“There is a deep, dark, dark side in our culture, and it’s our job to protect the children. There are times when things are so wicked that retribution is appropriate. It would be very rare that this case would happen, but it will happen. And I say to you when you see that case, you read it in the newspaper you’re going to say this is the once case this needs to happen.”
The Supreme Court had previously shot down the protection of children but it is his hope that the new guard we have will give a different verdict and vote in favor the children.
Someone needs to do a background check of the 12 who said nay.
Probably to make the distinction between prepubescent children and those who are physically capable of reproduction. Whether is should be any distinction is certainly a valid argument, but there is still a point to be made. A degenerate who gives into their base animal instincts and views someone of child bearing age as a valid target is slightly better than a degenerate who is attracted to something they can't even reproduce with. Though this is more of a philosophical and psychological thought experiment, like I said disregarding any pedantic difference is probably for the better. At least so we can reverse course on the downward spiral society is taking.
“There is a deep, dark, dark side in our culture, and it’s our job to protect the children. There are times when things are so wicked that retribution is appropriate. It would be very rare that this case would happen, but it will happen. And I say to you when you see that case, you read it in the newspaper you’re going to say this is the once case this needs to happen.”
The Supreme Court had previously shot down the protection of children but it is his hope that the new guard we have will give a different verdict and vote in favor the children.
Someone needs to do a background check of the 12 who said nay.
H/T https://t.me/PepeDeluxed/55529 Sauce https://www.kmvt.com/2024/02/14/controversial-idaho-house-bill-would-give-death-penalty-those-convicted-heinous-sexual-acts-against-children-under-12/
Why only children under 12?
Probably to make the distinction between prepubescent children and those who are physically capable of reproduction. Whether is should be any distinction is certainly a valid argument, but there is still a point to be made. A degenerate who gives into their base animal instincts and views someone of child bearing age as a valid target is slightly better than a degenerate who is attracted to something they can't even reproduce with. Though this is more of a philosophical and psychological thought experiment, like I said disregarding any pedantic difference is probably for the better. At least so we can reverse course on the downward spiral society is taking.
That's what I was just thinking. Every one of those 12 need to be outed, exposed, and voted out.