Quantcast

Public Opinion Isn't Opposed to a 67-Year-Old Getting a Lap Dance

SodaHead Infographics 2012/05/23 00:41:46
You might remember the story of a 67-year-old man who died of "natural causes" at a strip club after spending the night "face-deep in pelvic gyrations," in the words of the manager. However, reporting sources suggest the man actually died of a heart attack, and given the setting of his death, that wouldn't be too surprising. At 67 years old, a strip club can't be easy on the ol' ticker. We asked the public if it was OK for a man of that age to get a lap dance, and now we have the answers. Let's dive.

lap dance
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Dr. John 2012/05/26 07:38:36
    Dr. John
    +12
    So far this is the best example of absurd rationalizations by those determined to discredit Christians and perpetuate evil!
    Note:
    To say Christians "shake their finger" more often than atheist only proves that many atheists are not intelligent enough to realize they are not in a position to rationally make claims regarding right and wrong. To do so, contradicts the mindless platform atheism demands!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Lucid 2012/05/29 15:49:20
    Lucid
    +3
    most lapdancers are young? shock!!
    i'm sorry but if I was a guy i'd much rather watch a perky 20 year old than a 53 year old, no matter how good she looked for her age.
  • Dreambig 2012/05/29 15:31:01
    Dreambig
    +5
    I really don't care. It's their right to do as they please. They are old enough to know what they are doing.
  • O'l Jarhead 2012/05/29 04:17:02
    O'l Jarhead
    +3
    When a person becomes a "senior citizen" (age 55), they can pretty much do what ever they want. Many have family responsibilities and some do not. 67 ain't really all that old depending on ones health. He died having fun...What's wrong with that? It's gotta be better than dying from some desease that eats you up a little at a time.
  • LadyBGood 2012/05/28 23:17:58
    LadyBGood
    +2
    He's old not dead! Sure go for it!
  • Party of One 2012/05/28 14:18:46
    Party of One
    +2
    lol @ Dr. John's original comment - put me down for something completely opposite. Thanks ;)
  • firelooker 2012/05/26 22:35:50
    firelooker
    +6
    If you gotta go might as well be enjoying yourself when it happens.
  • Bocephus 2012/05/26 21:46:17
  • jere.chievres 2012/05/26 17:02:01
    jere.chievres
    +2
    It ok if they want too, personally My GF is all I need.
  • jere.ch... jere.ch... 2012/05/26 17:06:14
  • David jere.ch... 2012/05/28 08:19:24
    David
    +2
    I tried arguing with "but this is good", but I gave up. It is pretty good.
  • gunner jere.ch... 2012/05/31 03:46:03
    gunner
    Good Heavens ! I`m 65 yr young. I wasn`t prepared for your post. I need to clean my glasses to see if I`m really seeing what it looks like.
  • STEVE 2012/05/26 16:40:29
    STEVE
    +3
    THANK GOD...AS ONE WHO WILL BE 67 SOMEDAY, I JUST WANT TO KNOW I WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO.
  • Mark P. 2012/05/26 11:39:30
    Mark P.
    +4
    If he wants a lap dance then he can have one regardless of age.
  • Dr. John 2012/05/26 07:38:36
    Dr. John
    +12
    So far this is the best example of absurd rationalizations by those determined to discredit Christians and perpetuate evil!
    Note:
    To say Christians "shake their finger" more often than atheist only proves that many atheists are not intelligent enough to realize they are not in a position to rationally make claims regarding right and wrong. To do so, contradicts the mindless platform atheism demands!
  • Rudy McGee Dr. John 2012/05/27 21:46:23
    Rudy McGee
    +8
    I love this comment. The way you have written '...only proves...' Brilliant. I find, when someone on an internet forum writes that something only proves something else (without really substantiating their 'proof'), the only thing it REALLY proves is the author's ignorance. Furthermore, if anything should be deemed 'mindless' it's the blind following of ancient doctrine, developed during primitive times as a tool of mass-control. Proof
  • Dr. John Rudy McGee 2012/05/28 05:48:32
    Dr. John
    +2
    "Furthermore, if anything should be deemed 'mindless' it's the blind following of ancient doctrine, developed during primitive times as a tool of mass-control."

    That's a very interesting opinion. Sadly, you are blind to your own ignorance. Initially, I had no intention of singling out any one individual. That's the beauty of ignorance and pride. Those who basque in either or both have an uncanny ability to single themselves out! Let me explain (substantiate).
    First, your reply begins with a fallacy fallacy. That is, although I didn't provide the "proof" to substantiate my position, it doesn't logically allow for the dismissal of my assertion. More simply put, Just because I didn't provide the proof, it doesn't mean there isn't any! Hence, the fallacy fallacy.
    Second...my statement, as you have agreed was, "...only proves". Considering, my statement is referring to the actions or the position held by some atheists, it seems a no brainer to me, however, the proof is everywhere. Especially in the forums you mention. I apologize I didn't see the need to provide a source or reference for my statement when the proof is so blatant and obvious.
    Third. Does truth change with age or time? If you believe so, you are a relativist and quite frankly incapable of forming ratio...


    "Furthermore, if anything should be deemed 'mindless' it's the blind following of ancient doctrine, developed during primitive times as a tool of mass-control."

    That's a very interesting opinion. Sadly, you are blind to your own ignorance. Initially, I had no intention of singling out any one individual. That's the beauty of ignorance and pride. Those who basque in either or both have an uncanny ability to single themselves out! Let me explain (substantiate).
    First, your reply begins with a fallacy fallacy. That is, although I didn't provide the "proof" to substantiate my position, it doesn't logically allow for the dismissal of my assertion. More simply put, Just because I didn't provide the proof, it doesn't mean there isn't any! Hence, the fallacy fallacy.
    Second...my statement, as you have agreed was, "...only proves". Considering, my statement is referring to the actions or the position held by some atheists, it seems a no brainer to me, however, the proof is everywhere. Especially in the forums you mention. I apologize I didn't see the need to provide a source or reference for my statement when the proof is so blatant and obvious.
    Third. Does truth change with age or time? If you believe so, you are a relativist and quite frankly incapable of forming rational conclusions for the most part.
    Truth is not subject to time. For example, I assume, you believe in some form of evolution. We may have different thoughts regarding this but that has no relevance in this situation, so I won;t discuss it. However, the reality is this. If you believe what science is theorizing you are guilty of holding a position from the 6th century BC. Darwin simply added something new to a very ancient theory. In fact, for those living in the period you refer to as primitive, would have considered the idea of "evolution" (not titled yet) ancient and primitive! Therefore, by your logic, YOU ARE MINDLESS AND BLINDLY FOLLOWING ANCIENT DOCTRINE WITH FAITH IN SCIENCE, IN THAT SCIENCE WILL ONE DAY PROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

    TALK ABOUT MINDLESS!
    (more)
  • Rudy McGee Dr. John 2012/05/31 16:22:37
    Rudy McGee
    +3
    Wow, I think you may have missed your calling as a magician; you have somehow managed to print a bulky response, and yet, have said nothing.
    Okay, so you have pointed out that because you didn't provide proof, it doesn't mean that there isn't any. Very clever, this is theoretically true, and I have found this to be a frequently used tactic by Christians to avoid actually responding to a question with an answer. I didn't say that I believed in evolution. Even if I did, Evolutionists do not presume to dictate the behaviour of an individual (or society) based on scientific beliefs. I've not seen a thread on here where someone posted 'Strip clubs are evil because life evolved from primordial ooze'. No, instead, religious zealots attempt to besmirch things like same-sex relationships, pornography, abortion, and - in this case - an old man getting his rocks off, all in the name of 'ancient doctrine'.
    Would you consider the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians to be accurate today? No, you renounce thie gods, as you do with every other religion today.
    We're both Atheists, Dr John, I just believe in one less god than you
  • Matt Rudy McGee 2012/06/01 13:07:01
    Matt
    Kmsl! Love it. For a Christian he's awefully quick to refer to stereotype a group of people as "Ignorant and evil."
  • Dr. John Matt 2012/06/04 05:51:02
    Dr. John
    If you are referring to my statement about atheists then you are mistaken. I didn't stereotype any group of people. I showed how they are ignorant and evil! Read the post above yours if you have questions!
  • Bigbrow... Rudy McGee 2012/06/04 01:36:38
    Bigbrowneyes
    +1
    *applauds*
    I love intelligent people on the Internet. Makes my day much better.
  • Dr. John Bigbrow... 2012/06/04 05:52:41
    Dr. John
    What do you consider to be intelligent in RMG's opinion?
  • Bigbrow... Dr. John 2012/06/04 12:31:17
    Bigbrowneyes
    His analysis of your opinion. Nothing personal towards you, I just like good atheist arguments.
  • Dr. John Rudy McGee 2012/06/04 05:46:33
    Dr. John
    A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.
    Only an atheist would revel in the absoluteness of ignorance and think that "no evidence" has substance on which to build a conclusion
  • Meep Dr. John 2012/06/04 06:37:09
    Meep
    +2
    Atheism states that anything that cannot be proven doesn't objectively exist.

    Also, you seem a bit free with the word ignorant. Care to look it up before you make yourself look the part?
  • closinyou Meep 2012/06/04 12:10:13
    closinyou
    I'm well aware of the meaning. I didn't realize that atheism was just another form of science. Ignorance thrives where anonymity protects! I guess you're right...
    Lets look at some definitions as you suggest:

    Atheism as defined by you, "Atheism states that anything that cannot be proven doesn't objectively exist."

    Atheism as defined in the dictionary,
    a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
    noun
    1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    ignorance (ˈɪɡnərəns)
    — n
    lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant

    You were saying?
  • Meep closinyou 2012/06/06 04:08:51 (edited)
    Meep
    I'd say there is no relation. I could say the same about christianity and you couldn't objectively prove me wrong.


    And I never claimed that was the meaning of atheism. I am well aware that atheists don't believe in any god. I was stating the basis behind their thought structure.
  • closinyou Meep 2012/06/06 23:04:07
    closinyou
    There is no basis behind there thought structure! Thats the kicker. Naturalism doesn't allow for a basis to build on. Without a logical source or cause behind your existence, reason or intelligence, it's irrational and illogical to claim your thought structure has any basis at all. Not to mention your position is one that is held without the observational evidence required. It should also be noted that if naturalism had any realistic value in reality, there would be no need for observational evidence. After all, simply responding to random stimuli doesn't rely on intelligence or a basis for any thought pattern!
  • Meep closinyou 2012/06/06 23:10:38 (edited)
    Meep
    +1
    I am not atheist, I only defend those who are. I am just saying that Christianity has no basis in fact, just like atheism. It's a religion, and is therefore unproven. That's the nature of religion.
  • Rudy McGee Dr. John 2012/06/12 12:18:16
    Rudy McGee
    What is this 'cause' that you speak of? Are you talking about the expansion of the universe? I'll wait until you clarify before I respond.
  • gunner Rudy McGee 2012/05/31 03:53:50
    gunner
    Ol honest Abe once said " I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist. But I cannot concieve how a man could look up into the heavens and say there is no God " . We are not much larger than the grains of dirt we stand on. There is far to much historical proof to deny God. It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in Darwin`s theory. Which he later debunked himself. Yet, Poor example of a Christian that I am, when someone tells me they came from the fish of the sea, or the ape. I usually agree with them. They did.
  • c.ruth93 Dr. John 2012/05/29 12:51:07
    c.ruth93
    +3
    Everyone is pretty intelligent enough to know what is right and wrong. What you say is absolutely ridiculous and comes with a hint of stupidity. This was a simple info graphic that you took to the next level. Nobody is attacking Christians. No one is perpetuating evil. I mean unless you simply believe strippers are evil. Which is just plain rude.
  • closinyou c.ruth93 2012/06/04 12:12:39
    closinyou
    "Everyone is pretty intelligent enough to know what is right and wrong."
    Agreed.

    Some are also wise enough to live accordingly! Sadly, some are not!
  • c.ruth93 closinyou 2012/06/04 14:32:43
    c.ruth93
    Tis true. Oh so very true.
  • Meep Dr. John 2012/06/03 06:55:58
    Meep
    +1
    You are obviously not the real Dr. John. The real one is much smarter.
    "Perpetuate evil."
    Think about it: how many crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity? Quite a few. Then think about how many have been committed in the name of atheism? My point exactly.
  • Dr. John Meep 2012/06/04 05:17:14
    Dr. John
    It isn't wise to make assertions based on ones own opinion when that opinion depends on ignorance!
    "Then think about how many have been committed in the name of atheism? My point exactly." WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
    Tell me how this statement is a rational one considering atheists claim to believe in nothing. In reality any crime NOT committed in the name of Christianity can be attributed to atheism. Not to mention, any crime committed in the name of Christianity, contradicts Christianity in it's most basic understanding. Christianity doesn't support or demand any criminal activities. It never has, and it never will! Those making the claim are quite literally and absolutely NOT Christian!
    In addition, I may not be the Dr. John you have decided I am possibly impersonating, but you may have forgotten that there is in fact the possibility that more than one Dr. John exists and you don't know all of them, making your statement regarding my level of intelligence both illogical and mindless!
  • Meep Dr. John 2012/06/04 06:32:45
    Meep
    +1
    The first statement I made about you not the real Doctor was a joke, so you seem to be an expert on "mindlessness" and "ignorance."
    You can't attribute any non-Christian crime to atheism. Have you ever thought that there may be other religions? Islam? Taoism? Judaism? Buddhism? Atheism isn't not being done in the name of God, it's the belief in no deity. If I were to attack someone with a knife and yell "God isn't real!" that would be in the name of atheism. As of yet, I have not heard of such a crime being committed, while the holocaust, the crusades, and the inquisition all were done for God. Frankly, a god that demands bloodshed isn't worth believing in.

    Honestly, I don't care how many people hate me for saying this. I have my beliefs, and I'm entitled to them.
  • closinyou Meep 2012/06/09 19:23:07
    closinyou
    You are entitled to your beliefs. I completely agree. I am only suggesting that you, a seemingly intelligent person, should form his beliefs based on accurate information. For example, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is when someone attributes the Holy Spirit with evil. Hitler is an excellent example. Hitler killed for Hitler. Just because he claims it was in the name of God, doesn't make it so. What it does is it makes Hitler a blasphemous, evil liar! In fact the notion that Hitler was a Christian is no longer supported by scholars, intellectuals and the like.
    The other logically invalid assertion you have made consists of a "category mistake." To say that crimes committed in the name of Christianity contradicts Christianity is absolutely true. However the error with this statement is in what the statement implies. The statement implies that God is bound by the moral same morals and laws we as his creation are. He isn't! You confuse justified killing with murder!
  • Meep closinyou 2012/06/09 20:12:20
    Meep
    I never said that God murders. I said that you can't accuse atheists of being immoral. While I admit that Hitler wasn't truly Christian, during the Spanish Inquisition, people really did believe that they were doing the work of God. This, at least in my opinion, is a deluded belief. However, I have still yet to hear of incriminating evidence against atheists, as they tend to be less of extremists than some religions sometimes breed.
  • closinyou Meep 2012/06/09 22:30:51
    closinyou
    You are still making these claims based on your personal opinion. You being atheist, it's safe for me to assume you do not have a relationship with God. If you did, you would realize that doing the work of God will never include such activities for man to carry out. The Crusades as many ill-informed atheists like to refer were not fought by Gods command. The crusades were fought over Jerusalem. The Turks slaughtered over 3000 Catholics while overtaking Jerusalem in 1065. 30 years later, the Catholic church, in an effort to take back Jerusalem, launched the first of 9 crusades under the direction of the Pope. Like todays Pope, the Pope was worshiped and considered holy. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART! The Bible clearly states that the position the Pope assumed then and assumes today, demanding to be called his holiness, father, the most high etc. signifies false teachings and is unacceptable in Gods eyes. The Crusades were led by evil through the direction of the pope... NOT BY GOD

    Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to p...









    You are still making these claims based on your personal opinion. You being atheist, it's safe for me to assume you do not have a relationship with God. If you did, you would realize that doing the work of God will never include such activities for man to carry out. The Crusades as many ill-informed atheists like to refer were not fought by Gods command. The crusades were fought over Jerusalem. The Turks slaughtered over 3000 Catholics while overtaking Jerusalem in 1065. 30 years later, the Catholic church, in an effort to take back Jerusalem, launched the first of 9 crusades under the direction of the Pope. Like todays Pope, the Pope was worshiped and considered holy. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART! The Bible clearly states that the position the Pope assumed then and assumes today, demanding to be called his holiness, father, the most high etc. signifies false teachings and is unacceptable in Gods eyes. The Crusades were led by evil through the direction of the pope... NOT BY GOD

    Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or “anathema,” upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

    While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through the following:

    Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

    Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

    The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

    While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).
    (more)
  • Meep closinyou 2012/06/10 16:25:10
    Meep
    I am not atheist. I believe in God, but I am simply defending another belief's validity.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/25 03:56:00

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals