Trina and friends stiffed by charity
Strippers’ money not good enough — Apparently the charity would not take the money from these women (who are exotic dancers) because some unnamed creeps thought it was beneath them to be associated with charitable women like this. I’d like these people named. Name them! After all I’d like to know who are these oh-so-superior people. Or are they the cowering weasels that I suspect who will never be named.
Almost anyone can donate to the Breast Cancer Society of Canada-unless they take their clothes off for a living.
Local strippers who hold an annual event to raise money for cancer research were shocked this year to discover their offer to donate part of the proceeds to the society was turned down. Last year, the same group of dancers donated $3,000 to the society without incident.
Former stripper Trina Ricketts, an organizer with the Exotic Dancers for Cancer fundraising event, said they planned again this year to donate half of the money raised to the Breast Cancer Society, but when she contacted the society recently, she was rejected.
In a letter to Ricketts, the society’s executive director Rany Xanthopoulo, wrote: “Unfortunately we will have to decline your kind offer as we have certain major donors that are not in favour of this connection. This decision came as a result of donor disgruntlement and together with the board of directors we have decided not to accept any donations from what donors consider controversial sources.”
found by Mister Justin
Well, you can certainly try to deceive yourself, amigo, but no one reading this fails to see that you continue to weasel out of addressing the question.
You have said exactly nothing. You implied that stripping is somehow, in some way you’re incapable of articulating, has an “ethical,” or perhaps you meant “moral,” aspect.
I called you out. I refuted your assertions and demonstrated by simple reductio ad absurdum that they are false. You are incapable of refuting this,yet your vanity won’t permit you to concede that your argument is invalid, so, utilizing one of the time-honored methods of debate losers everywhere, you cop out by referring to defending your own argument as “jumping through my hoops.”
Only thing you’ve proved is that you can post rhetorical checks that your brain can’t cash.
Feel free to try again, when you have something to contribute that you’re capable of backing up with more than high-school weaseling tactics.
32. “Society has answered the question.”
I’m not entirely sure why I’m jumping in here, as Lauren is kicking your ass.
But exactly how has society answered the question? Stripping is legal. If society was against the activity, it would be banned. So I don’t hear society answering anything in your favor.
You asked where do we draw the line? Then you compare something that is perfectly legal to something that is illegal. I think you answered your own question. The line is drawn at illegality. Obviously a charity has no business accepting money that was obtained by illegal means, well, unless Robin Hood donated it.
# 32 Strippers and hookers procure their salary from lust-driven clients seeking self-gratification. The vocation reduces women to sex objects. The fact that you and most of the commenters to this post seem to condone this deviant behavior is irrelevant. It may be legal however the legal restrictions on the industry are enormous. Most principalities enacted ordinances prohibiting “adult entertainment” businesses from within a certain distance of houses, schools, parks and churches that is usually half a mile. The performer is regulated as to what can be visible and the distance maintained from a client. Society via the courts have upheld these zoning laws.
35. “Strippers and hookers procure their salary from lust-driven clients seeking self-gratification”
Fast food restaurants serve people seeking gratification with food. Not for any health reasons or to fuel their bodies, but unhealthy food for prurient interests: It tastes damn good.
“The vocation reduces women to sex objects.”
The food is unhealhy and shortens the lives of those who eat it. It turns people into couch potatoes.
“It may be legal however the legal restrictions on the industry are enormous”
The legal restrictions on the food industry are enormous. Starting from how it’s grown, shipped, packaged, stored, prepared, processed, cooked, served, etc.
“Most principalities enacted ordinances prohibiting “adult entertainment” businesses from within a certain distance of houses, schools, parks and churches that is usually half a mile.”
Most municipalities enforce ordinances against fast food restaurants, and there are plenty that forbid them from being placed too close to public schools.
“The performer is regulated as to what can be visible and the distance maintained from a client.”
I’ve already mentioned how food is regulated at every aspect of its journey to your toilet.
“Society via the courts have upheld these zoning laws.”
And society has upheld zoning laws relating to restaurants too.
BgScryAnml, I don’t know how old you are, but you should probably know by now that the government regulates nearly everything. And merely because something is regulated does not mean it’s immoral.
#38 Food is regulated to protect people. Strip clubs are regulated to protect people. That’s the sole purpose of any regulation.
Strip clubs are regulated to protect people? Protect them from what?
The basis of capitalism is exploiting people for financial gain.
Liberal spin. The basis of capitalism is exploitation of ideas not people.
… at one time slavery was thought to be very moral.
Hence I specified ethics not morals.
I don’t really understand your confusion. Maybe you were dropped on your head.
Insults, a sure sign of maturity.
Look, if you don’t like strippers, that’s your right.
It’s not about personal preference. It’s about exploitation of human beings..
BSN
I could say a bit about your comments, however, seeing how Lauren and SN have just handed you your butt on a platter, I’ll pass. But the self righteous crap doesn’t fly too well sometimes.
And I don’t like Japanese food either.
#40
Mr. Fusion
Your “opinion” is par for the course in this liberal arena.
39. “Strip clubs are regulated to protect people? Protect them from what?”
I have no idea. Ask whoever created the regulation. The government regulates so much crap to protect us that I just can’t keep track of every single one. (It’s hilarious that you call me a liberal and yet you’re the one wanting to regulate people’s behavior. Hello mommy-state!)
“The basis of capitalism is exploitation of ideas not people.”
Now I know you’re either a troll or delusional. To say that capitalism does not exploit workers is nonsense. Heck, you even admit that capitalist strip clubs exploit their strippers. How does a woman stripping differ from some guy working with asbestos in a factory? (I know the difference, the guy gets cancer and the woman gets a grand per night.)
“Hence I specified ethics not morals.”
Gee, you actually see a difference? That’s so freaking funny. They’re both nothing more than attempts to universalize preferences.
“Insults, a sure sign of maturity.”
Nope, just a theory based on a lot of evidence.
“It’s not about personal preference. It’s about exploitation of human beings..”
Saying something over and over again is a lot different from proving that something. You started this discussion by saying that stripping is somehow unethical. Every attempt at proving that by you has been shown invalid. Let’s go through them…
Lauren asked you: “what is either ethical or unethical about stripping.”
You answered: “There is a reason society places an age limit on individuals who can patronize those establishments.”
However, as Lauren pointed out, we also put an age limit on voting. You don’t seem to think that voting is unethical, hence, you lose.
Next up you say that “Society has answered the question.”
I asked, “exactly how has society answered the question?”
And Lauren wrote, “You have said exactly nothing.” Which is true, vaguely saying that “society has answered the question” is meaningless.
In #35, you made numerous arguments. I refuted every single one in #36.
In #37 you made more arguments, which I refuted in #38.
Which leads us to #39, and you still have not answered Lauren’s original question: “what is either ethical or unethical about stripping.”
We’re still waiting.
41. “Your “opinion” is par for the course in this liberal arena.”
Oh I just love it. Mr “I want to regulate people’s behavior” is accusing everyone else of being a liberal. Let’s face it, you’re no different than any other nanny-stater.
40. “I could say a bit about your comments…”
Come on in, the water’s fine!
#12 –
I know what you’re thinking; ‘Did he vaporize all of my arguments or did he miss one?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.
I’m gonna take a moment here and put what remains of your first post out of it’s misery, so we can embrace the present with undivided hearts and minds.
“Believe it or not some individuals do care from where the money originates.”
Oh, I believe it. And I also feel pretty secure in saying that most everyone will acknowledge the truth of that statement. No, you’ll hear no disagreement with that observation.
From the way you phrased it, to other remarks you’ve made since, I think it’s safe to assume that you number yourself among the “some individuals” you cite. Is this not so?
And the problem that we’re faced with now is not any matter of factual errors or faulty reasoning; no, it’s something else entirely, a matter of attitude, and to be more precise, the flat-out, arrogant stupidity behind the attitude in question.
In a nutshell, this is what it distills to: at the bottom of this discussion is money, money intended to fund research into seeking a cure for a horrible disease which causes incalcuable misery, suffering and death.
We’re talking about money to alleviate great human tragedy.
Now, some people, presumably including yourself, by your very admission, are either stupid enough or viciously inhumane and egotistical enough to actually think that it is right and proper to refuse to contribute to this humanitarian effort because they don’t personally approve of how someone else came by the money that they wish to contribute!
And that leaves me with a question for you, as I previously dubbed you, Great Moral Judge: Explain how the horror, the pain, the destruction and death brought into innocent peoples’ lives is less important than your self-righteous disapproval of how someone else acquired the money that they wish to contribute.
I say it here and now; rationalize your way out of it if you can.
Anyone who thinks it morally superior to impede cancer research in order to express their self-righteous, arrogant, prideful disdain for other people on the alleged basis of “morals” – of all things- , is a scumbag, a fool, a hypocrite and an utterly despicable sorry-ass imitation of a human being. And if that person has the unmitigated gall to dare to identify theirself as being a “Christian,” then they are as foul and evil as any Nazi war criminal or Muslim suicide bomber.
Think you can deny that? Go ahead – make my day.
SN
The reason you fail to comprehend the answer is due to either density or liberal brainwashing. I suspect a both elements.
45. “Anyone who thinks it morally superior to impede cancer research in order to express their self-righteous, arrogant, prideful disdain for other people on the alleged basis of “morals”…”
Great comment. But apparently Mr. BSA meant ethics and not morals. And even more bizarre, there is supposed to be some sort of difference between them. Hopefully he’ll clear that up soon. 😉
46. “The reason you fail to comprehend the answer is due to either density or liberal brainwashing.”
Oh, so Lauren and I refuting every argument you made somehow makes me dense. Wow, I thought the person who lost the argument would be the dense one. Gee, you nanny-staters are so confusing.
And speaking of the nanny-state you so apparently love, I’m still perplexed about this whole “liberal” label you keep throwing at me. You’re the one who wants to regulate our behavior, right? Maybe I missed something, but it really seems to me that you’re the liberal who feels a need to tell people what to do.
I just figured it out. You don’t know the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. You’re the one wanting to control people. That makes you the liberal. A libertarian is the one who wants the government to stay out of the way. That’s me.
# 45 another miss guided opinion from the DC-born 9th-grade dropout with no discernable career path.
49. “another miss guided opinion from the DC-born 9th-grade dropout with no discernable career path.”
Apparently, we have all the proof we ever needed that this guy is flamebait. I have to admit, BSA, you put on a great show. You really had me going there for a while.
Wondering how long it would take for you to catch on.
51. “Wondering how long it would take for you to catch on.”
Usually I’m the flamebait, so I was caught off guard. Once again, great show.
#48 – SN –
Ain’t it wunnerful how the “smaller gov’t”, “get the gov’t off the backs of the little people”, “less regulation”, “keep gov’t out of my business” Repugs are the ones responsible for the multibillion-dollar boondoggle bureaucracy that locks up millions of Americans for doing things that actually harm no one but themselves (and usually don’t do even that, either)?
#49 – BSA –
Yes, well, y’know, even we 9th-grade dropouts know how to spell ‘misguided’…
And considering the station in life I’ve attained @53 – effectively retired and soon enough with all the playpretties I ever wanted – maybe you should’ve tried my path instead, eh? Who knows, maybe I’ll start holding seminars; I’ll comp you a couple tickets. Anything for a moral giant like you.
Psst! This time trying the ol’ desperation standby, ad hominem, you vainly attempt to divert attention from your cowardly weaseling out of answering the question yet again… and yet again, you’ve failed utterly.
Now I’m off to listen to some vintage tunes, get a little shut-eye. Mañana, I’ll stop by and dismantle your more recent babblings as I would the proverbial cheap watch.
I wonder how many people here would just as gleefully criticize the church as hypocrites for TAKING prostitution money. Instead they are “holier than thou” for NOT TAKING it.
C’mon this is a classic moral dilemma and it’s not an easy one. I was in a church in Japan (totally Japanese, BTW) and they were given a large gift from a Yakuza because he felt guilty and repentant for his crimes. I can’t remember what they decided to do but I remember very vividly what a difficult moral decision it was.
They wanted to affirm and respect the Yakuza guy and they didn’t want to disrespect his symbol of penitence. On the other hand, they really didn’t want to the money. (and they could have used it!)
As some of you have suggested, steering the money to some secular charity is probably the best solution — but it must be done expressing clear gratitude to the givers. An AIDS charity seem like a natural connection, or perhaps some prostitute rescue/rehabilitation effort.
Its been a point of logic, for along time…
That if everyone ran around NAKED, many forms of crime would be Lessened(long word, look it up).
If everyone was naked,
1. Less sex crimes.
2. less weapons(where can you hide one)(GUESS)
3. less problems with race differences…
TAKE your pick…Their decline of payment is Asinine.
I find it the ultimate in hypocrisy to suggest that someone’s donation is worth less because of what they do. Large corporations such as General Motors contribute large sums to charity every year. Yet, they are also large suppliers of military hardware. You know, the kind of hardware that kills people. They also pollute. Their processes create toxic and dangerous chemicals that may even cause cancers. Their policies and political support contribute to illegal wars.
Then you can have all these people that work in “clean” jobs. Like investment houses. Supporting the companies that actually do the dirty stuff. They could even own investment shares in these companies too.
So let’s see which is worse. The money from those damaging the people or money from the heart? Damn, which would Jesus choose? Ethics, damn, that just clouds the issue.
I rather spend an afternoon with a room full of strippers than a room full of christians.