This paper, more or less, was an analysis of necessary moral content in works of fiction. It’s boring.
Blade Runner and Artificial Intelligence: Examining the Ethical Status of Thinking Machines
I actually wrote a scholarly paper on Blade Runner. Mull that over in your head for twenty seconds, and thank whatever force or motivation led you away from Philosophy. This was for the legendary Peter Caws’ Philosophy and Film course. I’d like to think he saw my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, here, but if you never take it out, something something, people will think you always look that way “don’t make faces, it’ll get stuck.”
Or something. Anyway, here is:
Memoirs of a Partial Murderboner Comeback Tour 2012
Instead of setting this story up in any meaningful way, I’ll just shoot to the email I sent my professor when I turned this in.
“Professor Bayard,
I am not good at fiction. Either that, or I lack the empathy to write believable romance. Or, perhaps I rely on subtlety and mockery as a crutch. These are a few of the conclusions I’ve reached about myself in the process of finishing this.
It’s not what anyone wanted, it’s 24 pages long, it’s not as funny as it is esoteric, and there’s little-to-no MURDERBONER. But, then, aesthetic assessment is subjective, and I’m a serious self-hater, so here she is. I really hope you enjoy (hope being the operative concept–not enjoy), ‘cuz this one went way different. Good luck?
Regards,
Trevor”
People seemed to like it, though.
Continue reading “Memoirs of a Partial Murderboner Comeback Tour 2012”
What Happened in Boulder
This is one of two of my Fiction Writing class stories that I will post. It’s a fictional account of a campaign… IN THE FUTURE. This was supposed to be a modular story format, and I’m lazy. This is the result of those two facts. Though, to be honest, the veins of American political life that I accidentally hit in this story are proving to be the bulging, needle-ready veins of prominence in the year of our lord 2017, so I find myself thinking about this story a lot. And yes, Drew MaRgary (because that was funny to me, for some reason; I dunno, I was high for most of Fall 2012).
Justice Isn’t: a Marxist Critique of Liberal Justice
Alright, this is my bread and butter. Originally written for my Fall 2012 Social and Political Philosophy course, the prompt was “Which philosopher provides the best conception of ‘Justice?’” So, of course I answered it by negating it. What follows is crap, but it got me an A and the professor thought it was a unique (if funny) way to get my point across.
Continue reading “Justice Isn’t: a Marxist Critique of Liberal Justice”
Liberal Contractarianism, the Right Alternative, and Universal Healthcare
This was my final paper (only paper… only assignment PERIOD) for a graduate course I accidentally signed up for: Economic Justice. This particular paper is a variant of a thing I’ve done often, and it was a lot more of a bet-hedging than the “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ECONOMIC JUSTICE” Marxist critique I wanted to do. But, alas, I think you’re only allowed to do that once during college.
Continue reading “Liberal Contractarianism, the Right Alternative, and Universal Healthcare”
“Going Bookless Has Benefits And Drawbacks”
Here’s a thing I wrote for the Hatchet. It’s whatever.
Continue reading ““Going Bookless Has Benefits And Drawbacks””
Untitled Mind, Brain, AI Final
Wherein Trevor attempts to convince the reader to let an AI construct have ethical consideration. Sophomore year; reads like it. Laughs abound. 7/10.
“We’re Not Asking The Right Questions”
This is #controversycolumn 2/2, which ran on May 12th. If that sentence is nonsense, look for the post entitled “Something something Superficial Spring Fling.” The only thing notable about this column, beyond the caveats about these two that I provided in the prior post, is that I asked that my major be omitted from my “about me” at the end when this got published. I was denied. This is how rifts develop.
“A Superficial Choice For Spring Fling”
This ran just after Spring Fling when GWU had Macklemore come through. I didn’t go; I had work to do.
Disclaimer: This is #controversycolumn ½. I call it such because it was the first where my point was completely perverted and wrrrecked by the edits made. And, you know, that’s fine for The Hatchet. And I’ll acknowledge that each of the #controversycolumns is just dripping with bitterness. But since this is my backwater blog, I’m going to post my favorite draft of the process from these two #controversycolumns after the version that ran in The Hatchet. And it’s not (totally) a vanity thing. In each of these two columns, my point was just DRASTICALLY different than what came out. So, yeah, I’ll throw my shit in. Me, me, me, me; my, my, my, my.