provacation based on provacation
This is a unedited exerpt from a book im writing, detailing that when a woman wears provacating clothing it is provacation for the reason being not what she is thinking emotionally or her independce but the chemical unbalance of her provacee , when women who provacate get assaulted , she or even he that i
s who provacates , they proclaim in a court of law that their assaulter should be gullty and punish when they do not regard the situation of the provacee but wait they can say well its my freedom of speech to dress this way and the guilty has no rigth to act like that according to the law in the society,but remember whether the man has chemical unbalance do to either being born that way or has been made that way by forced or did it to him self he himself is assaulted in a worster form then the woman because he does not have the balance to control himself because of the historical emtymology of temptation of humanity.let say it is of first strike at ground zero that is the first ever provacation in society that the woman proclaims him guilty lets say the one provacation that the woman is doing is the 20,000,001 provacation act what diffrence is it from the first provacation act ,what innocence is therefore of the women ,if it is the first act then isnt the women guilty of temptation far worser her law maker or is it that man denies the creator, god. we could say the man is guilty of his action in the second act but then if he had the same mentality as as the first act doesnt that make him a innocent creation,then he is not guilty but innocent he is not guilty in the second act why? you see their is no end to both the provacation philosophacaly the society where the first provacation and response happen its like it happen all over again so thats the trancendent law action relativity,so no guilt.
in the first provacation he and woman are both guilty and innocent at the same time at least sarcastically i added their innocent thats because their creator is the true guilty one in this case the court of law that the provacator seeks a gulity verdict because it installed itself as the maker of the society we can say in gods place that shows something suspicious that something happen at the begining of society somebody kill somebody just for the women could provacate and to get the provacee guilty so the true blame is not for both parties. the woman should know acording to to the first ever provacation act she is provacating because the man is in a handicap position and she therefore is the guilty one in her case in a court of law the man is guilty because he assaulted the woman .the woman because she flaunted .in the thusfore moraly.so that is the defining skeumatics that the man is doing his freedom of will just as the women.so ultamately moraly the woman is guilty of provacation based on provacation.