site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   831 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for November 7, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Court opinion:

  • A particular business has been operating since year 1902, first as a fruit-and-dairy farm, later as only a dairy farm, and now as a timber farm. It consists of 1100 acres (1.7 mi2, 450 ha, 4.5 km2).

  • In year 2018, the business pays 112 k$ for a used Mercedes-Benz G-Class SUV. It claims a sales-tax exemption since the vehicle will be used in farming. But in year 2020 the department of taxation disagrees and imposes a penalty. (1) The exemption requires that the business be engaged in farming. However, despite claiming to be a timber farm, this business has never actually sold any timber, and indeed has reported no sales, income, or labor expenses since year 2011. (2) The exemption requires that the vehicle be used directly in farming. However, this vehicle is used merely to transport people and equipment through the forest, not for a farming activity like plowing. (3) The exemption requires that the vehicle be used primarily in farming. However, the business failed to keep mileage logs as proof of how the vehicle was used, and even involved the vehicle in a minor crash outside a post office outside the forest. In year 2024, the board of tax appeals affirms.

  • In year 2025, the state supreme court reverses. (1) The business has implemented a forest-management plan and has spent thousands of dollars on hiring contractors to remove invasive species that can damage the trees. Since trees take decades to mature into harvestable timber, this is enough to show that appellant is engaged in farming even in the absence of much activity at the moment. (2) "Property may qualify as being used in farming even though it is used to perform an intermediate step in the process of producing crops." "Just as a tractor provides the means for conveying a plow through a field where it can act upon the ground, the vehicle in this case provides the means for conveying chainsaws, marking tools, herbicides, and workers through [appellant's] forest." And the word "directly" is not in the statute. (Wikipedia describes the G-Class as a luxury vehicle, but the business in this case testified that it combined the off-road capability of a Jeep Wrangler with the cargo capacity of a Chevrolet Silverado, and both of those properties were needed in the forest.) (3) Mileage logs are not required by the statute. The business testified that farm-related use of the vehicle was around 95 percent, and that testimony was not rebutted by the department of taxation, so it stands.

However, despite claiming to be a timber farm, this business has never actually sold any timber, and indeed has reported no sales, income, or labor expenses since year 2011.

Correction: it sold about $490K of timber during Murphy’s tenure as forester, which ran until 2008. Without that fact, the operation sounds a lot sketchier!

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats