I Wish I was Middle Income!

[Upchurch]

So... still nothing. That's what I thought.

"I'm rubber. You're glue", now? I point out that you were unable to argue against my position so you claim I have nothing?

Zig, when you decide you want to discuss things like an adult, let me know.

 

[Ziggurat]

"I'm rubber. You're glue", now? I point out that you were unable to argue against my position so you claim I have nothing?

You had no argument. You had an insistence that Obama did not mean what he said, and nothing more.

Zig, when you decide you want to discuss things like an adult, let me know.

You've never engaged in discussion. You have merely asserted, contrary to evidence. You can pretend you're the adult all you want to, but the fact of the matter is that you never engaged in debate on the facts. You consistently ignored them.

 

[ehcks]

"Both sides said something stupid so vote for mine" is not a valid argument. It's mostly an attempt to change the subject.

Unless you want to suggest we vote for a third party who knows what middle class actually is, your point is a deliberate waste of time.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Both sides said something stupid so vote for mine" is not a valid argument.

It's also not an argument I made. Rather, I pointed out that both sides have the same position. That doesn't mean that you should vote for one side or the other, or for either. It does mean that it's not grounds for preferring one of those two parties over the other.

It's mostly an attempt to change the subject.

And what would we call a straw man, then? Is that a valid argument? Or is it an attempt to change the subject?

Most of these accusations of "tu quoque" really just amount to saying that since they used his definition of middle class against Romney, it cannot be used by anyone else. It's a sort of "first dibs" argument. Which is obviously nonsense, but then, that's never stopped partisans before, I shouldn't expect it to now.

Unless you want to suggest we vote for a third party who knows what middle class actually is, your point is a deliberate waste of time.

I never suggested anyone vote for anybody. Which makes your response... a waste of time. Oh, the irony.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Middle income" is a range. One should expect that this range covers the median (or mean), but how far out from the median (or mean) should it extend? Should it be from 99% of the median to 101% of the median? That would be rather too narrow, wouldn't it?

So what's the range? And why?

So we are defining typical now by what 4 sigma?

 

[Ziggurat]

So we are defining typical now by what 4 sigma?

Define it however you want to. But just provide your definition, whatever it is, if you're going to criticize someone else's definition.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Define it however you want to. But just provide your definition, whatever it is, if you're going to criticize someone else's definition.

And the standard definition of middle class is the middle 60% of households. Or about one sigma.

But hey no one cares about convention.

 

[pgwenthold]

I pointed out above, that if you want a "middle" range that includes $200K at the high end, then it would have to constitute the middle 92%, and extend all the way down to $5000.

So a middle that ranges from 5K - 200K.

 

[Upchurch]

I pointed out above, that if you want a "middle" range that includes $200K at the high end, then it would have to constitute the middle 92%, and extend all the way down to $5000.

So a middle that ranges from 5K - 200K.

Romney defines middle income as $250,000 or less, but not $100,000. Apparently, he does not want the "middle" range.

To be honest, I'm not sure what he's going for.

 

[theprestige]

Romney defines middle income as $250,000 or less, but not $100,000. Apparently, he does not want the "middle" range.

To be honest, I'm not sure what he's going for.

Really? It seems pretty obvious that he's going for an upper bound of $250,000, rather than an upper bound of $100,000. From the context, I don't think lower bounds are even part of the discussion. Since it's already been demonstrated that his upper bound is pretty conventional (and is the same upper bound given by Obama), it's likely that his lower bound is also conventional (and not the bound given by blatant and willful misreading of the text).

 

[ehcks]

Really? It seems pretty obvious that he's going for an upper bound of $250,000, rather than an upper bound of $100,000. From the context, I don't think lower bounds are even part of the discussion. Since it's already been demonstrated that his upper bound is pretty conventional (and is the same upper bound given by Obama), it's likely that his lower bound is also conventional (and not the bound given by blatant and willful misreading of the text).

He said middle income does not include 100k.

The only reasonable interpretation of his own words is that he believes middle income is a range somewhere between >100k and 250k.

 

[Ziggurat]

He said middle income does not include 100k.

The only reasonable interpretation of his own words is that he believes middle income is a range somewhere between >100k and 250k.

No, that's quite definitely not the only reasonable interpretation. In fact, it's a rather unreasonable one. theprestige is right: politicians don't like to talk about the lower bound on the middle class, and that wasn't the subject of discussion. The most reasonable interpretation of Romney's "no" is simply him stating that Stephanopoulos's $100k was not the upper bound. One has to be rather desperate to try to paint him as thinking $100k is below middle class.

But then, some people will believe anything if it paints their opponent in a bad light.

 

[IXP]

Well then his language comprehension is pretty poor. The question was "Is 100K middle income?", not "is 100K the top of the range of middle income?" I don't think I want this guy negotiating treaties if he can't even understand his own native language.

IXP

 

[ehcks]

No, that's quite definitely not the only reasonable interpretation. In fact, it's a rather unreasonable one. theprestige is right: politicians don't like to talk about the lower bound on the middle class, and that wasn't the subject of discussion. The most reasonable interpretation of Romney's "no" is simply him stating that Stephanopoulos's $100k was not the upper bound. One has to be rather desperate to try to paint him as thinking $100k is below middle class.

But then, some people will believe anything if it paints their opponent in a bad light.

"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

That's four words. "Upper" nor "Bound" are not included. That's a simple question. Is $100k middle income?

If your answer is yes, it's still wrong, because $100k is not middle income.
If your answer is no, then you have two choices. Is $100k too high? This would be the right answer. Romney stated that $100k is too low.

Much too low. So much too low that 150% higher is still middle income according to him. This is so far wrong that if you claim that $250k is included in middle income, that 98% of the country is middle class.

Defending this is insane.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's four words. "Upper" nor "Bound" are not included. That's a simple question. Is $100k middle income?

You are clearly determined to ignore the context of both the question and the response. The lower bound was never under discussion. Only the upper bound was relevant. Whether or not Stephanopoulos explicitly stated that in that sentence, that's clearly the context in which Romney understood and answered the question.

This is so far wrong that if you claim that $250k is included in middle income, that 98% of the country is middle class.

Defending this is insane.

I'm not claiming he has the right definition. But he doesn't have the definition you claim he has: $100k is not below his definition. And yes, his definition is incredibly expansive. Just like almost every other politician's definition of middle class, including Obama. It's politically convenient to define it so broadly. Right or wrong, it's standard practice.

 

[Upchurch]

Hook, line, and sinker.

No, that's quite definitely not the only reasonable interpretation. In fact, it's a rather unreasonable one. theprestige is right: politicians don't like to talk about the lower bound on the middle class, and that wasn't the subject of discussion. The most reasonable interpretation of Romney's "no" is simply him stating that Stephanopoulos's $100k was not the upper bound. One has to be rather desperate to try to paint him as thinking $100k is below middle class.

As I said:

(apparently, context is only for convenient moments)

When it comes to Obama, we must take the literal meaning of a limited set of what he has said. When Obama presents a multi-layered definition over several sources, we must select the one Zig likes or we are being inconsistent.

When it comes to Romney, it's unreasonable to take what he says at face value, we have to look at the context and give him the benefit of the doubt or we are not being reasonable.

Sorry, Zig. You can't have it both ways.

Well, I guess you can and, probably, will. But, no one is going to take you seriously.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well then his language comprehension is pretty poor. The question was "Is 100K middle income?", not "is 100K the top of the range of middle income?" I don't think I want this guy negotiating treaties if he can't even understand his own native language.

IXP

And yet, Stephanopoulos himself was not shocked by Romney's response. Are we to conclude that Stephanopoulos doesn't understand English either? If so, then where do we put the blame? Did he mean to ask about a lower limit, Romney misinterpreted him, and Stephanopoulos didn't notice? Or did he mean to ask about an upper limit, Romney coincidentally misinterpreted his answer to mean what he actually meant, and Stephanopoulos correctly interpreted his response? Or did he mean to ask about an upper limit, Romney knew he screwed up and corrected for him, and Stephanopoulos never caught on to any of it? If they both can't figure out the meaning of language, then the possible combinations of mis-statements and misinterpretations are endless. It's Alice's rabbit hole, a linguistic Gordian knot.

The much simpler approach is to use some common sense. What was the context of their discussion? Did they seem to understand each other, even if they weren't complete precise? What's the politically convenient answer that Romney is most likely to give? Common sense says that Romney never meant $100k as a lower bound. But then, common sense is in short supply among some posters here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, that's quite definitely not the only reasonable interpretation. In fact, it's a rather unreasonable one. theprestige is right: politicians don't like to talk about the lower bound on the middle class, and that wasn't the subject of discussion. The most reasonable interpretation of Romney's "no" is simply him stating that Stephanopoulos's $100k was not the upper bound. One has to be rather desperate to try to paint him as thinking $100k is below middle class.

But then, some people will believe anything if it paints their opponent in a bad light.

It is the direct literal interpretation. Even more so than the "you didn't built that" comment.

 

[Ziggurat]

When it comes to Obama, we must take the literal meaning of a limited set of what he has said. When Obama presents a multi-layered definition over several sources, we must select the one Zig likes or we are being inconsistent.

No. When Obama presents multiple definitions from several sources, we pick the definition that he gave as his own.

Is that too sophisticated a concept for you? Or is that somehow not sophisticated enough?

You continue to beclown yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is the direct literal interpretation. Even more so than the "you didn't built that" comment.

It's also the wrong interpretation, in both cases. It's not surprising, though, that both cases arise from interpreting truncated transcripts of unscripted spoken words.