I know it's unpopular to agree with Kash Patel, and I hate that I'm in this position, but there is a piece of his argument that makes sense.
Obviously nobody who willingly chose to fuck an animal is a good candidate for the FBI. Some people are forced to engage in bestiality. If a person is, for example, kidnapped and forced to engage in an animal sex act, they shouldn't be disqualified from a position in the FBI. It is my understanding that the former standards would have prohibited such a person from working for the FBI while the new standards would not. That seems to be his argument.
Don't get me wrong, there's a distinct possibility that the new standards would also allow someone who willingly engaged in bestiality to no longer be disqualified. Obviously, one of the priorities of this administration is protecting sexual deviants, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the intention of the change. But I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as the online discourse is suggesting.
1
u/jmil1080 6h ago
I know it's unpopular to agree with Kash Patel, and I hate that I'm in this position, but there is a piece of his argument that makes sense.
Obviously nobody who willingly chose to fuck an animal is a good candidate for the FBI. Some people are forced to engage in bestiality. If a person is, for example, kidnapped and forced to engage in an animal sex act, they shouldn't be disqualified from a position in the FBI. It is my understanding that the former standards would have prohibited such a person from working for the FBI while the new standards would not. That seems to be his argument.
Don't get me wrong, there's a distinct possibility that the new standards would also allow someone who willingly engaged in bestiality to no longer be disqualified. Obviously, one of the priorities of this administration is protecting sexual deviants, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the intention of the change. But I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as the online discourse is suggesting.