single carrier strike group costs billions of dollars to build, maintain, and operate. In contrast, drone fleets and missile systems can be produced and deployed at a much lower cost, often with greater strategic flexibility. Critics argue that continuing to rely on carriers drains resources from areas where the Navy needs to grow most urgently. In a future conflict defined by speed, dispersion, and digital dominance, the cost-benefit equation of aircraft carriers looks increasingly questionable. Why the Carrier Still Matters—For Now Despite the criticism, aircraft carriers are not obsolete—yet. They remain unmatched in their ability to sustain prolonged air operations without relying on foreign bases. In regions where access is limited or politically sensitive, carriers still provide options no other platform can. The real issue, many experts say, is not the existence of carriers like the Truman, but over-reliance on them. Using them as one component of a broader, more flexible strategy may still make sense. Treating them as the centerpiece of future war planning may not. A Turning Point for Naval Strategy The return of the USS Harry S. Truman highlights a deeper tension within modern military thinking. It represents a crossroads between tradition and transformation, between proven power and emerging threats. Whether history views this moment as a wise assertion of strength or a missed opportunity for innovation will depend on what comes next. If the Navy pairs legacy platforms with bold technological change, the carrier’s return may be justified. If not, it risks becoming a powerful symbol—not of dominance, but of reluctance to adapt in a rapidly changing world.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 2 days ago in Longevity
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.