My understanding is that they don't like the storefronts, the window displays, the advertising signage, etc. They consider the display, the marketing, and the sales of these products to be obscene and want them off the shelves.
"Wouldn't it be more prudent to say a legislator wants to ban the sale of these toys, rather than say "the people of South Carolina"?"
I'm assuming this legislator represents at least some of the citizens of South Carolina, so wouldn't it instead be more prudent of me to say "some of the people of South Carolina" instead of "the people of South Carolina"?
This is all you got? Nitpicking words and phrases? This is the sum total of your contribution to the debate?
"This guy's attempt at this type of legislation definitely falls under this category."
It happens. Some guy up for reelection want an "issue" to run on. If "the people" don't want this they'll let their legislators know and it won't pass.
Other than giving me a hard time, have you got a point you're trying to make?
That is classic "community standards" criteria. I wasn't aware it was a state legislature issue. Of course, I suppose some people who have bigger dreams than being a legislator from the town of Backwater may try and fit this into a state-type issue. Who knows what thought processes are at work down there?
I'm assuming this legislator represents at least some of the citizens of South Carolina, so wouldn't it instead be more prudent of me to say "some of the people of South Carolina" instead of "the people of South Carolina"?
I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who's been invoking the "people of South Carolina".
This is all you got? Nitpicking words and phrases? This is the sum total of your contribution to the debate?
Nitpicking? Isn't that rich! I've been following your posts, and this isn't the charge for you to level. On the other hand, given the paucity of your "arguments", maybe it is....
It happens. Some guy up for reelection want an "issue" to run on. If "the people" don't want this they'll let their legislators know and it won't pass.
Uhhh, that's been one of my points. Nothing's law yet, nothing's even been debated in that legislature. We have, according to the story provided, no evidence of anything other than single sponsorship of this absurdity. And yet, all this time, you've been invoking "the people". You apparently can't see the irony in your post.
Other than giving me a hard time, have you got a point you're trying to make?
Given what's transpired on this thread, that's a line that doesn't even merit consideration, let alone a response.
CA....