Disgusting. Just another example of conservative scum passing off authoritarianism as “looking out for the children”
Obviously pedos are bad. But this is just a stepping stone to normalizing cruel and unusual punishments.
It’s a two-step process:
- Misuse the word “groomer” until it means “anyone that isn’t strictly heterosexual” (while also taking away useful vocabulary to describe a real abuse tactic).
- Make cruel and unusual punishment legal for “groomers”.
Make no mistake: they want you dead. It’s that simple.
The aspects to this issue are… Interesting. On one hand sex offenders are considered the lowest the low so who cares how they’re treated on the other hand it’s cruel and unusual on every level.
Then, if they do consent to the surgery the state and tax payers don’t have to pay to imprison one of these sex offenders but so many human and civil rights, regardless of the crimes committed are being violated and what’s worse the supreme Court of this country is downright unless some you can’t count on them striking down this down right abysmal in Draconian law.
Although Hammurabi would be proud.
The face eating leopard’s mouth is watering.
I for one am for it but I bet they don’t castrate priests or public figures because “they’re not the problem”, it’s those “other” sexual predators (democrats). Because they don’t realize that it’s largely a conservative problem, I’m not saying there aren’t liberal sexual predators (there’s tons) but the numbers lean heavily one way.
It’s voluntary. If they don’t submit to being butchered they serve more time. That’s it!
You’re stretching the definition of “voluntary” far enough to embarrass a libertarian.
I am stretching nothing as that is literally in the text of the law. And I absolutely do not agree with any of it.
Sounds cruel and unusual.
I guess it’s not because they have a choice? LOL
Not sure what you see funny about state sanctioned sexual mutilation. I’m going to guess you stupidly believe the Louisiana Republicans when they say that this is to punish “pedophiles”, not that it would make something this inhumane ethical or legal.
You misunderstood my “LOL.” It was there because the entire thing is fucking barbaric, so giving them a “choice” is laughable.
You misunderstood my “LOL.”
This misunderstanding isn’t on me. It’s not on others to understand what you mean regardless of what you say, it is on you to speak precisely. If you’re going to use “lol” in extremely insensitive contexts like this, you can expect people to be unhappy with you. For 35+ years now “lol” has been shorthand for laughing at something because you think it is funny. You’re never going to write “lol” in such a way that anyone will interpret it as some sort of nuanced “this is laughable” statement, especially when you write it it all caps imply that you are having a hard laugh.
With that said, nothing about this is funny, and no use of “lol” here is appropriate as it sounds celebratory at worst and dismissive at best.
