Why are the French Getting an MP for London?

[Mich the Tester]

It's these pills he's missing.

FTFY

[pacharan]

FTFY

And what about your ludicrous "charismatic leader whipping up all those poor French city boys into a lather because they don't have the vote" argument.

Let's not forget that.

[Mich the Tester]

And what about your ludicrous "charismatic leader whipping up all those poor French city boys into a lather because they don't have the vote" argument.

Let's not forget that.

You know, if you take one man's words and twist them into what you want to believe he's said , it's very easy to ridicule them. It's called a 'Straw Man' argument and it exposes your own lack of logic or reason.

We've now had Straw Man fallacies, Slippery Slope arguments AND Ad Hominem arguments; there are still several more types of fallacy on my list and I could run a sweepstake on which one you're going to employ next.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

[pacharan]

You know, if you take one man's words and twist them into what you want to believe he's said , it's very easy to ridicule them. It's called a 'Straw Man' argument and it exposes your own lack of logic or reason.

Well you're not defending it in your usual supercillious, wet, wishy washy, liberal manner so I can only deduce that you too think it was a silly comment.

[Mich the Tester]

Well you're not defending it in your usual supercillious, wet, wishy washy, liberal manner so I can only deduce that you too think it was a silly comment.

Oh, back to Ad Hominem again. Please be more original. Even russell can do better.

[DodgyAgent]

no...they included Norway in the region and Norway isn't in the EU, nor has plans to join the EU.

This is to allow French people who live abroad inside and outside the EU to have a say in French affairs. If enough French people live in the US they might do the same there too one day.

This is not a French MP who sits in the UK parliament it's a French MP who lives in France and makes laws in France, these laws have no impact on Norway or the UK. They' are probably doing this because the French government want to tax French citizens abroad so by giving them a representative in the French parliement will enable them to argue that they have taxation with representation, otherwise there would be a big hoo hah. They want to tax rich French people 75% and they'll all bugger off so that's why they're doing this.

I would not have credited you with the ability to argue logically. Mitch yes but not you - beginners luck?

[pacharan]

Oh, back to Ad Hominem again. Please be more original. Even russell can do better.

And you ignored my earlier deduction that you were implying that anyone who pays tax gets the vote.

<fingersinears>I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!</fingersinears>

[realityhack]

Pachman has single-handedly exposed a nefarious world-conspiracy that will have dire consequences for us all. The notion of having a parliamentary representative for a sizeable French population in our capital is, obviously, a first step towards the dissolution of our sovereignty, the advancement of the Cheese Empire, and the worldwide abolition of deodorant.

Pay heed, with fear and trembling, wailing and gnashing of teeth, to the birth pangs of a terror that will enslave us all.

That or get out more.

Your choice.

[amcdonald]

What's George Clinton got to do with the French anyway ?

[Mich the Tester]

And you ignored my earlier deduction that you were implying that anyone who pays tax gets the vote.

<fingersinears>I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!</fingersinears>

Not ignoring it. I believe that if you're paying for a government, you should get a say in what happens with your money. Obviously, qualified by a few demands on understanding the language, agreeing to abide by the law, and possibly an intelligence test for voters, but yes; pay tax, get a say in what happens with it; that should be the contract.