Bad text?

[Mfkfznfp]

There is a new bill in Hawaii (ban on sex with animals), and the first two paragraphs giving the reasons for banning it are annoying me. This is the link to the bill's text:




https://www.legiscan.com/HI/text/SB2289/2018




The reasons for them wanting to ban it are in the first two paragraphs. After reading the first two paragraphs, what do others think? (I think that the paragraphs are bullshit). Sex with animals is not "animal sexual abuse".




It's also bullshit that the bill intends to confiscate the animals of anyone who is caught, as well as charge anyone who is caught with a felony.




 




 

[30-30]

Don´t you ever get tired making these repetitive stupid posts about laws that have literally NO effect on people who protect their privacy?  

[Ramseys]

While I don't agree with the personal attack.




I do promote the, "Close the barn door", idea.

[30-30]

It only is a personal attack if I had called OP stupid, but I called his repetitive posts stupid. Please learn to tell the difference. Additionally, I know this guy from the reddit zoo sub and all he ever "contributed" there was similar laments about laws....gosh, I´ll be soo happy once all 50 US states have introduced "anti zoo" laws for the sole reason that I don´t have to go through another one of OP´s generic "whine and cheese"...




 




Mind if I quote myself? "Zoophilia should always concentrate on animals and their wellbeing, not on making it easily accessible to anyone, even the ones who are the least prepared and informed"




 

[Mfkfznfp]

Wondering if anyone read the first two paragraphs of the bill -- that is what I was talking about (the question is, what do others think about those first two paragraphs?)

[Rannoch]

4 hours ago, Mfkfznfp said:




Wondering if anyone read the first two paragraphs of the bill -- that is what I was talking about (the question is, what do others think about those first two paragraphs?)

Heh, you were wondering?




You have more hope than me...  I'm pretty much certain no one here did.

[caikgoch]

5 hours ago, Mfkfznfp said:




Wondering if anyone read the first two paragraphs of the bill -- that is what I was talking about (the question is, what do others think about those first two paragraphs?)

I've never seen a more generous gift to anyone wanting to strike down these laws on Constitutional grounds.     

[littlejohn]

If I lived there I'd likely move - on the basis that the Hawaiian legislooters are even stupider than most of their peers on the mainland.




 

[Mfkfznfp]

16 hours ago, caikgoch said:




I've never seen a more generous gift to anyone wanting to strike down these laws on Constitutional grounds.     

So did you read the first two paragraphs of the bill? They're so awful that I don't even feel like quoting them.




They (the paragraphs) say that sex with animals needs to be banned because zoos might commit crimes which are unrelated to sex with animals, and that because of "connections" between zoos and unrelated crimes, zoos are dangerous to society. The bill also says that sex with animals is a "predictor" of other unrelated crimes, and that zoos are "potentially dangerous sexual predators". This is bullshit in my opinion.




Also, they did not sample from many different people, their sample (of their "study") was only of criminals, so that would influence the results (it did not represent all zoos, only a handful of criminals).




But the thing is, who is going to speak out against this bullshit?

[littlejohn]

They claim a 'study' but don't referece it showing correlation between zoo sex and fuckinh little children.




I'd like to see the study