Hate v Responsibility

It is a hate crime after it is explained and one persists. They are physically harming people, being told in no uncertain terms that that is the case. And believe that the onus is on the child not to respond that way to the insult. That is a hate crime. Allowing such to continue is our hate crime.

In religion this is also done by gaslighting the complainant… calling them faithless, etc.

The person who claims great religious significance to them must choose their own cutting. The matter must include agency. Cutting another person in this context is only battery. It cannot be more.

To coddle cutters is to slow walk them to very hard times. The correction must be abrupt as one preventing a child running in front of a car; though the child might cry from the shock, it is a much easier recovery that the shock of being hit by the car. It leaves the child with a sense of being protected, not betrayed by the inherent trust.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *