Rules of divine prosecution at Ban Adult Entitlement

 We at Ban Adult Entitlement are an anti-abuse/anti-"abuse" children's rights organization. Anti-"abuse" means only using the word "abuse" in defined format in relation to a specific or hypothetical child victim. The owner of this platform, Maxwell Scheibner, was an pro-"abuse" abuser, in attitudinal rebellious format. Think the overzealous caller to a child abuse hotline, who they then need to drop with hesitation, because they keep making calls that go nowhere about a sensitive topic to them, but something others find mundane. That might actually be a front for sexual abuse in a male who turns out to be a pedophile. These are known as children's rights abusers. It is a gift when used in a centered, non-entitled way, but a curse when conflated with the wrong beliefs, or no beliefs at all. I was a nihilist for the half or so of my life, and it was projected that I was sexually offend by the time I was 30. I fit the forensic definition of anti-spanker, not the official advocate definition, as that was the cause that happened to shade away true evil like backwoods.

This post is intended to be forthright about how I prosecute parents, once and for all. We try to accommodate to the needs of the main abuser, the parent, in an adversarial way that they like hate. You'd think they'd like that we presume innocence in them until the very last day, but parents are ungrateful, and the pedophile their charred grateful victim in the most ultimate of parent cases.

It says in John 7:24 KJV:

Judge not by appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

The Greek root word translated "judge" and "judgment" is κρινο (Latin: krinό) and refers to circular courtroom judgment. The Sanhedrin, under Jewish law, presumed all innocence in their subjects beyond a reasonable doubt. Many warnings, then ka-boom. Spanking or striking a child was, indeed an offense. 

The Early Church presumed innocence by investigation in secret, pretending to be the friend, casing out parents, and then placing them on the spot before the church elders, and all parishioners, including the father's wife (who was the first to hear testimony from the child victim). It was dotted lines going to the parent, asking clarifying questions, with the entitled parent knowing justice was coming for their child, and having no escape but escape. The pro-spanking parent was scorned and trashed in the street, and either had to conform to the church laws, or leave. At the end, they were cast away. At any time, during that time, they could have simply proven their innocence.

How do I plan to carry this out. Any investigation must start with an antecedent. That antecedent can be minute, and the first stage is pro-social clarification, where I brusquely question a parent. If they simply answer my questions, I leave them go, and if they admit to any abuse, tell them calmly that it is abuse and that I wish they seek help. If they get defensive in any way, I chomp, meaning go for the kill, bringing them out for all to see, and for all other to scorn alongside me. The more they defend themselves, the more they dug a hole for themselves. But, at the same time, if there was any doubt as to whether they are guilty, go on it, but continue investigating until you are bored. If bored, close the case. But, if, beyond a reasonable doubt, a parent finds to entitlement, exile them as they do not want our advice, and want to harm their child.

The above advice is if it is feasible to intervene, which is rare. Being a righteous judge on behalf of children is living within a compound encased by thin air, meaning the world is encased outside, and the other-world is encased within. This simply means do not interfere with the world without just cause, and otherwise leave no trace as to your bench as a righteous judge over a fallen world that hates children. It is a low-level judgment, where I can either play dumb or even be nice to you, but if you can admit in tears to another gentle parent that you are struggling, than you have nothing to worry about, even if you are guilty, in which case guilt refers to damages inflicted upon a child, and nothing more. Those damages can, in fact, be harmful for their victims, but we need to weigh, in these cases, with the genuine remorse of the parent. This is restorative justice, with punitive bias and appearance.

I bring out the law with my mom from time to time. Pro-social interrogation, pro-social self-victimization (in child format), pro-social "child" (plagiarize). Start with interrogative questions, and work downward, with pro-social vulnerability exposure, in "please/urgent" unheard format at the end. When I get angry, I ask questions starting with "do you understand" with a finger pointing down, and then the exchange either leads to my mother being condemned, meaning the opposite, or her seeing my point immediately or close to immediately. The very last option is actually the most common. It is a chosen anger, yet driven, yet driven my objective morality stemming from God's Law. I issue many warnings, expressed by leaving certain things go, but maybe showing some non-verbal contempt. Then, I make a divine decree that enough is enough, and that she should understand something. When she doesn't, I continually bring out the law until all is finished. Pro-social verbal abuse is allowed when within the law, and within trauma rules. Physical violence, in general, is not allowed, but has a record in the past in grooming miscommunications. As soon as my mother says "this is harassment" I must cease the behavior, de-escalate (which would only take a few moments or minutes), and later explain my intentions not to harass, or else explain my intentions in the moment in half-apologetic format, thereby simply excusing myself of harassment. I can excuse myself of guilt perceived by my mother by walking in a squiggly line. I do not want her, by default, to be charged with harassment, but in very remote cases, a fine should assist her in taking my concerns seriously. I do not want any Adult Protective Services involvement. Indeed, a whole paragraph of procedures like this is worrisome, but it is a fire-extinguisher route. Usually, I communicate with my mother casually, as a friend that looks after and provides. 

Children's rights Christians/conservatives do bring out the law more often than other Christian conservatives, but rarely about their own personal self-interests. I tend to bring out the law when children are involved, in their defense. Usually, though, I keep the law with me, and observe a fallen world that hates children from a low level. A silent witness behind enemy lines. "Enemy lines", in the worldly stance, is outside the confines of a children's rights compound, meaning I presume innocence in star direction, meaning the threat is over there, and I want it to be over there, until it comes over here, and then you're gone. Marked for deletion. All gentle parents go up, and everyone else down. Radius. Fire and brimstone. Show me you are a parent. Don't demand it as a right.