• Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • cricket97@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.