I see your point, but do you think Juicy Campus is worse because it's completely anonymous? At least with other message boards you have some sort of name that people can track your opinions with.

I know this isn't quite what you're after, but my psychology professor tried to explain the argument against intelligent design/creationism by using the example of two cities. Brasilia, Brazil's capital city, was designed and built in the late 1960s with a conscious design plan. According to my professor, the city was a total flop. Look at London, on the other hand -- it's a sprawling city not built on a grid or with any logical planning, and it's one of the most successful cities in the world. Also, evolution takes centuries and centuries, so such a demonstration even with simple bacteria would be a monumental undertaking.

I'm kind of torn on this one. On one hand, a lot of the comments aren't very serious, but on the other hand, it's pretty scary to see what people will say when they know it's anonymous. Overall, I'd say it's not such a good idea. I know I wouldn't want to show up on it!

I agree with you. Additionally, during Jesus' life, the title of "Son of God" was a common title given to well-respected people. A few of Jesus' contemporaries also held this title, so the title was not mutually exclusive as it is today.

I'm pretty sure that currently the law is that any third party participant needs 15% of public opinion to be able to participate in a debate. I agree with this law -- with only a few supporters, I think if Nader participated in the debates and the election, it would unfairly skew the results and not really add anything valuable to the race.

I think she'll definitely stick around. There was a picture of them holding hands in the New York Times -- it seems like she's appeared with him almost every time he's been in public. I think it's a sick and sleazy political gesture for her to be appearing with him in a show of support. If I were her, I'd leave his ass and come out with my own statement about how much of a corrupt jerk he is.

I think this guy has a point, but he goes about it completely the wrong way. He says that angry white men can be rich or poor, Democrat or Republican....but the angry white man prototype he describes is clearly a well-off conservative (a business owner who likes guns). Not to mention how creepy it is when he says the thought of killing someone who needs killing doesn't bother him. And I also didn't appreciate his derogatory nod toward women and how men should "rule" the family with a rational attitude.

Definitely unethical. The swaying factor for me was that many Indian women are powerless to make their own decisions and could be forced into surrogate motherhood. I would imagine that added to the stigma of carrying a child that is not your husband's could do some serious psychological damage.

you guys do know that the onion is a satirical magazine...

I can understand Harvard's decision from a religious standpoint, but in my opinion, there needs to be a substantial number of Muslim women who were affected. In the article, it only says six Muslim women asked for the change -- definitely not enough people to warrant a university-wide change. If Harvard catered to every six-student team asking for a change, who knows what would happen. As for the "segment of the Harvard female population" not found in gyms because they don't feel comfortable working out next to men -- get some self-esteem and get over it!