Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Why adults have no right to exist in relation to children

I am an anti-existence, annihilationist children's rights/anti-spanking advocate. I have no right to exist in relation to a child, and am grateful God and the "least of these", children themselves, allow me to exist in the same community as they do, as they alone hold me as property and estate for their own, casting me aside for my worthlessness in relation to them, thus me not interacting with them.

Every single adult, without exception, is marked for deletion by God, and will be sentenced to DEATH and ANNIHILATION for merely existing improperly and abusively next to children. Only a few parents in our society are on the right track, and those are the saints worthy of Eternal Reward. All others will be destroyed by God in due time, either on their last day or the very last day...We at children's rights all have a common abuser - a parent.

The Greek root word translated πγεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to entitlement, meaning wanting anything from anyone to the point of seeking to impose said want onto them, leading to theft/abuse. It is a general attitude of deserving things from children due to growing older. This includes mere existence in their presence. If they hate you enough to be gone, then be gone, because you have no right to exist in front of said child.

Existence of human beings on this earth is something to be determined only by God, not any human being. Existence in relation to human beings is malleable, meaning a child has the right to issue Divine Punishment by vanishing me from her existence and company, thus placing me in Hell until I atoned for my sins of entitlement towards her...Only God can snuff out my abuser. Only the child has the primary expertise to advocate abuse against me.

I have no right to be on this earth as an adult in relation to children, but I am, and so I am grateful, because I am deserving of hatred and rejection of children simply for existing.

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will not be published.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.

Expanding child abuse definitions: Why the Bible endorses stronger laws to protect children

Many American parents think that the child abuse definitions should stay the same. This is a common attitude amongst American parents. Most ...