"We are good adults" said the two teachers, and the two parents, at a conference table, discussing an exit plan for their child. The child cites the law, citing his rights as an IEP holder, and then gets punished at home for the pro-social tyrannical outbursts. Lawful trauma makes you, by nature, a dominant, tyrannical monster, in my case an anti-parent monster. God hath subdued me, and now I am quiet in my personal life.
What is divine prosecution of pro-spanking parents? Innocent until proven guilty, then dot or expose. It is the feeling that you know you are in trouble, and the only way out is to say "I'm sorry" and fess up to it, otherwise punishment becomes stronger and stronger, to the point where I am up and you are down, and since I am not a perpetrator, I can easily announce helplessness and name the feeling with ease.
The main rights of the accused in my court of law is that after the pronouncement of the personal slight, you can state your intentions, selling them as good intentioned or not. Be very specific, and simply tell it as it is, like judge and jury. Metal detector. This can lead to a collaborative exchange, meaning arbitration instead of trial, in which case of the latter two, arbitration is the better one.
Example:
Me: Hey, why do you repeatedly inbox me with that pornographic filth?
Other person: I like you
Me: GTFO of here
"I like you" was a given defense in a divine court of law, but not a valid one.
These parents know they are being interrogated by our watch, they see us coming, and they don't care. A bunch of entitled spoogs, deserving of death and punishment from Divine Justice for children...Watch their life crash down like the towers that they are in relation to children.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization
will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.