Being Better Educated and Changing my Opinion

One of my basic principles of being an Honorable Skeptic is what I call the malleability of my opinions, as expressed this way:

Because I am honorable, I sometimes willingly concede points made by my opponents in debates with them. This should never be seen as a sign of weakness. When I know I am right about something, I will fight to the bitter end to support my case and discredit my opponent because in some cases I do see my battles as a struggle between light and darkness, good and evil, or ignorance and knowledge. But I am also willing at times to listen to my opponent and consider his point of view, especially if that person is known by me to be honorable. If we do not listen to others, how can we ever grow in knowledge?

In the past, I opposed the legal concept of statutory rape, thinking it an outdated and irrational one, much like laws in the past banning homosexual relations or interracial unions. But recent events have made me reconsider my position and try to understand why otherwise enlightened people would be so insistent that teens should never be allowed to have romantic and sexual relations with older partners, even of their own choosing.

Continue reading

The tragic case of Betty Broderick

The story of Betty Broderick illustrates how a strong religious upbringing cannot always prevent acts of betrayal and violence.

Elisabeth Anne Broderick (née Bisceglia; born November 7, 1947) is an American woman and convicted murderer who was accused of the killing[1] of her ex-husband, Daniel T. Broderick III, and his second wife, Linda (Kolkena) Broderick on November 5, 1989. At a second trial on December 11, 1991, she was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and later sentenced to 32-years-to-life in prison. The case received extensive media attention and was extremely controversial. Several books were written on the Broderick case, and a made-for-TV movie was televised in two parts.[2]

Betty Broderick was born Elizabeth Anne Bisceglia 1947 and grew up in Eastchester, New York, a suburb of New York City.[3] She was the third of six children born to devout Roman Catholic parents Marita (née Curtin) (1919–2007)[4] and Frank Bisceglia (1915–1998),[5] who owned a successful plastering business with relatives. Her mother was Irish-American and her father was Italian-American.

The Bisceglias were very strict parents, and much was expected of all the Bisceglia children. As Broderick later recalled, she was trained to act as a housewife since the day she was born, or as she recalled: “Go to Catholic schools, be careful with dating until you find a Catholic man, support him while he works, be blessed in your later years with beautiful grandchildren”. This Catholic upbringing was bolstered by the economic conditions of the 1950s, when Catholic parents could reasonably expect that a son or son-in-law would be able to support a wife and children on his own income.[6][7]

In 1965, Broderick met her future husband, Dan Broderick (1944–1989),[12] at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. Dan was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; he was the eldest son of a large Catholic family akin to the Bisceglias, and both his parents were descendants of Irish immigrants. The couple married on April 12, 1969 at the Immaculate Conception Church in Tuckahoe. Broderick returned from her honeymoon pregnant with her first child, daughter Kim (b. 1970). She gave birth to four more children: daughter Lee, (b. 1971), two sons named Daniel (b. 1976) and Rhett, (b. 1979) and an unnamed boy, who died two days after birth.[11]

So she gave him four children. If any woman gave me even ONE child, that would be enough for me to honor her forever.

After Kim’s birth, Dan completed his M.D. degree at Cornell University. He then announced his intention to combine his medical expertise with a J.D. degree and enrolled at Harvard Law School. Broderick became the main provider for the family while Dan attended law school with the help of a student loan. Dan was quickly hired by a law firm in San Diego, California, and moved his family to the San Diego community of La Jolla. Broderick continued working part-time, often selling Tupperware or Avon products while raising the children as a stay-at-home mom.

So she worked her ass off to help him with his career too! And yet….

In the fall of 1982, Dan hired 21-year-old Linda Kolkena (1961–1989), a former Delta Airlines stewardess,[13] to be his legal assistant. As early as October 1983, Broderick suspected that Dan was having an affair with Kolkena, and accused her husband of infidelity. Dan denied having an affair with Kolkena, telling Broderick that she was “crazy.” Eventually, the marriage broke down, and against Broderick’s wishes, Dan moved out in February 1985.[2] He eventually took custody of their children after Broderick dumped the children on his doorstep one by one. Dan eventually confessed to Broderick that her suspicions about his affair with Kolkena were true and a drawn-out and hostile divorce ensued. Broderick vs. Broderick became one of the more infamous divorce cases in the US, primarily because of issues involving women who had worked while putting their husbands through graduate and professional school.

In the Bible, it is written, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Dan Broderick was a hypocrite who didn’t deserve custody of his kids. Betty should have gotten custody, with Dan paying tons of child support and limited visitation rights.

The divorce was finalized in 1989, four years after Dan filed the petition. Broderick’s behavior became increasingly violent and irrational. Broderick left hundreds of profane messages on Dan’s answering machine, ignored countless restraining orders that forbade her from setting foot on Dan’s property, vandalized his new home, and even drove her car into his front door despite the fact that their children were inside the house at the time.

On April 22, 1989, Dan and Kolkena were married.

Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” – Matthew 5:32    I would assume the same is true if the genders are reversed. From a strictly Christian perspective, Dan and Linda had an illegitimate marriage. Dan should have been kicked out of the Roman Catholic Church. But Berry wasn’t helping with her vengeful behavior.

Eight months after buying a Smith & Wesson revolver and seven months after Dan and Linda were married, Betty Broderick drove to Dan’s house at 1041 Cypress Avenue in the Marston Hills neighborhood near Balboa Park in San Diego.[2] Broderick used a key that she had stolen from her daughter Lee to enter the house while the couple slept; she shot and killed them. The murders occurred at 5:30 a.m. on Sunday, November 5, 1989—two days before Betty’s 42nd birthday. Two bullets hit Linda in the head and chest, killing her instantly; one bullet hit Dan in the chest as he apparently was reaching for a phone; one bullet hit the wall, and one bullet hit a nightstand. Dan was 44 (17 days shy of his 45th birthday); Linda was 28.

The Bible also says, “Thou shalt not kill.” So Betty was a hypocrite too!

Broderick is serving her sentence at the California Institution for Women[16] (CIW), in Chino, California. In January 2010, her first request for parole was denied by the Board of Parole Hearings because she did not show remorse and did not acknowledge wrongdoing.[17] She was denied parole in November 2011[18] and again in January 2017. She will not be eligible again until January 2032.[19]

Why the hell is parole an issue when it comes to a crime that cannot be reversed, like murder?

I’ve often heard that in conservative circles, women are expected to be chaste and men are not. I can’t see how that can be justified given this story above.

And it was not just Dan and Linda that were victims. Dan and Betty’s three surviving children also suffered. But I guess the idiot adults in this case never thought about them!

Elbow Room, my @$$!

Watch this video:


I remember watching this many times as a child along with the Saturday morning cartoons. It never occurred to me that what I was seeing was white supremacist propaganda. But some on YouTube have pointed that out!

For reference, read this:  The Louisiana “Purchase”

As a adult, I realized that Schoolhouse Rock glossed over what happed to the Native Americans like they never existed.
“Hey man, we needed some elbow room, so we’re gonna take an entire continent and kill and enslave 9/10ths of you.”
They tried enslaving Natives at first, but it was too difficult. They did forcefully confine many of them to reservations, which like a form of enslavement.
Every time they say elbow room, one Settler kills a Native American family
Then an apologist for racism speaks up.
Yeah. Life would be so much better living in wigwams and hunting buffalo. Seriously, it wasn’t a matter of racism. It simply was a matter of a superior civilization absorbing uncivilized peoples. The same thing that was happening in the americas long before europeans arrived.
 that’s pretty fucking racist, you are basically saying we should massacre them because we are “superior”
@Chaos Insurgent B-2607 BTW, we didn’t massacre anyone. We moved here. Indians didn’t like it. War ensued. We won. Tough titty. Otherwise you’d be posting using smoke signals instead that fancy phone/computer. Now, kindly shove your SJW virtue-signaling.
Actually, we DID massacre Native Americans.
The Wounded Knee Massacre, also called the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a domestic massacre of several hundred Lakota Indians, almost half of whom were women and children, by soldiers of the United States Army. It occurred on December 29, 1890,[5] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota, following a botched attempt to disarm the Lakota camp.
@Chaos Insurgent B-2607 I’d still like to know why my profile pic of a red slash through the face of a mass-murdering communist is “anti Indian”. Pray tell. And I’m still not going to lose sleep over the fate of the American Indian, just as I’m not going to lose sleep over the fate of the various tribes in pre-Roman Europe. Humanity was better off in the long run in both cases.
So the Native Americans were indeed not part of humanity?
They are still fucking humans, just because of their race doesn’t make them inhuman and deserve to die. If we let them live, they would have gotten new tech like the telegraph. There is no harm done, you racist fucktard.
Later, the racist says:
@Chaos Insurgent B-2607 I asked “what would you have US do?” Not, “what would you have preferred your ancestors did?” Besides, I never killed any Indians, nor did any any of my ancestors, so there is no blood on my hands. If you are that overcome by white guilt, then you need to move back to “Whitelandia.” Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath.
That’s the same attitude of ahistoricality I described here:
Why would they live in wigwams? You do know that one culture can use the technology of another culture right? If the natives were allowed to live near us they would eventually start using our technology.
@Rugged Individualist I like how “Stop lying and acknowledge what happened in history” gets framed as “Feel bad about something that happened” like you don’t know exactly what you’re doing.
Rugged Individualist If you were alive during the Holocaust, you’d be one of the people who didn’t give a shit until it affected you.
And there was this:
Growing up and listening to this song in the 1970s, it jived with what I was being taught in school. And as a catchy song about the expansion of the country, it does, I guess from one perspective, broadly summarize the subject. With the benefit of greater knowledge and the perspective of years I can see how this subject and others were seasoned to be more palatable to a largely white audience of Americans. The idea of manifest destiny was contrived to justify white settlement and cultural expansion of lands that were already, though maybe sparsely, settled by other peoples. It is not that I feel that there is anything inherently immoral about people moving and starting lives in different places, or in the course of doing so, influencing or being influenced by other cultures. But the westward expansion of the United States was conducted, at many turns, by unfair and deceptive means — indeed with violence and hatred. Manifest destiny could be seen as a precursor to the Nazi concept of lebensraum which was used to justify Hitler’s wars in the east. I hope we have advanced in our understanding of these events, but my suspicion is that the progress has been slow.
Conservative bigots may argue in defense of their present day bullshit and their ancestors’ atrocities, but over time the younger ones not brainwashed by various forms of tribalism will reject such things, take over, and make society as a while more enlightened and humane. I just hope that revolution happens in time.

A former TERF defects and exposes the cultlike nature of the movement she once believed in.

Here is a story about a lesbian who was sucked into joining the anti-transgender movement, only to reject it later.

The ‘gender critical’ feminist movement is a cult that grooms, controls and abuses, according to a lesbian who managed to escape

‘TERF is a slur’: Lesbian who left gender-critical movement calls it a cult

“TERF is hate speech and it’s time to condemn it,” gender-critical writer Amy Dyess announced in October 2018 – words she now regrets.

“TERF is a slur used to sexually harass, threaten, and silence lesbians,” continued Amy’s viral Medium post, which was liked more than 4,300 times.

Back then, Amy was connected to an international network of powerful lesbians.

She believed, like many people in the “gender critical” feminist movement do, that the lesbian community to which she belonged was under attack from trans-rights activists.

She believed that lesbian identity itself was being infringed on and erased by trans women, and that the media didn’t care – more than that, she believed that the media was being controlled by trans people.

She believed that she was part of the fight back against trans-rights activists – part of the fight back against homophobia.

Obviously, if there was evidence that transgender people in general were seeking to deny lesbians equal rights with others, wouldn’t they themselves have said so? If they didn’t why assume that was their  purpose?

Amy, who is based in Seattle, doesn’t believe those things any more. Looking back on her time in the “gender critical” feminist movement, she is unequivocal: it’s a cult.

A cult that groomed her when she was vulnerable and sleeping in her car; a cult that sought to control her, keeping tabs on her movements and dictating what she could and couldn’t say; a cult that was emotionally and sexually abusive towards her.

As Amy began to notice more and more red flags about the GC movement – like how it defended abusive women, how it wouldn’t let lesbians speak out about sexual assault perpetrated by women, and how it was forming alliances with homophobic groups – she started asking questions.

You may read the rest of that article. The basic premise of the anti-transgender movement is as follows:

  1. Men by nature are morally inferior to women (reverse sexism)
  2. People cannot be allowed to change their gender, but must be kept in the gender they were assigned to at birth, regardless of their desires and feelings (gender essentialism)
  3. Therefore, the reason transwomen (who are still men) have for wanting to use women’s restrooms is to enable acts of rape or other forms of sexual assault against women.


And that is why the “gender critical” movement is a cult. It was discussed on reddit here:

Some people just need a reason to hate, and for TERFs, transgender people play the same purpose as Jews do for anti-Semites, blacks do for white supremacists, and gays do for homophobes. There is no difference; bigotry is bigotry and phony rhetoric to justify bigotry is just that.

I don’t see the relationship between lesbianism and attacking transgender people. Are most lesbians supportive of transgender rights?

Just like some try to manipulate American Jews and African-Americans against each other.


I stumbled upon that sub one day and it was so painful to read. I can’t believe how horrible it is. Feminism is nothing if it’s not intersectional.


I did the same. I thought ‘Gender Critical’ would be like a group to discuss gender roles. I remember seeing posts and comments just ripping trans people to shreds. Such vile horrible things they are would say. I floored it straight out’a there.


TERFs are like the female version of the MRAs. Just women’s safety instead of men’s rights as the bullshit premise for a shit ton of hatred at their respective targets.

Which is exactly the same conclusion I reached!


I remember when the term “radical feminist” was used by antifeminists to denigrate anyone who argued for women’s rights. When did it become a term to describe transphobes?


Actual radical feminists have always been supportive of trans women. People will be able to discover 1940s pro-trans people radical feminist literature if they want. Charles Fourier who coined the word “feminist” was also supportive of trans people. Catherine MacKinnon’s first client was a trans woman. Andrea Dworkin was supportive of both trans and intersex people ( even before the term intersex was coined.). Actual radical feminists had already begun promoting the singular “they” nonbinary pronouns in the early 1970s .


That is what I thought. It has always been my opinion that feminist and radical were synonymous. If the antifeminists think they are insulting us by calling us radical feminists, I say “smash the patriarchy.” I rather resent that the term has been co-opted by TERFs, who don’t seem to be feminist at all.


Completely agree with you.

I can’t stand these particular branches of “feminists”:

  1. TERFs

  2. Choice “feminists”. — anything a woman “choose” to do is empowering.

  3. Sex-positive “feminists” — originated in the U.S after actual feminists tried to pass a civil right legislature that would have granted “women, men, transsexual, and children” survivors of porn industry (revenge porn, trafficking, violence against performers etc.) civil rights to seek damages against porn distributors and websites such as pornhub in civil courts.

  4. Mainstream/neoliberal “feminists” — more women billionaires .

These 4 reactionary groups of pseudo feminists just managed to completely colonize the movement.

That last comment is questionable for this reason, but I can let it slide.

Shoghi Effendi, Covenant Breaker

In a blog entry from over a decade ago, I directly assaulted the credibility of the Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi, who led the Baha’i Faith from 1921 until his death in 1957. To this day, I consider The Fatal Flaw of Baha’i Authority to be my one of my greatest works and the ultimate refutation of the Baha’i Faith as led by the leadership based in Haifa, Israel.

I have also debunked the credibility of Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament, the very document that Shoghi Effendi based his authority on.

It is shocking enough that the so-called Guardian did not uphold the Covenant at the time of his death. But what if I told you that he also broke it while he was alive?

When he was Guardian, Shoghi Effendi would often expel dissident Baha’is from the community, including nearly ALL his closest relatives. But a reading of the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha reveals that he should NOT have had that power and he was abusing his position as Guardian!

After declaring the absolute authority of the Guardian, Abdu’l-Baha says this:

My object is to show that the Hands of the Cause of God must be ever watchful and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against the Guardian of the Cause of God, cast him out from the congregation of the people of Bahá and in no wise accept any excuse from him.

So the Hands of the Cause of God are expected to expel those disloyal to the Guardian, not the Guardian himself. Meanwhile….

Should any of the members [of the Universal House of Justice] commit a sin, injurious to the common weal, the Guardian of the Cause of God hath at his own discretion the right to expel him, whereupon the people must elect another one in his stead.

So the only expulsion the Guardian is empowered to do is to remove members of the UHJ from that body, and not necessarily from the Baha’i community completely. So how did Shoghi Effendi gain the same power to expel Baha’is completely as the Hands of the Cause of God? By merely asserting he had that power already! But if he did, then the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha really should have read:

My object is to show that the Guardian of the Cause of God must be ever watchful and so soon as he finds anyone beginning to oppose and protest against him, cast the Covenant breaker out from the congregation of the people of Bahá and in no wise accept any excuse from him.

The Constitution of the United States of America grants Congress, not the President, the power to declare war, but it also grants the President the rank of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. But the last time Congress did declare war was in December 1941, right after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the USA has fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, because of the President taking advantage of his position of Commander-in-Chief. This is straight up TYRANNY the American people should NEVER have tolerated!

Likewise, Baha’is the world over blindly assumed that Shoghi Effendi had the right to expel people from the Baha’i community. He didn’t even start to appoint living Hands of the Cause of God until 1951, thirty years after he began his Guardianship and he NEVER served as a member of the UHJ! Why not? Was his megalomania so problematic that he was never willing to share power with anyone in his early days as Guardian?

Then he never should have been Guardian to begin with.

Wahid Azal and his Bayani gang hit a new low

Imagine you are a famous horror novelist, like Stephen King, with millions of fans around the world. You decide to write a historical fiction novel set during World War II and focusing on the Holocaust. You write the story about a concentration camp as accurately as possible, depicting the atrocities committed there in graphic detail and the Nazis involved as cruel and powerful, while their Jewish victims are shown to be helpless, the story only ending with the liberation of the camp by Allied forces. At no point do you endorse anything about Nazism, nor do you attack the Jewish community. And yet, after the novel is published, you are accused of being pro-Nazi, anti-Semetic, racist, and white supremacist, and you get tons of hate mail and even some death threats, causing you to go into hiding and consider quitting writing altogether. This despite you having made statements damning the Nazis and supporting Zionism in the past; the novel is considered proof of your true nature by people who are your sworn enemies.

This is similar to the situation I am facing right now. Let me provide some background.

In 2017, Roy Moore, a right-wing religious extremist and former judge, ran for a place in the U S Senate, but lost to Democrat Doug Jones. During his campaign, it was revealed that he had violated the bodily autonomy of several young girls when he was decades younger, disturbing the people of Alabama enough to make them reject him. This was at a time when the #metoo movement, asserting the right of women to no longer tolerate sexual harassment from men, was a major social force. I decided to support this movement by discussing it on my blog.

Thus on December 18, 2017, I wrote and published a blog entry titled, “Why I am far better than Roy Moore”. I described an actual incident I had with a young girl and how, even when given a chance to molest her, I chose NOT to do that and let her go because I respected her body and mind enough to do so. Far from being an endorsement of child sexual abuse and pedophilia, it was a total condemnation of those things and a warning to adults about how to treat younger people.

Because the girl I was with seemed to be giving me romantic signals, I mistakenly thought she had a crush on me and so I thought I needed to address that issue directly with her. But instead, she clearly explained that she only saw me as a friend and was not in love with me. The moment she made that clear, I dropped the subject and moved on. My error was thinking her overly affectionate nature was something more. That’s it. I made NO attempt to seduce the girl, tell her she HAD to have sex with me at any point, or anything so disgusting. That simply didn’t happen!

Last year, I had a dramatic falling out with Wahid Azal, who like me was an activist against the Baha’i Faith. But unlike me, he was the leader of his own “Bayani” cult based on the teachings of the Bab mixed with Marxism and other left wing extremist views. I refused to endorse his cult and when he was expelled from the ExBahai subreddit for disruptive conduct, I sided with the moderators of it against Azal. That turned him against me and over the next several months, he proceeded to accuse me of being racist, a white nationalist, a pro-Baha’i operative in league with the Baha’i leadership in Haifa (he also accused the ExBahai subreddit moderators of that), and even of being gay and also lusting after Azal’s wife before she died (hardly what a gay man would do, eh?). Of course, he could make none of those claims stick because there was no real evidence for any of them and I had made my rejection of racism and other forms of bigotry all too clear on my blog, and everywhere else for that matter. So what else is there to do when you are desperate to smear me?

By this time, I had long forgotten about the blog entry I had written about Roy Moore and the little girl I’d been with and had moved on to many other things in my life. But Wahid Azal found that blog entry and he and his cult followers began to spread links to it in various places, and he also made a video attacking me titled (I kid you not) “Dale Husband confesses to being a Paedophile”.

Needless to say, that is an outright lie, just like all the other lies that bastard has told about me. The only thing I ever confessed to on the blog entry in question was facing a difficult situation with a child and treating that child like an independent person rather than a sex object. A pedophile is a person attracted sexually only to children and aggressively seeking them out for sexual purposes, disregarding their own feelings and needs. Not only do I condemn such a thing, I actually believe convicted child molesters deserve the DEATH PENALTY! Indeed, I even condemned Moses, God’s supreme lawgiver, for endorsing child sexual abuse and genocide, as depicted here:

After learning what Azal had done, I asked a friend of mine, the same one I consulted in making the controversial blog entry, what I should do. She said, “Unfortunately in my experience very little weight is put into someone’s intention, only in other’s perception. I would probably take it down if I were you, but there’s no action that will immediately make this problem go away for you. Good luck, friend. Things like this are never easy.” So I removed the blog entry from public viewing.

So this is how utterly low Azal has sunk and now I am going to have to be a lot more aggressive in dealing with him and his lies on YouTube as well as on reddit. His online presence must be eradicated and his Bayani cult brought down to ruin for good! He has simply given me NO OTHER CHOICE!

Fortunately, it seems that some progress in getting rid of him has already been made.

Blog has been removed

Sorry, the blog at has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

So there’s that. You can only defame people for so long before your lies catch up to you! 🙂