It is clear that the judge did not buy the claims that Rabbi Horowitz was a danger to the level 3 pedophile and his family by coming to his neighborhood of Har Nof to incite his neighbors against him. It is also clear that whatever negative attention this convicted pedophile is getting is coming primarily from his legal actions against Rabbi Horowitz. Given the dismissal of the request for an injunction today - the pedophile seems to have little chance of winning the civil judgment in November and clearly stands to destroy whatever normal existence is left to them. Does it really make any sense to arouse the interest of the media when commonsense would tell you to make yourself as inconspicuous as possible? Ironically this convicted pedophile in his attempt to silence Rabbi Horowitz is actually building his stature and convincing people of the need for more publicity!
"Ironically this convicted pedophile in his attempt to silence Rabbi Horowitz is actually building his stature and convincing people of the need for more publicity!"
ReplyDeleteThis is not unique to R. Horowitz. In American law, there is a similar phenomenum called the Barbara Streisand effect. Acc. to Wikipedia:
The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.
It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it.
If you read the decision of the judge, it looks to me the opposite. She greatly enhanced the plaintiff's chances of winning his case against Horowitz.
ReplyDeleteIn the decision, the judge acknowledged that YW is being slandered by the tweets of Rabbi Horowitz and called them, in her decision, "very serious". IOW, now you have a judge officially recognizing the slander!
What her decision clearly stated is that the slander battle has been relegated to a different trial and this hearing is not the place to adjudicate it. What is relevant now is: is the proposed presentation in Har Nof also a form of harassment? On that issue, she ruled that it clearly isn't. Note, that Rabbi Horowitz in all of his statements omits the fact that he gave the judge assurance that he has no intention of mentioning the Weinberg fiasco during his presentation. It was partially based on this assurance that the judge dismissed the request of YW. The dismissal did not entail any conditions, she just ruled that the claim did not have sufficient merit to be upheld so the presentation can go on. It may be an oversight that she did not incorporate Rabbi Horowitz's assurance as a condition, but he did give this assurance, it was used as a tool, and he did violate it.
Lastly, at the end of the decision, the judge waived expense sanctions against YW which are normally imposed for claims without merit. This means that the judge officially acknowledged substance to the claim (she actually said so), just not enough to prohibit the speech from going on.
I think this will weigh heavily against Rabbi Horowitz in November.
rabbi Horowitz reploied
ReplyDeletelet's keep it real simple. Weinberg is a serial pedophile who has been molesting kids since at least 2000 in numerous schools and Shuls in 3 states and 2 countries that we know about. Publicity increased over 10 times since he filed for the order of protection last week. It will increase 10 times on top of that now that USA today ran with it. He is a murderer who is a danger to kids.
If he thinks (or you think) that mentioning his name at a class is something anyone cares about, he should keep on filing legal papers as he has been doing. The judge nodded her head when I said that if he cared at all about his kids as he claims he does, he would stop attracting attention to himself.
Do you think any judge is going to rule in his favor moving forward on anything?
I said before the weberman trial that I won't rest until he is in a place where he can no longer hurt children. I say the same here.
Watch this 9-minute video to help you teach your kids how to protect themselves from predators http://youtu.be/SllHgd6jrpo
Visit www.bbchumash.com to learn more about our gemara and chumash workbooks designed to help your children the tools to succeed in school.
Rabbi Yakov Horowitz
Director, Center for Jewish Family Life/Project YES
www.kosherjewishparenting.com
Have you seen a single psychiatric evaluation that says that "Weinberg is a serial pedophile who has been molesting kids since at least 2000 ..."?
ReplyDeleteIf so, can you please send it to me (and all unclassified documentation) at 1a7b.author@gmail.com?
If not, you should be aware that every unsubstantiated allegation is indeed slander and it is all quickly adding up. If you are not protected by valid documentation, I think you are setting yourself up for a big fall.
Hashem Yerachem
על קמצא בר קמצא חרוב הבית!
>> The judge nodded her head when I said that if he cared at all about his kids as he claims he does, he would stop attracting attention to himself. <<
ReplyDeleteAside from the fact that this comes across as a very childish statement I have two other comments:
1. The acknowledgement of the judge of the severity of the slander is in the record. the nod of the head isn't.
2. YW opened a suit against you because he feels he was wronged. He did not publicize the suit nor has he publicized any events that have transpired since. He did request a restraining order, but, again he did not tell anybody about it in any medium. You did. You and you alone has broadcasted the full play-by-play in every medium that you can. He is not attracting attention to himself. He is filing suits in closed court. You are creating all this hullabaloo (which, frankly, irritates me a lot more than my neighbors two doors away who haven’t bothered me a bit,)
I believe that every allegation that is exaggerated to any degree is full scale motzi shem ra. It is an unequivocal violation of CC Hilchos LH 10:2 point 4 and much of the remainder of Klal 10.You do not seem to take the Chofetz Chaim seriously.
This is your MShR, not his. In addition all this publicity is certainly a chillul Hashem. Again, I believe that this is your chillul Hashem and it is b’farhesiyah!
I do not think the “aron bris Hashem and Moshe” is on your side. And, for your sake, I had better be wrong!
>>Do you think any judge is going to rule in his favor moving forward on anything?
ReplyDeleteUm... yes, I do.
If you have a copy of the decision - please send it to me
ReplyDeleteDone.
ReplyDeleteNote that before the decision, at the end of the proceedings in final arguments, the council for the plaintiff claimed there are documented psychiatric reports from Dr. Richard Krueger that indicate that YW is not a pedophile.
ReplyDelete>>let's keep it real simple. Weinberg is a serial pedophile who has been molesting kids since at least 2000 in numerous schools and Shuls in 3 states and 2 countries that we know about. <<
ReplyDeleteI am in the course of investigating these allegations. We want all the neighbors to get along. So far, my findings do not concur with yours.
So, to update me, please provide me with details about the molestation that "we know about" that took place in any states or countries besides NY, USA. (I.e., which other two states and which other country and how do you know?)
Thank you very much,
Y. Hirshman
Let me paraphrase what you are saying:
ReplyDelete"Rabbi Horowitz, I believe that you are lying. So either give up the new victims, the ones to whom you promised anonymity, or you shall be deemed a liar."
Actually, my main "belief" that he is lying is more about the "2 countries". I want to know: which other country?
ReplyDeleteI don't need this to confirm that he is lying. He said in public that he is lying. He told the public that because he heard that some people (??) weren't taking his warnings seriously, he tweeted out some outright lies concerning YW.
Incidentally, this is what the "frivolous" lawsuit is all about (as indicated in RDE's initial post) and it seems to have merit.
As for the "new" victims, as far as I am concerned they should give themselves up, i.e., either file a complaint openly in a court or BD (perhaps they are hampered by Statute of limitations) or just clam up. Yakov Horowitz is not the proper address for reporting accusations.
BTW, this comment was sent directly to RYH by email. I am still awaiting his reply. (But not holding my breath).
Does this initiative mean that you have formed an alliance with the Har Nof pedophile in order to defend him against false accusations?
ReplyDeleteI consider myself an impartial referee. i want everybody to play nice. I am nobody's ally.
ReplyDeleteThat said, if I see one person being rodef (harassing) another, I "play G-d" and adhere to האלקים מבקש את הנרדף.
As for defending against false accusations, if the accusations are false, I am more than ready to defend he who is falsely accused.
Your statement implies that you are not prepared to defend people against false accusations, and I find this appalling.
Lastly, though I do not have enough valid information, i have a ch'shash that the label "pedophile" may belong on the list of "false accusations" in this specific case.
Long before 2003, the saying was prevalent, "a book banned in Boston."
ReplyDeleteyou are deliberately misreading my statement - why?
ReplyDeleteBTW are your comments about defending the Haf Nof pedophile on your own blog?
Considering your lack of expertise on the matter - what is the basis of your ch'shash - could it be you accept what ever he tells you? Why not just tell him to write a guest post defending himself - instead of using you to act as if you are an independent investigator?
BTW what do you call someone who abuses children and presumable gets sexual pleasure doing it?
>>you are deliberately misreading my statement - why?<<
ReplyDeleteI don’t know what you mean. Please explain.
>>BTW are your comments about defending the Haf Nof pedophile on your own blog?<<
Go and look.
>>Considering your lack of expertise on the matter - what is the basis of your ch'shash - could it be you accept what ever he tells you? <<
If I had more expertise, it wouldn’t be only a ch’shash. (P.S. I may have more “expertise” than you think.)
>>Why not just tell him to write a guest post defending himself - instead of using you to act as if you are an independent investigator? <<
Nobody is using me.
>>BTW what do you call someone who abuses children and presumable gets sexual pleasure doing it?
What age children? (Hint, you still haven’t read my posts: http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2016/06/mesira-xiii-thinking-like-jew.html )
“let's keep it real simple”, here’s where I stand: He lives on Agassi, I live on Agassi. For almost two years he has not given anybody any reason to be worried about him. I would like it to stay that way. Rabbi Horowitz is not being helpful. Period.
I need to go to bed now! Layla tov!
>>BTW are your comments about defending the Haf Nof pedophile on your own blog?<<
ReplyDeleteGo and look.
====
DT actually I looked at your blog and couldn't find any mention. But then again I have trouble getting to the end of your very long posts.
===
>>BTW what do you call someone who abuses children and presumable gets sexual pleasure doing it?
What age children? (Hint, you still haven’t read my posts: http://achaslmaala.blogspot.co... )
DT If you insist on answering questions by saying "read my posts" it is not going to happen - refer to the above
==
“let's keep it real simple”, here’s where I stand: He lives on Agassi, I live on Agassi. For almost two years he has not given anybody any reason to be worried about him. I would like it to stay that way. Rabbi Horowitz is not being helpful. Period.
DT - Very interesting answer - lets keep the peace. Rabbi Horowitz is definitely disturbing the peace by being concerned with your neighbor's past history. Obviously your expertise in the matter of abusers tells you that if you are not aware of any complaints than obviously there is nothing to worry about. Those in fact are the words I heard from one of the leading self-styled rabbinic experts in abuse - Rabbi Reisman regarding your neighbor. So you believe that the only important concern is not rocking the boat. That is also the message I heard from your neighbor. I assume you are aware that this is not the majority view of professionals and law enforcement agents working with this population?
Testimony or reports from an "expert witness" must always be scrutinized very carefully. There are reports from other prominent psychiatrists that a serial pedophile like Weinberg IS still a dangerous pedophile.
ReplyDeleteWow! We are not communicating at all.BTW you might want to study the story of Rabbi Eliezar Ben Rav Shimon which indicates your hashkofa of leaving it to G-d is not acceptable. Regarding Gittin 7 you should read the commentaries - especially the Chasam Sofer other others who explicitly disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteAgain you insist that since YOU do not know of any complaints that there are no complaints.
Rabbi Reisman has a view which is simliar to yours - Rav Dovid Cohen and other rabbonim strongly disagree with him and with you
Regarding your neighbor we had an extended exchange of emails about a year ago in which he sent me the psychological reports and other information. I still get messages from him indirectly through others. Bottom line - I strongly disagree with your understanding of the haladchic point of view as well as the psychology involved. We are simply going around in circles.
As I have noted, you don't have any major poskim agreeing with you and there are clearly those who strongly disagree with you. Your view was eloquently stated by Rav Menashe Klein in a teshuva in which he criticizes the gedolei hador for not agreeing with him - especially when it was so obvious to him that he was right and the the gedolim were wrong.
you are fighting a battle which has already been won by your opponents - but you still think we are still in the world of 20 years ago.
>>Wow! We are not communicating at all.<<
ReplyDeleteBoker Tov. I wrote in the initial thread that we need to agree to disagree and I asked you why you continue to engage with me if you cannot relate to anything I say.
>>BTW you might want to study the story of Rabbi Eliezar Ben Rav Shimon which indicates your hashkofa of leaving it to G-d is not acceptable. <<
RYBK says: יבא בעל הכרס ויכלה את קוציו. Rambam and Shu”A pasken like him.
>>Again you insist that since YOU do not know of any complaints that there are no complaints. <<
In gemara terms this is called: kalla iss beh.
>>Rabbi Reisman has a view which is simliar to yours - Rav Dovid Cohen and other rabbonim strongly disagree with him and with you<<
And Rabbi Neustadt – in the name of many rabbanim – and Rav Nachum Eisenstein and Rav Elyashiv, ZT”L in his letter to Rav Feivel Cohen and the Chofetz Chaim all say not like Rav Dovid Cohen and “other rabbonim”. (And I am with them). What do you hope to accomplish with a rabbinic numbers game?
>>Regarding your neighbor we had an extended exchange of emails about a year ago in which he sent me the psychological reports and other information. I still get messages from him indirectly through others. <<
I would be happy to see all of the reports that he sent you. My assumption is that these reports were largely favorable to him and yet you wish to disregard them.
>>Bottom line - I strongly disagree with your understanding of the haladchic point of view as well as the psychology involved. We are simply going around in circles. <<
Then let this be our last engagement (on this issue).
>>As I have noted, you don't have any major poskim agreeing with you and there are clearly those who strongly disagree with you. <<
See above.
>>you are fighting a battle which has already been won by your opponents - but you still think we are still in the world of 20 years ago. <<
I am not fighting anybody. “My opponents” can do what they want.
Regarding Rav Eliezar - where do you see the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch paskening against him? The views expressed by both those sources agree with Rav Eliezar and allow turn people over to the police - even to be jailed and beaten
ReplyDeleteרמב"ם הלכות חובל ומזיק פרק ח הלכה יא
עשה המוסר אשר זמם ומסר יראה לי שאסור להרגו אלא אם כן הוחזק למסור הרי זה יהרג שמא ימסור ל אחרים, ומעשים בכל זמן בערי המערב להרוג המוסרים שהוחזקו למסור ממון ישראל ולמסור את המוסרים ביד הגוים להרגם ולהכותם ולאסרם כפי רשעם. וכן כל המיצר לציבור ומצער אותן מותר למסרו ביד גוים להכותו ולאסרו ולקנסו, אבל מפני צער יחיד אסור למסרו, ואסור לאבד ממונו של מסור ואף על פי שמותר לאבד גופו שהרי ממונו ראוי מ ליורשיו.
שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות מאבד ממון חבירו בידים ומוסר ומלשין סימן שפח סעיף יב
עא] נט כל המוסר הצבור ומצערן, עב] מותר למסרו ביד עובדי כוכבים אנסים להכותו ולאסרו ולקנסו; עג] אבל ס {ל} מפני צער יחיד אסור למסרו. הגה: (וע"ל סי' תכ"ה ס"א). עד] מי שעוסק בזיופים וכדומה, ויש לחוש שיזיק רבים, עה] מתרין בו שלא יעשה, ואם אינו משגיח, יכולין למסרו ולומר שאין אחר מתעסק בו אלא זה לבד. עו] מי שרוצה לברוח ולא לשלם לעובדי כוכבים מה שחייב, ואחד גילה הדבר, אין לו דין מסור, שהרי לא הפסידו רק שהוצרך לשלם מה שחייב, עז] מכל מקום ברעה עשה דהוי כמשיב אבידה לעובד כוכבים; סא עח] {לא} ואם גרם לו היזק, חייב לשלם לו מה שגרם לו (מהר"ם מרוזבורג).
Similarly Rav Eliashiv in that letter does not agree with your view but agrees with R' Eliezar the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch above.
Where is the view of R Eisenstein that agrees with you?
Why do you have an assumption that these reports were favorable? Will not share them without explicit permission to do so.
According to the statement, the diagnosis is not saying that he is not a dangerous pedophile, the diagnosis was saying that he is not a pedophile at all.
ReplyDeleteOne can be promiscuous and interact with pre-teens and not have the clinical characteristics of a pedophile. He is just oversexed and perhaps gay.
where did you see a statement that he is not dangerous? The claim is Dr. Krueger claims that he is not attracted to children. But he was convicted for having sexual contact with children and classified a level three offender - which means he is dangerous.
ReplyDelete"One can be promiscuous and interact with pre-teens and not have the
ReplyDeleteclinical characteristics of a pedophile. He is just oversexed and
perhaps gay." Say what???
I never saw a statement that he is not dangerous and I never wrote that I did. Just that he is not a pedophile.
ReplyDeleteAs for level 3 - it only means that he is high risk to repeat what he has already done. If his past sins are limited to a Class A misdemeanor for 2nd Degree Sexual Contact (which precludes intercourse and force), then all you can assume is that he is liable to commit another 2nd degree assault.
??????????
ReplyDeleteThat is very well presented.
ReplyDeleteAnd while you are at it, I think it is a good idea to tell the readers what "designations" are in RAI and what designation 0 means.
All told, we are clearly not dealing with a serial rapist.
and therefore you don't consider someone who sexually molests kids but doesn't rape them as not dangerous?!
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you mean by "dangerous" but the issue here is a Halachic status of rodef. If he doesn't rape them, then he is absolutely not a rodef by any definition. Rodef is הרודף אחר הערוה לבועלו. Peshuto k'mashmao. Somebody who actively pursues people for harm or aveirah.
ReplyDeleteI am not recommending anybody to send him their sons for bar-mitzva lessons (i send mine to the more experienced pedophile) but a rodef he isn't. All this mesira is halachically unjustified and I do not envy anybody who takes part in it. (Or who promotes it on their blog).
you are so absolutely wrong. Your incredible ignorance of this issues invalidates your comments and shows that you are incredibly ignorant of the psychology of abuse as well as the halacha.
ReplyDeletePursing kids to molested them - even without raping them - makes him a rodef. Please contact a competent posek such as Rav Dovid Cohen. Does Rabbi Reisman agree with your absurd statement? Does anyone else in the world agrees with your incrediblty dangerous and ignorant views?
I don't envy your olam habah for spreading such harmful views to the public.
To make it clear - RAPE IS NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF ABUSE WHICH MAKES A PERSON A RODEF. ABUSE EVEN WITHOUT RAPE IS ALSO AN ISSUE OF PIKUACH NEFESH!!!!
1. He is not pursuing anybody.
ReplyDelete2. For the third time we will have to agree to disagree (I don't know why it is so hard for you to do that).
3. I have already publicly and vehemently disagreed with Rav Dovid Cohen (http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2016/02/mesira-xii-no-chochma-no-tevuna-and-no.html )so why contact him?
4. I already gave a list of people who agree with me.(Starting with the Chofetz Chaim - same link)
5. Second degree sexual assault is not pikuach nefesh.
6. If I am so incredibly ignorant and pig-headed why are you trying to educate me?
7. Nobody should envy my olam haba but I would like to keep it all for myself anyhow.
Please. please, speak to a posek before making pronouncements such as yours. If you can find one who says that an adult pursuing a minor to digitally penetrate him is not a rodef, please let us know who that is.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see that Rav Dovid Cohen disagrees with you and that you acknowledge it. What posek have you found that agrees with your misunderstandings of halacha and child abuse? Or are you saying you are the only person alive who knows the truth?
ReplyDeleteYou have cited sources to support your views - but they in fact don't. You have responded to my recent post refuting your understanding of BM 83b, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and Rav Eliashiv.
Who told you that second degree sexual assault is not pikuach nefesh - or did you make it up by yourself?
You are incredibly wrong - but sincere - I think there is hope that you might one day come to accept the truth. Besides you are a nice guy who deserves better than living with mistaken understandings of this issue.
I have no doubt that you will get what you deserve in Olam Habah
>>Or are you saying you are the only person alive who knows the truth?<<
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the Chofetz Chaim is dead, I guess so!
>> You have responded to my recent post refuting your understanding of BM 83b, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and Rav Eliashiv.<<
I didn’t think there was any point to, since all you can do is exclaim how incredibly ignorant and wrong I am but you never seem able to point out how I am wrong. (Must be ruach Hakodesh).
>>Who told you that second degree sexual assault is not pikuach nefesh - or did you make it up by yourself?<<
It typically does not even cross the line into giluy arayos. Maximum it is chovel b’chaveiro.
>> I think there is hope…
I think that you wouldn’t want to know what I think about the way you think.
>>I have no doubt that you will get what you deserve in Olam Habah
We all will.
where did you get the incredibly wrong ideal that sexual abuse is the same time of crime as hitting someone - and no more?
ReplyDeleteCiting the Chofetz Chaim is not a support as long as you don't understand the nature of abuse. Hint it is not the same thing as slapping a person.
Your inability to understand the gemora BM 83b and your inability to understand that the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and Rav Eliashiv don't agree with you - is making this discussion very difficult.
You have set yourself up as the authority and dismiss all those who disagree with you. It is not as if this was a case of a dispute among major poskim. There are no major poskim today who agree with your views - though there were ignorant poskim such as Rav Menashe Klein who did not too long ago and even he acknowledged that the gedolim held he was wrong.
It all revolves around your mistaken insistence that sexual abuse is no big deal psychologically but it is a moral issue. Thus if there is no punishment of death by the Torah then it can't be a big deal. That pikuach nefesh means that a person must be in danger of being killed or the assailant must be trying to commit an act which is punishable by death or kares by the Torah. But in fact sexual abuse is a devastating experience psychologically and thus it is viewed by contemporary poskim as pikuach nefesh. That was the view of Rav Eliashiv BTW. Your ignorance of that is the problem and is the reason you can't understand why 1 + 1 = 2 and insists it really is 0 is zero for most cases of child abuse. Thus only a male raping a male child is rodef but if he rapes little girls it is no big deal - but it is still to be disapporved. If a male molests little boys - it is no big deal nor is it a big deal of an adult male molests another male - as long as there is no rape. But you are clearly wrong and again I challenge you to produce any poskim today who agree with you. On this issue you might take the trouble of reading the different conclusions of Rav Eliashiv and the Tzitz Eliezar regarding reporting a teacher who is molesting little girls vs little boys.
How many times are you going to say the same thing?
ReplyDeleteI am hopelessly ignorant and have no support, so let it be.
I have addressed every issue in my series Which you are totally ignorant of.
I was very surprised that the Tzitz Eliezer wasn't included in the teshuvos of the kuntress in Yeshurin but I am quite familiar with it and the third segment is badly flawed. This is not the place to discuss it.
Signed,
Your royal ignorance
Once again, please cite one posek who supports your claim that one attempting to digitally penetrate a minor is not a rodef.
ReplyDeleteI never claimed that. I claimed that one who is living peacefully in Har Nof and isn't bothering anybody at the present time is not a rodef despite what he may have done 7 years ago.
ReplyDeleteBTW, what makes you think there was an attempt of digital penetration?
Um...what have you been reading? I wrote that most types of second degree sexual abuse is not giluy arayos. This happens to include anal digital penetration which is why your doctor is allowed to check your prostrate.
ReplyDeleteAs far as rodef is concerned, if somebody is pursuing somebody to harm him, he is a rodef. If he is not pursuing anybody to harm them, he is not.
There is no indication that the person under question is currently in pursuit of anybody nor that he has been since he has come here. Therefore, I maintain that he is currently not a rodef.
If there is a problem here that requires a posek, please get back to me.
Chezkel
What do you not understand, my friend?
ReplyDeleteyou are missing the most elementary understanding of abuse. It is an action which is done for sexual arousal. Using a child to get sexual pleasure is abuse. A doctor doing a procedure is not abuse because it is not done to produce sexual arousal. Get it?
ReplyDeleteYou should study S.A. CM 388 to realize that your use of the term rodef is simply incorrect. That can be seen also in the Yeshurun volume 15 that you say you have seen - but clearly did not understand.
There is a problem here and that is that you think you understand the halacha and the psychology of abuse - when in fact you don't know the facts and you misapply the halachic sources.
What do Chazal say about a person who is not competent but insists on paskening and advising others what the halacha is (despite a disclaimer that he is not saying people should listen to him)?
Try reading the introduction of the Igros Moshe in vol I
I have been reading your comments.
ReplyDeleteFor example: "I don't know what you mean by "dangerous" but the issue here is a Halachic status of rodef. If he doesn't rape them, then he is absolutely not a rodef by any definition. Rodef is הרודף אחר הערוה לבועלו."
Or did you not mean that?
Yechezkel - make believe time is over. You are not a posek and the nonsense you have been spouting is so bad and the reasoning you have given to justify your nonsense is so ridiculous - I am simply declaring enough is enough.
ReplyDeleteYou have your own blog where you can teach your alternate world view of what you think halacha should have said - instead of what it does say. We have gone around and around - and you simply don't get it. I am not going to waste any more time blowing through your harmful fantasies. No posek of stature supports your interpretations of Torah regarding abuse and the reality of abuse is not what you think it is. BYE!
How he fits the behavior of a pedophile yet not be labeled as one. Or do you subscribe to the Hillary Clinton definition of James Comey saying she told the truth?
ReplyDelete>>you are missing the most elementary understanding of abuse. It is an action which is done for sexual arousal. Using a child to get sexual pleasure is abuse. A doctor doing a procedure is not abuse because it is not done to produce sexual arousal. Get it?<<
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t discussing what is or isn’t abuse. I was discussing what is or isn’t giluy arayos. Get it?
>>You should study S.A. CM 388 to realize that your use of the term rodef is simply incorrect. That can be seen also in the Yeshurun volume 15 that you say you have seen - but clearly did not understand.<<
I suppose it’s my word against yours, then.
>>There is a problem here and that is that you think you understand the halacha and the psychology of abuse - when in fact you don't know the facts and you misapply the halachic sources.<<
Whose problem is it?
>>What do Chazal say about a person who is not competent but insists on paskening and advising others what the halacha is (despite a disclaimer that he is not saying people should listen to him)?<<
I dunno. I’m the ignorant one. You’re the one that knows everything.
I certainly meant it but I don't think you understood it.
ReplyDeleteAre you certain that he fits the behavior of a pedophile? How so?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be Internet savvy, so here’s what you need to do.
Firstly, determine clearly what is the clinical definition of a pedophile (start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia).
Nextly, determine clearly what is the behavior of your subject using unequivocally confirmed facts.
Note that you cannot rely on what Yaakov Horowitz claims because he admits bifnei am v’eida that his most recent allegations about YW are made up. So go find the real facts (and let me know, by the way).
If the behavior that you can unequivocally confirm matches the clinical behavior of a pedophile please consult Dr. Richard Krueger with your amazing findings and challenge his alleged report.
I am just reading reports, I do not “subscribe” to anything (except Mishpacha magazine).
I just now put out a new post:
ReplyDeletehttp://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2016/08/mesira-xvi-putting-peh-before-ayin.html
I don't agree with your views and I am not providing publicity for your posts
ReplyDeleteYou do not know my views!
ReplyDeleteI do and they are wrong
ReplyDelete