I'm Not An ABDL, But I Don't See Infantilism As Infantophilia...

e.g.:

@southbeauty1 There needs to be a DOJ sting on (if you will) ABDL cells. These ABDLs were heinously and unimaginably abused and exploited during childhood in one or another way (sometimes more than one), and the ABDL "mommies" and "daddies" are nothing more than abusers/exploiters/neglecters who themselves need to be brought to justice and/or may themselves need psychological and/or psychiatric help.

Nickidewbear 4 months ago

...

@Nickidewbear Couldn't agree more! This is no different than pedophilia. In the law, it says it doesn't matter if the situation is real or simulated (as in creating a fake photo of a fake child edited to be in sexual acts) it's still child porn/molesting. These sickos are pretending to be children (babies) while sexually gratifying themselves. This falls within the definition of our child porn laws.

Luka2234 31 minutes ago

@Luka2234 I'm not sure that I agree that infantilism is infantophilia or pedophilia, but as I said: "the ABDL "mommies" and "daddies" are nothing more than abusers/exploiters/neglecters who themselves need to be brought to justice and/or may themselves need psychological and/or psychiatric help." And creating a photo of a child is much different than pretending to be one.

Infantilism is a serious problem; and while I can understand reasons for wanting to be infantile (since I was abused myself), I don't see infantilism as conducive to helping one's self with anything. As I said, however, I do not see infantilism as infanto- and pedo-philia.

I Want My Family To Understand...

I don't want especially the up-and-coming and to-be-up-and-coming generations to be like, for example, the following:

• Jack Czarnecki, an overall not-nice man and cold-blooded murderer.

• Mary Rusnak Gaydos, the direct Holocaust enabler-- and nobody has to wonder why the Rusznyaks (Rusnaks) in Tel Aviv and other places still won't talk to us.

• Janet Rozzi, who would defend such a woman as Mary Rusnak Gaydos. By the way, good riddance that Janet removed me as a friend-- I don't want to keep bad company like her; and no matter how much she and anyone else hates it, I had to bring up that Jack Feldman has Chron's and many of us have so much more (e.g., OCD, IBS, Alzheimer's, etc.) because we walked and/or are descended from those who walked away from our Jewish heritage and Meshicheinu Yeshua. That includes that we walked away from keeping kashrut for at least health reasons and from helping Vilmosz et. al. in their time of need.

• Dr. MaryAnn Gaydos and Joan Gaydos Czarnecki-- indirect Holocaust enablers. Being silent and trying to hide and/or change the story about what their mother did is inappropriate. Especially since she is dead now and already had to face her Maker for it, we need to face what she did and not repeat what she did. There'll be a day when we are all found out as Jews and persecuted, and who will help us since we refused to help the unashamedly-Jewish (even if not Messianic Jewish) Yehoshua Rusnak side of the family; especially because since they trusted us meshumadim to help them, and we became koferim in ayinim shel Yeshua and more of koferim in the eyes of them who we refused to help?

Geraldo Didn't Seem As Liberal As He's Been of Late....

How refreshing! He let come out that these "Occupy Wall Street"ers, for the most part if not entirely, are either disingenous Tea Partiers (which one Michiganian peer of mine showed himself to be on "Geraldo at Large" last night) or racist (e.g., Anti-Charles Payne and -Herman Cain), Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Republicanism people. He also let Sally Kohn and Matt Segal show, sadly, that the Jewish community in the United States still has a long way to go-- like Kohn (obviously a koheinah) and Segal (a sar shel bnei Levi), many Diasporan Jews in America don't get and want to get that one can even be a Jacob Javitts Republican and republican.

As Herman Cain talked about the "old plantation thinking", there's this old shtetl thinking that Jews must be liberal and Democrats-- e.g., look at the haredim who bilk entitlements like crazy. Obviously, by the way, even though much of my family were Jewish (and Jewish Catholic) Democrats (and still are), many (like the late Peter Chokola and his distant cousin Tony Czarnecki, Sr.) refused to let the government pamper them. As liberal as they were (or at least Tony's son Jack is... *shudders*; and Peter Chokola did help pass the "Container Disposal Bill", as I came to learn recently), they didn't let the government pamper them or anyone else.

And they're obviously like their Chernetski patriarchs-- since Peter's grandmother was a Chernetska-- I think, or how else would he be Great-Granddad's once-removed third cousin? In other words, they're very political; and they're part of where I got my sense of, as Marvin Olasky speaks of, "compassionate conservatism".

Geraldo learned and is relearning from those like Jacob Javitts, the Chokolas, and Marvin Olaskly-- and Charles Payne and Herman Cain. I should also add, by the way, that Geraldo is learning too that those who have the "plantation" and shtetl thinking are sadly taking seriously the Oprahesque and URJesque mindset to believe in one's self instead of G-d and to have someone else do one's social justice work for him or her.

Dan Wheldon Was a Somebody In This World, Which Is Why He May Be Nothing In the Next...

As for the Steve Jobses and Unix creators, who knows? It depends on what they believed-- they sure did change the world, though, instead of spending their days going 225 miles and an hour on what could've been track or cross-country-practice paths for K-12 and college kids.

The ones who'll be something in the next world, either way, are the American and other Allied military members who put their faith in G-d and Yeshua every day-- especially if (like, for example, Yeshua Himself did) they chose to lay down their lives for their friends when (as Toby Keith once sang) "dying [was] asking [them]" (and they "[bore] that cross with honor, 'cause freedom don't come free"). They'll be the third-world indigenous and other people-- always including children under the age of accountability-- who died at least hoping for better than this world-- even if the Gospel never directly came to them or reached their sight, hearing, or any other sense.

Besides, much of what he said wouldn't make me want to have known him in this lifetime or the next.

I Stand By What Truth I Say, And I Keep Seeking Truth: I'm Human, But I Try To Be Honest. For Example...

As sad as to say the following is, I have to say that the only thing standing between confirmation of truth and many more truths is that Dad and his parents either are still alive (and the sad part is, is that they may have to meet their Maker before anything will come out, which may be 10-20 more years) or are still remorselessly unrepentant (That they were at least feeling guilt even if stubborn and holding back apologies!).

I figured out that Pop-Pop is a murderer and despised his good, Jewish mother for revealing many of the family secrets. My aunt and others just knew that Pop-Pop is a creep. Never did they think of murder-malice theory; or if they did, they didn't say anything about it (as far as I know) until I spoke up and put the facts together.

Being unprosecuted and persecuting those who'd like to see you prosecuted doesn't change the facts. Read that clearly, Dad and Pop-Pop!

Facebook Needs a "Public; Except: [Whoever]", Not Just "Friends; Except" Custom Option

I get so sick of having to "remove" (hide) everything from Mom's and Michelle's view. (What babies! Actually, babies and little children are more mature.) For example, there was this picture on which I duly noted, "Jack and Joan Czarnecki have never paid attention to this... one bit." Michelle complained about what I said to Mom. Mom yelled at me, "Nick... get it off." So, I removed it from their view.

And here's a clip for them, from 0:12-0:18. 

The Anti Defamation League's Disgusting Polemic On Anti Semitism

In the following, from which I will post excerpts, Abraham Foxman and the rest of the ADL disgustingly and perhaps even disingenously label Messianic Jews (including Messianic Karaites), Non-Messianic Karaites and other Non-Messianic Jews, and others as Anti Semitic for criticizing Talmud Bavli and P'rushi Yahadut as a perversion of Tanakh and Yahadut.

The Anti Defamation League In Self-Hating-Jewish Polemics

• "Recently there has been a renewal of attacks on Judaism and Jews through
  recycling of old accusations and distortions about the Talmud. Anti-
  Talmud tracts were originally developed in the Middle Ages as Christian
  polemics against Judaism, but today they emanate from a variety of
  Christian, Moslem and secular sources. Sometimes such “studies” have
  blatantly anti-Semitic tones; sometimes they are more subtle. Yet all of
  them remain as false and pernicious today as they did in the Middle Ages.
  
  "Because of their unfortunate frequent reappearance, there is a need to
  
  
  formally rebut these accusations and canards. The Anti-Defamation
  
  
  League developed the following essay that explains in an honest and
  
  
  scholarly way the Talmudic teachings as understood by Jewish religious
  
  authorities."

Many of these "anti-Semitic sources" are Messianic Jews, Non-Messianic Karaites, and other Jews who are well versed in, have or had consistently studied, and left P'rushi Yahadut because of Talmud Bavli.

• "Are the polemicists anti-Semites? This is a charged term that should not be used lightly,
  but the answer, by and large, is yes. Now and then a polemicist of this type may himself
  have been born Jewish, but rfrom contemporary Jews, and their dismissal of any
  voices opposing their own, suggests that their goal in reading ancient rabbinic literature is
  to produce the Frankenstein version of Judaism that they invariably claim to have
  uncovered."

An ad hominem right in the beginning, it charges that G-d is also an Anti Semite. Tanakh clearly warns not to add or take from it.

• "In fact many anti-Talmud polemicists have never studied the Talmud at all."

Deliberate misstatement of fact. As aforementioned, "Many of these "anti-Semitic sources" are Messianic Jews, Non-Messianic Karaites, and other Jews who are well versed in, have or had consistently studied, and left P'rushi Yahadut because of Talmud Bavli." For example, Nehemia Gordon was born and raised the son of a recently-deceased "rabbi".

• "The visceral hatred that Jews are alleged to bear for non-Jews is
  proven, they claim, by a variety of statements in the Talmud and by Jewish law itself,
  which purportedly encourages Jews to exploit their non-Jewish neighbors and engage in
  criminal activities against them."

One need look no further than a devout follower of Talmud Bavli-- Meir Kahane. Also, Yaron Yardan-- one of the Non-Messianic Jews who was in a yeshiva for years-- cites, among other parshot b'P'rushi halakhah (Menakhot 73b):

The peace-offerings of gentiles are to be treated as burnt-offerings.

1 This I can prove either by

simple reasoning or by a verse from Scripture. Either by simple reasoning: because a gentile in his

heart [devotes the offering entirely] to Heaven.

2 Or by a verse from Scripture: Which they will offer

unto the Lord for a burnt-offering:

3 whatever they4 offer shall be a burnt-offering.

R. Hama b. Guria raised an objection: If a gentile made a freewill-offering of peace-offerings and

he gave them to an Israelite,

5 the Israelite may eat them;6 if he gave them to a priest, the priest may

eat them.

6 — Raba answered, It means this: if [he gave them to an Israelite] that the Israelite shall

receive atonement thereby,
7 the Israelite may eat them;

if [he gave them to a priest] that the priest

shall receive atonement thereby, the priest may eat them.

So goyim can't recieve kippur for their own korbanot. By the way, the Soncino or Artscroll translation does not matter in this case-- the original content and context, to which the Soncino is closer, is the same.

• "One of the more horrifying charges leveled at Judaism is that it condones the sexual
  molestation of young girls. This charge was made in 1892 by the Russian Catholic cleric
  Reverend I.B. Pranaitis in his Latin book,
  Christianus in Talmude Iudaeorum. Despite
  Pranaitis’ humiliation at the Beilis blood libel trial in 1913, where as an “expert” witness
  for the prosecution he demonstrated during cross-examination that he could not answer
  even simple questions about the Talmud, his book was translated into English in 1939,
  and the charge has been making the rounds in anti-Semitic circles ever since."

Notorious talmidim of Talmud Bavli (e.g., Yisroel Shapiro) had and have molested countless young women and even young man. Examples one and two (Be warned-- these are graphic, and maybe not even the most graphic. There are ones which I won't post here. And is Abraham Foxman a pedophile?):

1. "Our Rabbis taught: It is related of Justinia¹⁷ the daughter of 'Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi 'Master', she said to him, 'at what age may a woman marry?'. 'At the age of three years and one day', he told her. 'And at what age is she capable of conception?' 'At the age of twelve years and one day', he replied. 'I', she said to him, 'married at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at my father's house'. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years? Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman: Three classes of woman may use an absorbent¹⁸ in their marital intercourse:¹⁹ A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor,²⁰ because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,²⁰ because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.²¹ A nursing mother,²⁰ because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely,²² and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a 'minor'?²³ From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under²⁴ or over this age²⁵ must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir." (Niddah 45a)
2. "But is she,¹ however, capable of [normal] conception?² Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman:³ Three [categories of] women may use an absorbent⁴ in their marital intercourse:⁵ a minor, and an expectant and nursing mother. The minor,⁶ because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,⁶ because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.⁷ A nursing mother,⁶ because otherwise she might have to wean her child [prematurely]⁸ and this would result in his death.⁹ And what is [the age of such] a minor?¹⁰ From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under,¹¹ or over this age¹² must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages said: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner, and mercy¹³ will be vouchsafed from Heaven, for it is said in the Scriptures, The Lord preserveth the simple.¹⁴ And should you reply that this is a case where she conceived when she was a na'arah and gave birth to a child when she was still a na'arah [it could be objected:] Does one give birth to a child within six months [after conception]? Did not Samuel, in fact, state: The period between the age of na'aruth¹⁵ and that of bagruth¹⁶ is only six months? And should you suggest [that he meant to say] that there were no less but more [than six months] surely [it could be retorted] he used the expression, only'!¹⁷ It must be this, then, that he¹⁸ asked: Is the state of adolescence¹⁹ attainable in the grave²⁰ and her father consequently forfeits²¹ [his right],²² or is perhaps the state of adolescence not attainable in the grave²³ and the father, therefore, does not forfeit²⁴ [his right]? " (Ketubot 39a)

I could go on, but you get the point by now.