As a straight fellow with no kids (or plans for kids), I don't really have a dog in this fight. However, the comment made by Robinson about sexually-explicit issues raised the same alerts in me as the claims that Florida's new law is needed to prevent grooming of children:
"However, the idea that our children should be taught about concepts of transgenderism and be exposed to sexually explicit materials in the classrooms is abhorrent."
Not being an NC resident, are there actual examples of teachers exposing NC children to officially-sanctioned sexually-explicit material that Robinson is citing where a reasonable person could agree with him? I posed a similar question to proponents of the recent Florida law, and the best that they could give me were that there were cases that must exist, even if no one was around to see them (and subsequently cite them). I guess I'm curious whether Robinson is addressing an actual problem OR if this is just his salvo in the eternal culture war against an imaginary strawman.
Are you preventing problems if none actually exist? I have some great legislative ideas for dealing with dragons, should some find us. (Disclaimer: I recently rewatched "Reign of Fire" - it aged pretty well!) However, I wouldn't think that would be an effective use of the resources voters and state taxpayers are spending for me to spend time in the statehouse.
Again as a childless adult, and Illinois federalist, I don't have any substantive issues with another state passing Constitutionally-compatible laws (or wasting state taxpayer resources to legislate against dragons) - I'm just curious if the action is against something actually happening or this is just Pizzagate V2.0 writ large.
Cybercrimes were rare in the first few months of the WWW. Head-on collisions because of excessive speed or drunk driving were rare in the early years of the automobile. You are obviously smart enough to think ahead so you should already know that dragons became extinct before the crusades.
That's what I'm attempting to determine. Is this exposure to sexually-explicit materials provided by teachers in elementary school in the same category as rare early cyber-crimes (which would include the Morris worm, which predated the Web by almost a decade) or are they in the category of dragons (which we can't cite one piece of evidence of causing problems - YET - I'm not counting them out yet).
All I'm asking for is whether the Lt. Govn'r can refer to just one single incident that justifies the need for the law to do something useful for the citizens of NC, as opposed to just being a messaging bill that sends a political signal, but leaves NC unchanged independent of its existence.
And to be clear on the cybercrime analogy - the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 was passed AFTER prior laws had been found insufficient (mail and wire-fraud) to go after criminals that were already committing crimes and being convicted of them under existing statutes (the 1981 Ian Murphy conviction being a successful conviction pre-CFAA).
Note that the example I cite above - Robert Morris - was the first person convicted under the new law - not before it. For some reason I had it in my head that his worm was released in 1984, and not 1988.
I'm sure you know my opinion. You can't wait until a potential problem becomes a real problem before taking action. I tried to determine where sex was being taught to inappropriate age groups, but the results presented by my search engine caused concern that the Feds would show up to arrest me and I would be forced to face a judge less lenient than Katinja Brown Jackson. Anyhow I stopped at this.
Note this is a local school board. Local school districts are the targets of state laws intended to curb inappropriate sexual lessons being taught to very young students. I believe more examples could be found if the right filters were applied. Search engines seem to be programmed to assume the worst - that child porn is the objective.
Feels like you made a decent effort to express your views clearly, strongly and overall with minimal invective Susan. However the following two statements miss the mark IMO:
"...that would also require a generation of emotionally retarded, self-centered individuals to practice self-control and take personal responsibility."
"I’d say shame on those calling this hypocrisy, rather than the bold stand and transparency that it is, but that would allude to these people actually being capable of shame."
There certainly are very strong emotions on both sides of the abortion issue (and many other social and political issues), and personally I understand your strong feelings on the issue.
However, if one truly wants to win over hearts and minds to a Christian view of abortion, or if one want to be a true representative of Christ when making statements in a public square (such as this blog), then I question whether using invective and snide remarks will win over anyone, or whether those types of remarks will further the antagonism and divide in society.
As a straight fellow with no kids (or plans for kids), I don't really have a dog in this fight. However, the comment made by Robinson about sexually-explicit issues raised the same alerts in me as the claims that Florida's new law is needed to prevent grooming of children:
"However, the idea that our children should be taught about concepts of transgenderism and be exposed to sexually explicit materials in the classrooms is abhorrent."
Not being an NC resident, are there actual examples of teachers exposing NC children to officially-sanctioned sexually-explicit material that Robinson is citing where a reasonable person could agree with him? I posed a similar question to proponents of the recent Florida law, and the best that they could give me were that there were cases that must exist, even if no one was around to see them (and subsequently cite them). I guess I'm curious whether Robinson is addressing an actual problem OR if this is just his salvo in the eternal culture war against an imaginary strawman.
There is nothing wrong with legislation intended to prevent problems. In my opinion it's better than duplicate legislation such as hate crime laws.
Are you preventing problems if none actually exist? I have some great legislative ideas for dealing with dragons, should some find us. (Disclaimer: I recently rewatched "Reign of Fire" - it aged pretty well!) However, I wouldn't think that would be an effective use of the resources voters and state taxpayers are spending for me to spend time in the statehouse.
Again as a childless adult, and Illinois federalist, I don't have any substantive issues with another state passing Constitutionally-compatible laws (or wasting state taxpayer resources to legislate against dragons) - I'm just curious if the action is against something actually happening or this is just Pizzagate V2.0 writ large.
Cybercrimes were rare in the first few months of the WWW. Head-on collisions because of excessive speed or drunk driving were rare in the early years of the automobile. You are obviously smart enough to think ahead so you should already know that dragons became extinct before the crusades.
That's what I'm attempting to determine. Is this exposure to sexually-explicit materials provided by teachers in elementary school in the same category as rare early cyber-crimes (which would include the Morris worm, which predated the Web by almost a decade) or are they in the category of dragons (which we can't cite one piece of evidence of causing problems - YET - I'm not counting them out yet).
All I'm asking for is whether the Lt. Govn'r can refer to just one single incident that justifies the need for the law to do something useful for the citizens of NC, as opposed to just being a messaging bill that sends a political signal, but leaves NC unchanged independent of its existence.
And to be clear on the cybercrime analogy - the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 was passed AFTER prior laws had been found insufficient (mail and wire-fraud) to go after criminals that were already committing crimes and being convicted of them under existing statutes (the 1981 Ian Murphy conviction being a successful conviction pre-CFAA).
Note that the example I cite above - Robert Morris - was the first person convicted under the new law - not before it. For some reason I had it in my head that his worm was released in 1984, and not 1988.
I'm sure you know my opinion. You can't wait until a potential problem becomes a real problem before taking action. I tried to determine where sex was being taught to inappropriate age groups, but the results presented by my search engine caused concern that the Feds would show up to arrest me and I would be forced to face a judge less lenient than Katinja Brown Jackson. Anyhow I stopped at this.
https://deeprootsathome.com/sex-education-graphic-images-schools/
Note this is a local school board. Local school districts are the targets of state laws intended to curb inappropriate sexual lessons being taught to very young students. I believe more examples could be found if the right filters were applied. Search engines seem to be programmed to assume the worst - that child porn is the objective.
Feels like you made a decent effort to express your views clearly, strongly and overall with minimal invective Susan. However the following two statements miss the mark IMO:
"...that would also require a generation of emotionally retarded, self-centered individuals to practice self-control and take personal responsibility."
"I’d say shame on those calling this hypocrisy, rather than the bold stand and transparency that it is, but that would allude to these people actually being capable of shame."
There certainly are very strong emotions on both sides of the abortion issue (and many other social and political issues), and personally I understand your strong feelings on the issue.
However, if one truly wants to win over hearts and minds to a Christian view of abortion, or if one want to be a true representative of Christ when making statements in a public square (such as this blog), then I question whether using invective and snide remarks will win over anyone, or whether those types of remarks will further the antagonism and divide in society.
He promises to govern for all especially those filth!
And by pretending these laws are necessary or that this is an actual issue is how you keep that christian hate alive.