Posted on October 7 at 1:08 a.m.Suggest removal

This is by far the dumbest "Our View" that I think I have ever seen. The man in question was selling these videos of illegal activity for profit. If you travel down the slippery slope of allowing such behavior...you're traveling down the slippery slope of allowing child pornography to be sold for profit. Which slippery slope are you more comfortable with? The one that ends in the sale of child pornography or the one that limits free speech in regards to already established illegal activity. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and if you find such behavior (dog-fighting) so abhorrent, why not draw the line there?

You as a staff should be embarrassed for publishing this.

On

Posted on September 23 at 5:59 p.m.Suggest removal

Rhology said:

"That's the spirit of free inquiry! Just ignore everything that might have supernatural sources! There you go. You're really thinking outside the box."

You've got a great point. Let's have lectures/movies on ghost hauntings, witchcraft, astral projection, and psychics. Heck, let's have a psychic perform, I mean "predict the future", at the museum as well. It might be "free inquiry" but that doesn't make it science, and it doesn't mean that it should be conducted in a place of science (e.g., a museum of natural history).

On

Posted on September 23 at 1:21 p.m.Suggest removal

It's the museum of natural history...not supernatural history. By invoking a non-natural mechanism for "design" you're inherently going against the princples of the museum. I for one, applaud the museum for releasing this statement.

On

Posted on April 21 at 11:03 a.m.Suggest removal

I agree that a campus wide ban is probably a bit of an overreaction, but had smokers obeyed the 25ft rule near buildings maybe it wouldn't even be an issue. Although I'm sure some did follow the rule, many didn't and if they can't obey a simple rule like that then maybe there should be a campus ban.

On

Posted on November 4 at 5:30 p.m.Suggest removal

Now, I'm aware that not all pro-lifers are also anti-gay. However, I find it sort of hypocritical when we have pro-lifers encouraging women to give their children up for adoption, yet pro-lifers in states like Arkansas are currently arguing/voting for banning gay adoption. So, we want women to give up their children to adoption, yet, people who could provide the child with a family environment can't adopt them. Sure you could argue and I'm sure you will, that gays aren't a good family enviroment...to which I respond...so foster care/orphanage is better? Nothing like conservative hypocrisy.

On