Re: Facebook ban - Why I am not opposed to parent existence

It seems others are worried about my anti-parent beliefs. Do I hate all parents? Depends on your definition of "parent". Are we referring to a cord, meaning the parental lobe? Yes, even my own. Are we referring to individuals? Most of them, in the United States, but not all, presuming innocence until the parent is found guilty, and defends that guilt as parental entitlement.

We are okay with the existence of parents, meaning natural and legal parents, but not identified parents. This means do not identify to me as a parent, or that will be the last thing you hear from me, meaning I will shun you. That is, if you say so to defend the abuse of a child. Otherwise, you simply exist while raising children.

Anti-parent is a framework that is a good usage, and a bad usage. If you are jealous of the parents, and pick apart the fact that they eat junk food and fast food all the time, and call that abuse, and then hold the parents hostage by abusing their child, YOU are the parent, meaning an intrusive parent. 

I myself, in terms of sexual attraction to children, blur out the existence of parents, meaning you hope they aren't there, thus anti-parent systems have nothing to do with my risk of abuse directly, but having less anxiety, and working on it, gives me less of an antecedent to commit the moral crime of antisocial "company" with a child. It isn't about possessing the child, but being "best friends", in the form of peerification/spousification.

As much as parents having the right to protect their children, I think they have the duty to do so, or else should be punished under the law. Most parents do not protect their children. How do I step in and add to the pot? Girdle on the waist, and meterstick in hand.

I do not like parents, but feign an abuser when I say killing them all. That is a string of beads, with "kill" referring to the death penalty as symbolic menace, and in real life to my proposed punishment for all crimes perceived by the child - life imprisonment without parole or protective custody. As far as pillaging goes? That's wrong, even to an abusive parent. Pro-social rape? A low blow. Molesting the child to "get back"? Why put the child through that, when she has had enough trauma already. The child has nothing to do with the parent - they are separate individuals collaborating and working together, in a parent-child bond. Parents simply serve their children. They don't own their children. The biblical context does not support that, as children were full citizens of the nation of Israel, except that they couldn't be charged with a crime, meaning spanking is wrong. 

As for what to do with pro-spanking parents, since the secular law excuses them. Not in this world...