Category: Scholarship

FooBarr Follies

14 April: Update: a few days latter, Foobarr admitted its error, restored the post, and rescinded the ‘suspension’. It never explained why or how it made the errror.

Imagine that.


28 March: I’m about to break a personal rule and mention Facebook in some context other than legal.

Some of you might be interested in knowing that, apparently, Em Zee Be’elzeebubbles has some standards, after all.

He’s not just the Lord of The Lowly Housefly.

FooBarr has sinbinned me for reposting the meme shown at the bottom of this post on the basis that it violates FooBarr’s Community Standards. FooBarr didn’t tell me what the violation was so I presume it must be accuracy, honesty and truth.

Imagine that.

Mocking Em Zee Be'elzeebubbles.


Possible Name Change

1     Pandemic reality: Since I’m trapped, realistically, in C eh N eh D eh for the foreseeable future; that is, probably 1 year at least, I’m considering adding to the name of this blog.

“The World According To A Snark: A Currently Canadian Edition”

2     On the proper pronunciation of:  Toronto (pronounced with two “t”s, the second following the one “n”); right Mr. Featherstonehaugh; Mr Worstershire; Mr Worster? Mr Smtythe? Mr Ghoti?

August 4, 2020; Nov 10, 2020

Occams Razor, Hanlons Razor

This is a small test to see if anybody in the Canadian legal profession who ought to read this blog reads  this blog and pays attention.

I doubt it – because the existence of this blog, and its usual content, is some evidence to the contrary – but I’m prepared to be surprised.

Consider this argument. Feel free to explain why it is flawed, if you think it is and believe you can.

If you can’t, then perhaps you’ll explain why you won’t accept it.

1.  Factual causation exists where conditions exist sufficient to satisfy the applicable physical laws required for those conditions to cause – to bring about the existence of – some consequence.
2.  A but-for causal relationship is nothing more than a description of a sufficient causal relationship in an instance where there is no other sufficient causal relationship. Counterfactual analyses are implicit – meaning they are necessarily undertaken, as required –  in any valid analysis of sufficiency.
3.  It necessarily follows the but-for test (whatever it means) is not needed to identify instances of factual causation.
4.  It necessarily follows  that where but-for (whatever it means) is used, in law, as a test for causation, it is used for some purpose other than identifying factual causation. This follows because we have already identified the existence of one or more factual causes.
5.  In law, in the context of causation, the only other purpose the but-for test could have is assigning legal responsibility.
Cue Homer Simpson.
Anybody here see the houses of cards falling down?