Pro-social exchange, pro-social trauma rules, pro-social floorboard: Why the floorboard in parenting should only go one way - that of the child

 Many people who have trauma (which is a lot of people) know about trauma rules, yet don't let on that they know about it, because it is commonsense. I live by it in order to resolve conflicts, with conservative application. By my gaslighting application, whomever guilty, by way of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, is guilty, regardless in an exchange between two or more individuals, going from there, with one exception - children.

In any exchange between a child and an adult, the child always is innocent, and the adult guilty, no matter what, no matter the context, no matter the intent of the adult unless clarified after in a non-defensive way. This is God's order, and such will always be the case, until the end of time.

It says about righteous judgment in John 7:24 KJV:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

It says which parents are judged in 1 Corinthians 5:11 KJV:

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat. 

The Greek root word translated "judge" and "judgment" is κρινο (Latin: krinó) and refers to courtroom judgment. Courtroom judgment, in the biblical tense, is similar to how a child would judge their world and their parent, looking all around them for any danger. Righteous judgment extends to the scene of the crime like a fork, presuming the best in the individual one end of things, but assuming that they could be guilty of the suspected offense.

The Greek root word translated "covetous" and referring to entitlement is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to wanting things from a child to the point of seeking to impose said want as an item onto the child, leading to theft/abuse against said child victim. 

Child abuse is whatever the child perceives as offensive, alarming, upsetting, unsafe, or otherwise uncomfortable or hateful. This is based on sensory and fight-or-flight perceptions by the child, meaning whatever the child perceives as offensive or abusive objectively is, until proven otherwise by clarification of intent by the parent. There are two modes that consist of any moral crime or offense, mens rea (guilty intent) or actus reus (actus reus) with the abusive act, meaning the perceived offense, defining the adult's intent in relation to the child. This, in an ordinary home situation, can be dealt with by parents stating that they have a reason why they said "no" besides "I don't want to" or "I don't feel like it", and NOT backing up "no" with any sort of punishment or control. By default, a young child's cry, whine, or protest, is visceral documentation of abuse imposed on a child, until explained otherwise by the parent in a credible manner, by verbal testimony or by circumstantial evidence (ex. parent showing carelessness or resentment towards the child, constant yelling or screaming [in a public venue or establishment]). Entitlement, as a moral crime, refers to defending intent to inflict either emotional, physical, or sexual harm onto a child, borne out of planning or recklessness. It is, however, an attitude, meaning one of rights entitlement, "I have the right to spank/beat/punish that bratty child" or "I have the right to rape [insert synonym] that slut/thot/whore, in order to correct her of her promiscuous nature". This does not refer to mere defended thoughts, as many abusive parents will punish and control older children and teens with false doctrine about "child abuse prevention", usually arising from controlling churches and denominational entities...I would only condemn someone for the moral crime of adult sexual entitlement if they defended their "right" to abuse a child sexually, by their word or their attitude towards children, and wouldn't judge a child at all for anything.

An example of an exchange that I might get into with a child would be if I was looking at a young girl, and she glared at me. The defensive glare in response to my unlawful glance was the issuance of a lawful and binding order. If I defended myself (which I wouldn't do), I would be guilty of being a sexually entitled adult, and would condemn myself to Hell simply for existing in relation to her. But, if I hung my head low, and walked away with a convicted appearance, I would be guilty yet not guilty of child abuse, meaning the damages were inflicted, but the actor/abuser/offender is remorseful, and is willing to accept all penalties due to the abuser. If I refuses to pay any summary citation for harassment, and I defends himself in that regard, the dynamic goes in the reverse, and I would then be marked by God and by children's rights as a sexually entitled adult.

Lovely, attractive young girl in a dress as the righteous judge. High pillar. Pro-social slope, going downwards. I have no right to exist in relation to her, until she allows for such due to my earned status as a remorseful and repentant adult. Children are the "least of these", and are an extension of God, called to convict me of my original sin, with righteous tremble and terror in relation to said young girl. I am afraid of her every vulnerable need. Yes, my lady. I'll get you that glass of milk. How could I not?...She stands right above me, judging my every parenting decision, wearing that showy, strappy dress, and not caring what adult men in particular might think - because she doesn't have to. They should deal with it, or perish from all existence.