Hmmm…
On a side note, we have observed representation from thousands of Iranians in Canada that have opposed Steyn’s work as they feel it exposes them to discrimination.
We don’t try to defend anyone or anything that you identify, but would object to your characterization of threats regardless. law is cool
We’ve provided more information since that neither of them previously had here. law is cool
I think it fascinating that the Law is Cool kids write in a language which looks very much like English but isn’t.
And who are these “thousands of Iranians in Canada that have opposed Steyn’s work”. And what is an “observed representation”?
Do they have a peer reviewed journal article going to these thousands and their representation?
Update: Thanks for the link Mark! Connoisseurs of “not quite English” may be interested in the Ur-text of this variant – “English as She is Spoke (1883)” – about which Mark Twain wrote “Nobody can add to the absurdity of this book, nobody can imitate it successfully, nobody can hope to produce its fellow; it is perfect.”
December 5th, 2008 at 6:22 am
I work with legal documents all day, and I can get used to the “party of the second part” stuff. But this seems to be some sort of Babelfish glitch. I mean, its probably racist to ask lawyers in Ontario to speak SOME English, isn’t it?
December 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I saw Special K on Canada AM, lol he stated the “Liberals” were blind sided by Harper. Yea we believe the Coalition of ASSes was just a one off designed last week. NOT, the battle plan was in the works since the last election, my opinion only. Once a Liberal with ethics gets the evidence to Harper we’ll let the people who vote know how dirty the Liberals were in the attempt to take away the PM’s office whilst negating the electorial vote.
Spin spin Kinsella but Iggy endorsed the Coalition on Monday of this week, get the BMI challenged lady out and let her sing La Traviata.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
“observed representation from thousands of Iranians” So, what was observed? “Representation” as in hearsay, as in third-party, as in he-told-me-so.
What about all this research, documentation, peer-rev.. blah, blah, blah. The more they spout the more infantile they become.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I’ve been listening to the MSM on this and their take is that Harper and the Tories are the ones who have caused a national unity crisis and not the Grits and the Dippers!
December 6th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Reading the stuff from the LIC kiddies makes me think of a line from The Simpsons, where Lisa says, “I know those words, but that sign makes no sense.”
December 6th, 2008 at 7:16 am
My personal favourite is a sentence from their argument re Islamic laws on bestiality, which beguns thus (cut & pasted, word for word): “The first is that there is that although it is a criminal act there there is no specific punishment. . .”
December 6th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Those kids at Law Is Cool continue to say the damnest things! Another update with puns, yet!
http://lawiscool.com/2008/12/04/a-miller-update/#comments
Law is Cool: There is far less of a stretch between that position than the one that Steyn proposes – that Khomeini is advocating bestiality. As students of comparative law, it’s relatively easy for us to point of the Fallaci (sic) of this.
There are generally several major legal precedents on bestiality in Islam. The first is that there is that although it is a criminal act there there is no specific punishment (ابوداؤد), the second is that it is a capital offence and the animal is also killed because it should not be consumed (ابوداؤد, ترمذی, ابن ماجه, أحمد ). Proponents of the first position suggest a variety of sanctions, which can include mandatory sale, or alternatively a prohibition of consumption as a punitive measure.
It’s not quite different than what we find in ויקרא,
וּבְכָל-בְּהֵמָה לֹא-תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ, לְטָמְאָה-בָהּ; וְאִשָּׁה, לֹא-תַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי בְהֵמָה לְרִבְעָהּ–תֶּבֶל הוּא.
—
וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתּוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה–מוֹת יוּמָת; וְאֶת-הַבְּהֵמָה, תַּהֲרֹגוּ
וְאִשָּׁה, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרַב אֶל-כָּל-בְּהֵמָה לְרִבְעָה אֹתָהּ–וְהָרַגְתָּ אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה, וְאֶת-הַבְּהֵמָה; מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם
A far cry from condoning bestiality, but then Steyn doesn’t read Farsi, Arabic, or Hebrew, and barely reads legalese English.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I was the commenter to whom the “Law Is Cool Contributor” replied. Before replying, he, she, or it removed passages from my comment without even supplying ellipses in place of what he chopped out. My point was that Steyn was making a reductio ad absurdum, and that the reductio was so obvious as to make the misconstrual an embarrassment to someone who expects to make a career out of textual interpretation and rhetoric. Instead of replying to the point, the little boorister replied with a tu-quoque, wandered off into more hair-splitting about what should be done with the beast that got bested, piled on another tu-quoque, and topped it all off with a big dollop of condescension. He seemed completely unaware that everything he said was irrelevant.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Cindy,
Well, they did at least publish part of your comment, which is more than they do for most.
While their ability to entirely miss the point is breathtaking, I tend to think that in this case the misconstrual is intentional. In my opinion they are fully aware that they are committing numerous logical fallacies in twisting Steyn’s and your arguments beyond recognition. For some lawyers, misconstruing your opponent is a job skill, not an embarrassment, which is one reason that lawyers enjoy the reputation that they do.
That said, they sure are poor writers, which makes their criticism of Steyn kind of hollow (I am making legitimate use of tu quoque here, lol). My favorite gaffe occurs in this line of their reply: “As students of comparative law, it’s relatively easy for us to point of the Fallaci (sic) of this.” They mean to point out their clever pun but unintentionally highlight the ungrammatical phrase “to point of” instead. (Not to mention that “sic” means “transcribed exactly as written” and is thus never applicable to one’s own writing.)
December 10th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Are you guys serious?
Steyn has completely ignored their points. He looks like a total fool now.
I guess you have to ask yourself whether your site is for serious and balanced debate, or just a propaganda tool? If it’s balanced debate, then you definitely need to actually focus on what their issues are (and not side ones you bring up in response).