Senate Bill 12 would have prohibited performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children. Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.
This isn’t pedantic. Have you even read the law that you keep demanding everybody else read? The law makes reference to a strict definition for the word “premises”, but it’s pedantic to expect one for “sexual gesticulation”? They did that on purpose.
It’s very easy to admit being wrong about the law being clearly defined, that you just didn’t think of every way it can be abused. However, I don’t believe you actually care about it being clearly defined at all. That’s why you’re deflecting now and suddenly acting all disinterested. You’ve been caught and now you’re defending your ego.
So I have to ask again; why the act? What was the purpose of all this? Simply be honest about your beliefs and stop with all this smokescreen nonsense. You don’t have to act like a weasel if you just say what you really believe.
So you’re just done engaging with what I say and are now deflecting, got it. I was correct when I said that the clarity of the law was never important to you and wouldn’t affect your support of it.
I already said I think you’re being pedantic and you keep harping on the same thing over and over. I think the law is clear enough and I don’t forsee anyone not doing inappropriate shit to be prosecuted under this law. You could apply the same criticism to literally any law. In the context of legislation, this bill is pretty clear what it prevents. If you disagree, fine, move on.
It’s not pedantic to expect the law to hold the same standard to “sexual gesticulation” as it did to “premises”, but it’s clear you suddenly lost all that enthusiasm you had before to actually defend the law on its merits. I’m just sad that the conversation about the actual text of the law couldn’t even make it further than the first question.
This isn’t pedantic. Have you even read the law that you keep demanding everybody else read? The law makes reference to a strict definition for the word “premises”, but it’s pedantic to expect one for “sexual gesticulation”? They did that on purpose.
It’s very easy to admit being wrong about the law being clearly defined, that you just didn’t think of every way it can be abused. However, I don’t believe you actually care about it being clearly defined at all. That’s why you’re deflecting now and suddenly acting all disinterested. You’ve been caught and now you’re defending your ego.
So I have to ask again; why the act? What was the purpose of all this? Simply be honest about your beliefs and stop with all this smokescreen nonsense. You don’t have to act like a weasel if you just say what you really believe.
You’re a bit crazy. I told you how I feel. If you don’t like it then stop responding. I have been consistent the entire time.
So you’re just done engaging with what I say and are now deflecting, got it. I was correct when I said that the clarity of the law was never important to you and wouldn’t affect your support of it.
I already said I think you’re being pedantic and you keep harping on the same thing over and over. I think the law is clear enough and I don’t forsee anyone not doing inappropriate shit to be prosecuted under this law. You could apply the same criticism to literally any law. In the context of legislation, this bill is pretty clear what it prevents. If you disagree, fine, move on.
It’s not pedantic to expect the law to hold the same standard to “sexual gesticulation” as it did to “premises”, but it’s clear you suddenly lost all that enthusiasm you had before to actually defend the law on its merits. I’m just sad that the conversation about the actual text of the law couldn’t even make it further than the first question.
Have a good day.