I do have certain inviolable touchstones; just as sure as the earth revolves around the sun, should you deliberately harm a child in my presence you can expect to be immediately hurt yourself. This reaction is axiomatic – the multitude of experiences that comprise my backstory compel me, even as a coldly observant inner voice insists that not only is violence wrong but my use thereof is likely to have a reverse effect.
There have been incidents; once it appeared I would be arrested. Which would have been fine; the abuse I witnessed, at a minimum, would have been recorded in a court of law, something not assured by merely reporting child abuse to the authorities. It has been noted 1 that this tactic is not particularly intelligent, generating as it does a degree of self harm. Well, fuck it: you can’t break someone’s nose without bruising your knuckles.
What the hell is it with H. monastic? 3
- Thank you, Nora. ↩
- An end I used to think appropriate for the works of Ayn Rand. Age has disabused me of that position – now I believe those books should stay with their original purchasers, prominently displayed: mental millstones to their owners and scarlet A‘s to the rest of us. ↩
- H. monastic is defined thus:
•An unhealthy preoccupation with lives yet to be born;
•An unhealthy preoccupation with how women behave;
•An unhealthy lack of concern regarding their children’s safety;
•An unhealthy insistence on killing people for any number of reasons;
•An unhealthy support for wars because their deity of choice commands it;
•An unhealthy concern both with other people’s lives and the attendant need to correct them according to the tenets of their “religion” …or shit they just made up ↩