Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Quark2005
That's a little extreme, IMO. Actively exposed as frauds and berated, yes, but locked up?

LOL, okay, so it's not a fully thought-out policy proposal. But, I don't have a problem if a parent says, "Here's what the science is, but we don't want to believe it because we find it religiously threatening grounds," and someone who just lies about what the science is ("science proves Noah's flood happened" and so forth) or who (like the Ham-ster, here) teach their children to be ignorant. I think that's the part that gets me. They are basically saying "don't learn this, make yourself ignorant." Anyone who does that has no business being a parent. Locking them up may be a bit extreme, but not by much, IMO.

165 posted on 03/23/2006 7:16:24 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]


To: WildHorseCrash
Anyone who does that has no business being a parent. Locking them up may be a bit extreme, but not by much, IMO.

I do think that the FTC should more thoroughly prosecute people who are peddling products based on demonstrably false claims under the pretense of science and/or medicine. Products & services sold by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, et.al. should be subject to the same legal scrutiny as the virulent fraud of that pharmaceutical conspiracy nut Kevin Trudeau.

These people are guilty of scientific fraud, plain and simple - they have the right to say what they want, but they cross a line when they begin charging people for their fraudulent "knowledge".

178 posted on 03/23/2006 9:13:27 AM PST by Quark2005 (Confidence follows from consilience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson