| 19 comments ]

Shock of shockers, fmhLisa disagrees with Elder Oakes [sic]!

... While I think the analogy was unfortunate and inappropriate, especially considering that the church in the 60s was actively participating in discrimination. [sic] I do have sympathy for the point Oakes [sic] was trying to make ... Still his choice of defending civil freedoms also somewhat [sic] ironic ... almost always a mistake to compare oneself (or one’s opponent) to ... any iconic injustice. Will almost always backfire, make you look silly ...
She's write! [sic] Analogies are ridiculous little things, and someone with an extensive legal background, such as Elder Oakes [sic] certainly wouldn't understand the nuance of an analogy. It's not like a former judge would have experience taking similar facts of a previous case and making analogous application of the rule established in the previous case to the case at hand!

We at Snarkernacle found ourselves in a quandary. Who is write [sic]? Elder Oakes [sic]? Or fmhLisa? We convened an emergency conference kall [sic], retired to our respective chambers, and subsequently made a unanimous ruling.

Dallin H. OaksfmhLisa
LEGAL EXPERIENCE
Clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court

Practiced at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago

Former justice of the Utah Supreme Court
Is friends with Kaimi and Steve Evans on Facebook
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE
Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, serving as interim dean

President of Brigham Young University
Can find Provo on a map of Utah
EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
Chairman of the Board of Directors of PBS
(we won't hold that against him)
Chairwoman of a "big blog"
PUBLICATIONS
Numerous peer-reviewed publications on scholarly and legal mattersFrequent rambling blog posts
Speaks and writes in depth about topics directly relating to immortality and eternal life of men (and women)Writes about poop
RELIGIOUS SPEAKING EXPERIENCE
Speaks regularly in General ConferenceSpeaks at Sunstone
MISC.
Has no hairHas pretty auburn hair


The winner is pretty clear, no? Applying common law to our circumstance, we reviewed prior SnarkLaw cases. In 2007 Snarkernacle endorsed Mitt Romney's candidacy for the GOP nomination because he had the best hair of any candidate--Democrat or Republican. We therefore are bound by--and uphold--our Hair Endorsement Policy of 2007. We rule in favor of the plaintiff, fmhLisa of Feminist Mormon Housewives.

19 comments

Anonymous said... @ October 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Argues from "authority": Snarkernacle

Argues from merit: Any non-stupid person

Rev. Dazzle said... @ October 16, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Dear Anonymous,

It seems the merit of merit has flown right past you. You will note that we specifically avoid any mention of Oakes' [sic] authority. We reference his religious talks only because his recent devotional-address-of-doom was in a religious setting.

fmhLisa claims that analogies are dangerous and make Oakes [sic] look silly.

We point out that Oakes [sic] has a long and distinguished legal career in which he has used analogous application of legal precedent.

Therefore, the "non-stupid person" in this case would be Elder Oakes [sic], who seems in a position to make an educated comparison.

If experience makes one an authority, then sure, I'll argue for that.

Love,
Dazzle

[sic] said... @ October 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Rev.,

Witty response notwithstanding, religious authority is not what "arguing from authority" means.

D. Golden Shizzle said... @ October 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sourcing your argument to a Wiki page whose first disclaimer is "This article needs additional citations for verification" doesn't help your cause much. BCC's John Hamer would be shocked.

Rev. Dazzle said... @ October 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Shizzle is authoritative. And whatever he says is true.

Re-reading my snark, I fail to see where I claimed that Elder Oakes [sic] said something, and therefore it is true. What I claim is that Elder Oakes [sic] is in a much better position than fmhLisa to make such an analogy based on his education and professional experience.

fmhLisa's claim might be considered more seriously should it come from someone with more to their CV than blogging about vibrators and diapers.

Anonymous said... @ October 16, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Rev Dazzle: "I am not making an argument from authority, just appealing to the CV's of those who are making the arguments to determine which one is better!"

And that's why you're not a non-stupid person.

Rev. Dazzle said... @ October 16, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Your rite, I'm stooop-ed! Fil bedder?

Anonymous said... @ October 16, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Unfortunately, An admission to stupidity is little consolation to me.

D. Golden Shizzle said... @ October 16, 2009 at 9:47 PM

I guess there's no satisfying or consoling you. Might I humbly suggest you play troll elsewhere? You're boring the daylights out of me.

Anonymous said... @ October 17, 2009 at 6:40 AM

Boo hoo! I made the snarkers cry by demonstrating the horridity of your attempts at humor or argument or snark.
I humbly invite you to troll in some other community than the bloggernacle. You're boring the daylights out of all of us.

Rev. Dazzle said... @ October 17, 2009 at 7:19 AM

Yep, you're so bored, you keep coming back for more...

D. Golden Shizzle said... @ October 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Is "horridity" actually a word? As for crying - the only tears I see here are yours, anonymous though they may be

Johnny said... @ October 18, 2009 at 8:29 PM

"...boring the daylights out of 'all' of us?" That's a pretty expansive statement. I know you didn't consult me.

Johnny said... @ October 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Excuse me, I meant to direct the previous comment to "anonymous".

Anonymous said... @ October 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Oh, sorry. Boring the daylights out of all of us, except Johnny. But no one cares about Johnny.

Anonymous said... @ October 19, 2009 at 2:34 PM

"Boo hoo! I made the snarkers cry by demonstrating the horridity of your attempts at humor or argument or snark."

I didn't know the CNN SNL fact checkers were readers of the snarkernacle. The snarkers one up the bloggernacle again!

ECS said... @ November 12, 2009 at 9:37 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
D. Golden Shizzle said... @ November 12, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Are you insinuating that our names here are not legit? Please consult our FAQ for further explanation.

While you may not need a law degree to disagree with Elder Oaks [sic], making an effort to ensure your post uses novel grammar concepts like complete sentences and correct spelling would greatly improve the possibility of your argument being taken seriously.
We note with some satisfaction that fmhLisa’s original post was corrected after the snark comment fest began.

The point of this discussion is, just because YOU state that he

mischaracterizes constitutional jurisprudence on the First Amendment and civil rights issues

doesn’t mean that what YOU claim is actually true. That goes for your claim of “prejudice and hypocrisy” as well.

Elder Oaks cup of legal street cred runneth over. Yours (and fmhLisa’s)…not so much.

Rev. Dazzle said... @ November 12, 2009 at 4:52 PM

"... personal attacks made by bloggers who refuse to reveal their own names are hardly funny."

I couldn't agree more. The person who said I was not a non-stupid person should send me his/her SSN, mother's maiden name, and date of birth ASAP.

Post a Comment