• 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.

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

        You are unbearable lol. You posted a "gotcha" and I didn't bite so you stubbornly disregard anything I said in response. Have a good one, I hope you come up with some better arguments next time.

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

          so you stubbornly disregard anything I said in response.

          I'm actually curious, what did I stubbornly disregard? Because I can list things you stubbornly refused to engage with, but I'm not aware of any point of yours that I didn't respond to. If I did, I will happily do so now.