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.
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.
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?
It basically just means sexual gestures. You can look up what the word means. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
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?
You could hone in on any law and be as pedantic as you are being
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Using accessories or prosthetics. Basically don't mimic sex using props. Seems pretty straightforward.
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?
It basically just means sexual gestures. You can look up what the word means. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
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?
You could hone in on any law and be as pedantic as you are being
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.
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.
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.