the two really can't go togeather ethicly. worse yet the un spoken explicitly "parents give you anything they own you" is likely to hurt those who had it rough knowingly or otherwise before.
worse still is this is not compatible with modern standards of evidence based justice.
ie what's the amount, over how long? what standard of proof justifies allowing another to endanger to kill for amount claimed given?
if police ucerp the justice system and act on hearsay how likely is it evidence is destroyed?
mean while you don't see this with the elite. you do however see the news classify ideas to tax the wealthy as wealth redistribution.
What's the wealth distribution when parents are encouraged to end their families by normalized abuse to terrorization of children and adult offspring?
Seems it edges more into territory of eugenics and those who could put an end to it would lose patients and profit so instead we see pop and corporate psych spewing things like it's largely genetic (for cluster b) when the apa says things like parent to child interaction involving emotional neglect and verbal abuse is all it takes to elevate risk of bpd by 3x to 4x.
seems a start to factoring the role of genetics would be adopted children with brain scan confirmed parents of the aspd, bpd or npd variety.
in the mean time the fact we can identify that a social compent exists and even the little snipits ive seen of what we are coming to know about things like pstd cpstd and more advanced genetics
it's ethicly absent to not stress that parenting plays a huge role. emphasizing genetics while telling parents things like you're parent you don't have to keep your promises... it's fucking disgusting. Unless you also want to argue that people don't grow up to recreate their home life. Or maybe you're arguing that children don't learn by example. I'm not saying a parent has to be perfect. It's not about that, it's about demonstrating by a leadership how to own up and at very least is MIT when you are at fault for something or made a mistake. No one can tell you what you have to or do not have to do in that case but an apology is pretty empty if you are more than capable of rectifying the error but don't want to. There are times you truly won't be able to. You don't know the difference in my opinion you should have skip the d in your pants or out of yourself. Because you can't identify the difference between wants and needs or thinks that taking out your bad day on your canvas so that didn't ask to be is okay you shouldn't be a parent even if you are. I think this Society is lost unless we recognize children don't ask to be born. Most of the research shows they are born with functioning conscience sympathy and empathy a better sense fair than adults raising them possess.
I've run into a lot of people my age or younger.. esp younger that state no way I can or should when because it's two on one. Not an expert here but long ago from what I can gather Justice systems identify basic such as people lie and therefore number lying unless exceptionally large probably isn't a good indicator of guilt. You can tie this into things like motive. The police have known ways of identifying lies and don't tend to actually go by 2 against 1.
3 letter agencies have a lot better methods developed by tax dollars . I don't have to be an expert here, I know little about police, I do know a few things about cs and security as it applies to systems and that is very appli fhd benifit of or need for the code was to stop situations where cable back to truthyness and systems to establish it. what's scarry is I've noticed the cancle Gen has more than any I've seen before it an attitude of if I didn't know it, discard message and attack sender. this is ripe for a plunge back to the dark ages in more ways than justice.
the likely reality that this sort of Injustice is in large part of why people are opening fire on crowds of strangers.
Go back to King Hammurabi. As far as I can see you need for the code benefit of