Pro-social mop: Understanding Christian righteous judgment of abusers

Many parents here wonder how I judge abusers. Oho! The mop is on the deck of the children's right's ship, casting away abusers with its flexible judgment. Yes, I am a "mop" judge, as the Bible, when understood as a whole, is made whole by that understanding.

The two mandatory commandments of Christianity is "love God" and "love your neighbor" with "love" meaning serve and respect, with all other Scripture simply stating how to do so. It says in John 7:24 KJV:

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

The Greek root word translated "judge" and "judgment" is κρινο (Latin: krino) and refers to God's righteous judgment, which discerns between the entitled and not entitled, guilty and not guilty, by way of presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming the existence of "beyond what the eye can see", basically going solely by the evidence, but with the assumption that you don't know all the facts, and that new evidence is on the way. I judge like a mop.

Pro-social fork, by default, only has two prongs, meaning you know in advance that the interrogation can go two ways, and you test for a plead, usually by using many ways gaslighting in "statement" format, meaning stating something that riles up the defendant, and then gauge by their defense, being judge and jury, whether they are guilty or not.

Pro-social mop simply means there could be more possible leads than two, meaning many leads. This refers ultimately to the concept of flexible application of law, meaning the Law was meant, from the very beginning, to be applied flexibly, not strictly, but Christian law can be applied even more flexibly, meaning I could judge most anything as an offense if I wanted to and was inclined to, and as an anti-spanking vigilante, can thus judge parent behaviors as offensive for myself, or judge anything as offensive using the Law, in order to get ahead and mow down opposition to my blog and platform as a child advocate...But, at the same time, the other party must have entitled motives, meaning intent to control, punish, manipulate, or else issue demands. The line is drawn at how you would accept the word "no" from me. Would you throw a temper tantrum and try to control back, or would you swallow your pride and say "I hate that you have a page, being what you are, but I can't stop you, so get that page the heck away from me". If you are not okay on that level, I can understand. I don't want anyone reverse bribing tech companies behind my back. If you take issue with what I write, don't read it. None of it is intended for anyone in particular unless you are specifically named in the post.

It is like a dial with a hammer at the end, but we rarely use the hammer. Why? As a Christian, I turn the other cheek, meaning I try to avoid frivolous moral legal exchanges, even I get sucked in anyway by overly litigious individuals. I could get offended by anything a fellow adult said or did, but rarely get offended except when I have had enough of a certain bad routine (think Groundhog's Day).

Yes, this page does have a stalker. She is okay with me existing, but not the page. Not enough. She isn't some goddess that rules over me, and tells me what to do. The only way this platform is going anywhere is if I personally hit "delete", because I am against any pornography or other such obscenity on my pages. I don't post that kind of crap to my page.

You have to turn the other cheek, however. Otherwise, you'd go nuts, and be outraged at every little thing, seeing every little thing as a microaggression to fight back. But, when someone is completely adamant about meddling in your affairs and controlling you from above, that is real entitlement being used against you, meaning abuse, and you can fight back after many warnings. I am allowed to defend myself, but there are rules, meaning trauma rules, that are in place. If YOU violate those, you are an abuser to me, no matter your motives, until you can state a valid motive for attacking my page.