>There's a certain irony in your outrage at his failure to control his emotions, even as your own rage leads you to dream of hurting his family.

Wow, what bad take.

Are you willfully misinterpreting the parent commenter, or would you need some help understanding it?

Assuming it's the latter, here it is.

First, there's no outrage or rage. That's something you ascribe to the parent comment, and that's unwarranted.

Second, there's no dreaming of hurting [the teacher's] family.

The message was: it is important that this person should be relieved of teaching duties, with the full understanding of the gravity of such an action, as being fired from one's job in the US puts the livelihood of the person being fired at risk.

See, the person you're responding to is empathetic, because they consider the impact of what they wish — the teacher being fired — on the teacher as well as others (the teacher's family), and don't take wishing something like that lightly.

Most people would stop at "bad job, fire him", without contemplating what it means for that person.

The parent commentor did, and is saying that, as grave as the consequences are for the teacher (and, potentially, his family, if the teacher is the sole breadwinner), it is still necessary to remove them from teaching because harm to children and violating the trust we put in instructors is unacceptable, and the damage they do in their position is far greater than the damage that would be done by firing them.

This is a compassionate and composed consideration.

Oh, and there'd be no irony about the parent's response even if they were raging, as they were not talking about the teacher's failure to control their emotions.

The issue is hurting children, which isn't something the parent commentor is decidedly NOT doing.

Hope this helps.