site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20hr ago (text post)   590 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 19, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Court opinion:

  • <del>Adam and Steve</del><ins>Richard and Michael</ins> become romantically involved in year 1991, and exchange rings in year 1992. However, they live in Nevada, which neither permits in-state same-sex marriages nor recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages. In year 2008, California legalizes same-sex marriage, and the two men get married there. But Nevada does not recognize the marriage until the federal supreme court forces it to do so in year 2015.

  • In year 2020, Michael files for divorce. However, there is a snag. For purposes of determining what property is community property gained during the marriage and subject to division in the divorce, when did the marriage begin—1992 (when the men would have married if Nevada had permitted it), 2008 (when the parties entered into a marriage that was recognized in California but not in Nevada), or 2015 (when Nevada started recognizing their marriage)?

  • The state supreme court finds that (1) the federal supreme court's decision does require Nevada to retroactively recognize the 2008 California marriage, but (2) Nevada's courts are not authorized to create out of thin air a 1992 common-law marriage for these same-sex romantic partners when Nevada's legislature has explicitly refused to recognize common-law marriages even for opposite-sex romantic partners since 1943.

Court opinion:

  • A person is pulled over for driving an unregistered car. He immediately starts shouting (among other things) "I'll fuck you up" at the two police officers, repeatedly tries to get out of the car while the officers tell him to stay in the car and physically hold his car door shut, and eventually successfully exits the car, fights with the officers, and has to be restrained. He is acquitted of assault, but is convicted of making terroristic threats.

  • The defendant argues that the conviction is not supported by the evidence. He points to a case where a person arrested for public drunkenness told police officers he was going to kill them, but his conviction for making terroristic threats was vacated because, in his "obviously inebriated" status and "agitated and angry state of mind", he merely "expressed transitory anger rather than a settled purpose to carry out the threat or to terrorize the other person".

  • The trial judge rejects the defendant's argument. In this case, defendant actively engaged in a fistfight with the officers, showing that he indeed was willing to carry out his threats to harm them. The trial judge imposes a total sentence of four years (with the possibility of parole after two years) for the two threats. The appeals panel affirms.

The market (ﷺ) has determined that these vastly different items have roughly equivalent values. Isn't money wonderful?

60 minutes with a jade-like beauty: 160 dollars (240 Australian dollars)

Gotta love the brothel opening at 10 AM, in case any Aussies want to get a quick COOM in before lunch.

The market (ﷺ) has determined that these vastly different items have roughly equivalent values. Isn't money wonderful?

“You can express anything in terms of anything else, my lord. How many lemon tarts is a horse worth? How many newspapers equate to a good dinner? It isn’t harder to determine than some number of rubles for another number of yen, if you know the trick of it.” (Short story)

Thank you for the story link, I quite enjoyed it.

It's a good one. I've been rereading every Christmas season.

The state supreme court finds that (1) the federal supreme court's decision does require Nevada to retroactively recognize the 2008 California marriage, but (2) Nevada's courts are not authorized to create out of thin air a 1992 common-law marriage for these same-sex romantic partners when Nevada's legislature has explicitly refused to recognize common-law marriages even for opposite-sex romantic partners since 1943.

That seems a reasonable enough conclusion for these specific facts, but good heavens do I get twitchy about these sort of retroactive judicial decisions being decided this late in the game. Here, it's 'just' one guy's 401(k) and some stocks, and while that probably sucks for his ex-husband's finances, there's a lot of other stuff that's downstream of this sorta divorce evaluation, and it's been five years since this pair filed for divorce, and a decade since Obergefell. It's just been up in the air that whole time?

There's not really a good solution, I recognize that. Party presentation exists for a reason, Mootness and ripeness same, and past attempts to set up blanket rules for this stuff have been an absolute mess. But it's like the first line to an Aristocrats joke that ends with the shout "a Justice System".

The market (ﷺ) has determined that these vastly different items have roughly equivalent values. Isn't money wonderful?

Lmao. Money is strange. We live in such an odd world.

I appreciate you doing these.

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