• @cricket97
    link
    01 year ago

    I don’t accept your premise. I’ve said this numerous times. The bill clearly defines sexual conduct, it isn’t going to be up to some individual thinking all drag is sexual, you have to actually violate one of the clearly laid out descriptions of what constitutes sexual nature.

    • Solar Bear
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Okay, let’s go down that rabbit hole, if only to prove you are not actually principled on the matter. Tell me what is defined to be “sexual gesticulations”, as referenced in section 43.28, subsection 1E. This should be easy to resolve if the boundaries of the law are as clearly defined as you keep saying it is.

      • @cricket97
        link
        11 year ago

        You should post the full sentence. The fact that you are leaving it out suggests that you aren’t being entirely honest with your arguments.

        the exhibition of sexual gesticulations using accessories or prosthetics that exaggerate male or female sexual characteristics.

        Using accessories or prosthetics. Basically don’t mimic sex using props. Seems pretty straightforward.

        • Solar Bear
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          That… doesn’t answer my question at all, and I’m beginning to suspect you aren’t good at paying attention.

          That doesn’t define what a “sexual gesticulation” is. It just defines that it is illegal when done with those prosthetics. So what is a sexual gesticulation?

          • @cricket97
            link
            11 year ago

            It basically just means sexual gestures. You can look up what the word means. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

            • Solar Bear
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Oh, it basically just means this thing that isn’t clearly defined. Oh, you can just look it up. Look it up where, exactly? What texts are legally admissible to define this? Is it dealer’s choice? And where is the line drawn, because a gesture can be sexual in one context and not in another. If someone thinks all drag is sexual, would that not influence how they interpret such a gesture?

              This is what I meant. You made a big deal about it being supposedly “clearly defined”. When shown that a crucial part of the law isn’t clearly defined, you don’t actually care, because it never actually mattered to you if it was. So what was the point of all this? Why did you waste my time with this act?

              • @cricket97
                link
                11 year ago

                You could hone in on any law and be as pedantic as you are being

                • Solar Bear
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • @cricket97
                    link
                    01 year ago

                    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.