This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Specifically for Unjust Enrichment it is called Quantum Merit in NC, @ToaKraka has a link to the jury instructions here, this looks slightly similar to the instructions we received for Quantum Merit. It was only applied for the divorce funds
I can't seem to find the Breach of Contract instructions, but it wasn't applied to the whole relationship but to individual elements. Essentially sets of offers and agreements. Like the hospital/birth costs, there was an offer of "paying half" and agreement to do so with both testifying under oath that they agreed to it. The terms were never specified but the jury instructions had a statement about a reasonable repayment schedule. Sorta the same for the credit card on deployment. He got sunk because his own testimony had him saying that she'd be paid back, realistically she didn't provide evidence that he did/didn't do so, especially when she had access to his accounts... but most of the jury went with the idea that he didn't and had agreed to do so.
Here's my response to the fraud, looks like its just a misc tort.
I think a bunch of this case rested on the fact that nobody on the jury (including me) had a good opinion of the defendant and no one thought he actually followed through on his commitments. He was demonstrably a man-child. Unfortunately not all of the jury considered the the plaintiff might not be telling the truth 100% and might be omitting the fact that she repaid herself from his accounts, with his implied consent, and was now just suing him for extra.
No disagreement.
More options
Context Copy link