Deceptacle

Original Story: WMUR

3 Wolf Moon Shirt

I must admit, I was not aware that the "3 Wolf Moon" shirt came from NH. The fact that it does is amusing, but I think it's even more amusing that now the state is turning it into the official shirt of New Hampshire.

It would seem that this would mark the end for this internet meme, since it's already gotten so much mainstream exposure.

Schedule for Spring 2009-2010

Link to Original Schedule

Cloning tends to be a highly controversial and talked about topic in the area of bioethics. One of the major factors fueling the debate surrounding this subject is its use throughout various media forms, primarily science fiction. Unfortunately, this is often the sole exposure that the general public gets regarding cloning, and so they form a prejudice against a topic that they know little about, and that they are misinformed about.

The myths that surround cloning cause severe damage to the stance that the general public takes regarding its continuation. These myths arise from literature and film, and they are remarkably varied, ranging from the idea that cloned humans are direct copies, including age, personality, memories, and the like, to the idea that clones could be harvested for organs. Many of these myths do share a common root, that being the notion that cloning creates a direct copy of an existing individual. With regards to organ harvesting, by the time a cloned individual would actually be able to use the organ, it would probably already be too late. This fact generally gets overlooked by a layperson though when they formulate their opinion regarding cloning since they do not know any better.

Gregory Pence breaks the formulation of traditional moral arguments into two categories: direct and indirect. Direct arguments tend to involve the actual act and the immediate consequences of cloning, while indirect arguments lean more towards potential future problems, such as social or medical, which may or may not become an issue. The arguments that are used against cloning have aspects of the “yuck” factor, whether through religious beliefs or through instinctual tendencies, as well as concerns for a cloned human's future. Arguing against the “yuck” factor tends to be difficult because it tends to be a highly personal reaction, but as for the future aspect, this is much easier to discuss. One concern is the “right to unique genetic identity.” Pence throws a solid counter in when he asks “since so-called 'identical' twins share 99.9 percent of their genes, is their right to a unique identity violated by being a twin?” (Pence 147). This is a perfect example of why cloning should not be a problem. If the general public could be convinced of the fact that cloning is essentially like having a twin sibling years later, then maybe it would gain more acceptance. One could suppose that mother's would not appreciate this if their children played an April Fool's day joke on them by surprising her with their cloned child, but that shouldn't stop research into the area.

A very real objection to cloning that comes up though is the concern about abnormalities. According to Pence, “a high rate of abnormalities plague efforts to create primates by somatic cell nuclear transfer” (Pence 148). With such risks present, it keeps cloning from being human testable until cloning techniques improve drastically. As the ability to clone other mammals becomes more successful, this argument will lose ground and become a non-issue.

Cloning does have some real potential benefits though, and I personally believe that aside from the limitations on knowledge thus far, there should be no real opposition to cloning. Taking the genetic make up of a healthy adult alleviates much of the burden of worrying about genetic diseases that may be passed on through typical reproductive means. Assuming cloning techniques are greatly improved, it would mean one less thing to worry about for the parents of the child.

Allowing for people to have a child is also a very strong argument for cloning. While adoption is definitely one way to go, it can often be a complicated and difficult process, and many adults prefer to have a genetic bond with their child. Cloning could be viewed as yet another option that adults have for attempting to conceive a child. Whether it's because they waited too long or they are just having trouble conceiving, cloning could be one day added to the list of potential solutions that would ensure a genetic bond with the child, and would have the added known genetic health benefit.

At the very least, since cloning is similar to creating a twin years later, I see no real harm in allowing research into cloning to continue. As long as research is not being done on humans until the techniques are improved, it should not be any more controversial than any of the other reproductive research being done. There will always be naysayers who tout their religion as a logical reason against such research, but that should not be used when creating legislation. There may be some who are just repulsed by the idea of cloning, but I would question their reaction. Such a response should not happen if cloning becomes perfected. If cloning is perfected, a cloned birth would produce a healthy baby who will probably look very similar to the genetic provider. I would think that the age difference would be significant enough that such similarities in looks would not be an issue as well. I could see some repulsion if the age difference was only a few years, but if cloning is used for reproductive means, then that gap would be at least twenty five years at least.

While cloning is still in its early years, there is a lot of mixed feelings surrounding it. Most of these feelings are based off of science fiction and myth, but there are some much more reasonable concerns regarding cloning. As our ability gets better, and cloning become perfected, I would not be surprised to see it used as one of the various ways that a couple could reproduce. The genetic bond that parents and their children share is a strong one and cloning would be just another way in which to achieve that bond.

Download: Response Paper 2

My roommate and I enjoy watching the TV show Fringe, and we've developed a drinking game to go along with it, which I decided to augment with a few suggestions I've found floating around the internet

• 1 Drink for every series of questions Olivia has (it used to be for every question, but that got ridiculous)
• 1 Drink every time Walter says "hypothesis", "theory", or something similar
• 1 Drink whenever Walter mentions food. 2 Drinks if it's inappropriate
• 1 Drink whenever Walter references a previous project
• 1 Drink whenever someone says "door" or "portal"
• 1 Drink if Walter gets someone's name wrong
• 3 Drinks if you spot the observer. Finish your drink if you missed him by the end of the episode

I bowled a 269 today

I'm glad to say that I've still got it, so if this whole developer thing doesn't work out, I can be a professional bowler

Black and White Visual Studio Theme

This is a simple theme that I created which simplifies colors down to mostly black and white, with strings and string literals as a maroon color.  Identifiers, keywords, and user types are bold, and everything else is regular. Comments are silver color.

Download: B&W Settings.zip

Seriously loving this song right now. Give it a listen, it's got a catchy beat and some sweet DnB sounds

Saint Thomas Aquinas' first article, “Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident” basically provides three points which essentially say that God's existence does not need proof and is inherently known. He then adds the contrary point that God can be mentally thought to not exist, making the self-evident claim invalid. Aquinas goes through each of the three objections and says why they are not valid arguments for God's existence in terms of self-evidence.

The next section, “Whether God Exists?” lays out Aquinas' five reasons, as well as countering two objections to the existence of God. The first reason is basically a play off of Newtonian physics, where an object at rest stays in rest unless acted on by some sort of force. Since something needs to cause that force, the only way the very first motion was caused must have been by God, since otherwise everything would have been motionless. His second reason uses a similar structure, basically saying that the only way the first cause/effect happened must have been due to God. The third reason says that there is a distinction between possibility and actuality, and that without God, everything would only be a possibility and would never have come to be. The fourth reason follows the induction method, saying that there is a scale for measuring things, and that as there is a hottest thing, and a purest thing, so must there be a greatest thing, which is God. The last reason is a claim that without God to guide us to our end, we would have no direction and no capability of reaching those ends.

Download: Abstract 4 - Thomas Acquinas Reading

Anselm opens with a proposal that essentially makes the claim that God exists because no greater thing can be thought of. He says that it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in understanding, so in order for God to be the greatest thing, he must necessarily exist. Next, he explains that God could not be thought not to exist, since He is that great, and Anselm claims that something which no greater can be thought must definitely be thought to exist. Anselm then tries to explain how the “fool” says God doesn't exist, basically saying that there are two modes of thought. There is the inherent understanding, which carries weight within a person's beliefs, and then there is the use of mere words to say something, even though the words carry no weight. Anselm says this is how the fool is able to claim that God does not exist.

Gaunilo argues some points towards Anselm's claims, basically using a few main points. The first being that just understanding something doesn't mean it isn't false. He uses the example of the fake man. Even though the man described doesn't exist, a person could easily falsely believe that such a person did exist. He then attacks the no greater thought of point with the Lost Island example.

Anselm responds by essentially fleshing out his first set of arguments, and attempting to refute Gaunilo's arguments. Anselm tries to refute the Lost Island example by saying that his inference for greatest possible doesn't apply to the Island really.

Download: Abstract 3 - Anselm and Gaunilo Reading