SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the "think-of-the-children"-is-not-working-out-so-well-here dept.
A "cult" has been implicated in cases of parents forcing their children to drink bleach as an autism cure (and surprisingly, it's not the cult known as 4chan):
Parents are making their children drink industrial bleach to cure them of autism—with the potentially deadly practice linked back to a U.S. cult. According to British tabloid the Sunday People, six British police forces have probed cases in which children as young as two have been forced to undergo the potentially lethal treatment.
The treatment being administered is CD (Chloride Dioxide) or MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution)—with a secret Facebook group touting its use to desperate parents in the U.K. The method has been promoted by a controversial U.S. church with a branch in Los Angeles - the secretive Genesis II Church, founded by Jim Humble, a former scientologist.
A 2016 investigation by Eyewitness News and ABC News found an underground network clustered in southern California promoting MMS on Facebook as a cure for ailments including cancer, Parkinsons, and autism in children.
The previous year the BBC exposed a secret conference in which leading figures from the church travelled to the U.K. to promote the use of MMS, which it claims is a non-dangerous religious sacrament. They believe that autism is caused by pathogens and parasites, which Chloride Dioxide kills. Doctors say that the claims of adherents are groundless, the solution is untested and can cause serious harm.
Bleach: the drink of choice for sophisticated memers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @05:57PM (3 children)
That was the joke.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 30 2018, @06:19PM (2 children)
Yes, and I get it and all, and it's spot on--but it's so spot on that I can see people arguing for the second option (forced no more kids, forced work to keep up the ones you have) over the first.
If someone breaks down my no trespassing sign while accessing my property, and then injures themselves trying to break into my house, I could well be held responsible for their injuries. In that kind of screwed up world, it almost looks like it makes less extreme sense. (If someone did that, in a more ideal world, they would owe me for the damage to my property and be responsible for the consequences of their own actions leading to their injury. But in a more ideal world, people would not feed bleach compounds to their children because the pastor told them to, under the impression that the pastor speaks for God.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @07:13PM (1 child)
OP was joking as well. There are underlying truths behind both comments about social responsibility vs irresponsibility.
It's more nuanced than that. "No trespassing" wouldn't hold in court, high fences and a bolted gate with "warning unsafe structure", "Danger 20,000 Volts" (etc) signs would. There we are again, the law abiding having to be double responsible because of stupid and irresponsible people.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 30 2018, @10:20PM
Personally, agreeing with you, I argue that that's the problem. I shouldn't have to say *why*, just "get off my lawn" should be enough.
Correct result: "Defendant was on Plaintiff's lawn despite a faded 'get off my lawn' sign, when defendant committed self-injury. Plaintiff was not involved except to the extent that defendant damaged plaintiff's property with his blood and tissue stains. Judgement is for the plaintiff."
Actual result: insanity