Is Obama's Entire Governing Philosophy Based on a Logical Fallacy?

[grahamhgreen]

Fallacy: Middle Ground

Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation
Description of Middle Ground

This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Position A and B are two extreme positions.
C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
Therefore C is the correct position.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.

This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.

It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning.
Examples of Middle Ground

Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.

Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.

A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.

FROM: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

[The Magistrate]

1. There May Be Something To That, Sir

[PurityOfEssence]

32. So you're wavering?

The need for love is the Achilles' heel for politicians and actors.

Funny how the only professional actor to ever be President didn't give the proverbial tinker's cuss about being liked, whereas the two recent Democratic Presidents NEED love from all.

Being the "coolest guy in the room" is fun for our current standard-bearer, but for the rest of us, it's disaster.

See ya in the funny pages, and let's blow this pop-stand.

[FLAprogressive]

2. Short answer: Yes.....K&R

[EFerrari]

3. His publicly stated governing philosophy, in any case.

Because his behavior doesn't really match.

[ZombieHorde]

4. One of my ethics professors talked about this fallacy.

She added an additional concern, and that was A and B may not be the only options, or scenarios, etc.

There are many more political positions than offered by Democrats and Republicans, and the positions they do offer shift often. So a "centrist" political position isn't really in the center of anything.

[grahamhgreen]

17. This is exactly true,

and called a "False Dilemma" or "False Choice", which he presented in his speech 2 nights ago (we can either go with the the plan of some cuts with revenue, or just cuts). Here is a post about that, with a definition: http://bit.ly/nfUuaG

[ThomThom]

81. then there is my position which is just revenue

tax the rich and the corporations it is the only way
one can not get the money needed to fund trillion dollar wars from people that have nothing
go where the money is

[yurbud]

93. today's ''center'' is far, far to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon

and that's intentional.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Short answer, yes

And Krugman agrees with you... call it centrism. His editorial today was about that.

[kag]

67. Got a link?

To the Krugman editorial? Or at least a citation?

[Waiting For Everyman]

82. Linky

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1582935

[OHdem10]

6. They play on the Republican field. There have been no true

middle positions.

However you make some very good points.

[WCGreen]

7. Very direct, simple to understand, I believe you've got it...

K&R

[Harmony Blue]

15. Agreed

I started a thread on this a while ago, but more and more people are seeing that playing the center is a dangerous game.

[avaistheone1]

8. Yes.

[enough]

9. Particularly true when one side plays the game all-out, understanding that the

other side will always come to the "center." Makes it easy to move the whole whole playing field wherever you want it.

[robcon]

10. The OP itself is a fallacy. No one said the middle "must" be correct.

I believe the president is doing a terrific job, and he will be re-elected easily against the Repug nobodies in 2012.

[loyalsister]

27. Nor is it logical to assume absolutes

when there are multiple ideas to consider in individual confrontations. The problem Obama had was which is worse.
Tax cut continue vs. people lose unemployment.
As it turned out, if each absolutist choice was considered individually he would be right on one occasion and wrong on another occasion. But, those choices were not available independently.

How is it that someone concludes that there is an absolute black or white when there are hundreds of voices and dozens of choices in a debate? Politics is not black or white.

[robinlynne]

69. of course those choices were available independently!

[loyalsister]

88. Just like deficits and debt ceiling, right?

n\t

[robinlynne]

91. Yes. Just like deficiits and debt celiling. the blakc caucaus makes sense. Obama does not.

You don't let the bully make you decide between your lunch money and a black eye and pick which one is less bad. You walk away from the bully and eat your lunch.
bad metaphor but I'm on my first cup of coffee.

[loyalsister]

92. Yeah

Screw democracy and the legislative process.

[myrna minx]

11. K&R - What if you jump at the $1 computer offer when the middle ground is in no way fair?

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Every point on a spectrum between right and wrong is still wrong. n/t

[Shandris]

19. ...which is an utterly useless consideration in this case.

Furthermore, it is only true if there is an objective 'right' (correct) that can be concluded under all scenarios.

[robinlynne]

70. oooh. I love it.

[hobbit709]

13. It takes two to make a deal

and one side has repeatedly shown that they have absolutely no interest in doing so.

[russspeakeasy]

38. and the other side has no idea where they stand.

[joeybee12]

14. His logical fallacy is that he thinks his enemies are his friends, so he treats his friends

as his enemies.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. It looks that way. Additionally, his philosophy has been shown

to fail to deliver results. His bipartisanship does not deliver bipartisan votes. And his situational centrist 'ethics' seem to be about willingness to meet wrongheadedness and pure evil at the half way mark. No matter who or what is to the right, Obama wants to meet it half way. If the right wants genocide, he'll settle for large mass murders? If the right wants to execute gay people as his associates in the Exodus movement want to do, would he compromise for life in prison?
Centrism is nothing more than a dereliction of personal responsibility.

[grahamhgreen]

18. Excellent examples! Here's another: Someone wants to get rid of the parasites in his intestines,

the parasites want to multiply, therefore the compromise is to reduce the parasites by 50%!

[Bluenorthwest]

20. And not extreme or hard to find. Obama's hand picked primary

surrogates have called gay people child killers and vampires while urging that Christians must take off the gloves and go to war against us. When we call out that atrocity, he told us we had to find compromise with those who were calling for our deaths. He believes in compromise with those who seek genocide.

[desertrat777]

61. middle ground fallacy examples

The parasite analogy is an excellent example of the fallacy of "middle ground" compromise. One cannot reason or find a compromise with tapeworms in one's intestines. You want them gone? They want to multiply and lay even more eggs in your guts! A "middle ground" compromise would be to leave them alone at their present levels.

One of the questions I ask myself in a compromise situation is "What is the other person's intention? Do they want to reach a win-win situation, or are they trying to exploit me any way they can, and get away with it?"

Another example is that of a progressive tax system. The uber-rich don't want to pay higher taxes. They don't want to pay any taxes. So should we seek "middle ground" and let them pay half of what the average person is paying? Actually, the ultra rich have gotten rich at the expense of others, via the funneling of money/capital in the capitalist system. Since they have used capitalism - gamed the system - to gain affluence far beyond what any one person needs, and likely contribute to the poverty class in the process, they should pay more to mitigate the shortcomings of said capitalist system. Nobody needs ten or more million dollars a year income! This is the reasoning behind the progressive tax system, and it did help mitigate the shortcomings of capitalism. Now we no longer have that backup, and we are feeling the impact.

A second example is getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. A large majority of Americans want to withdraw from these two wars, but the military-industrial complex - the "war industry" - wants the wars to continue as long as possible. As one person once said, "I never saw a war I didn't like." So should we cut troop levels by half, but stay over in those two countries indefinitely? This reminds me of the terrific struggle it took to get us out of Vietnam.

A third example is a historical one, the abolition of slavery in the United States. The slaveholding interests resisted to the bitter end. There is no acceptable middle ground here!

[grahamhgreen]

62. "One of the questions I ask myself in a compromise situation is "What is the other person's...

intention? Do they want to reach a win-win situation, or are they trying to exploit me any way they can, and get away with it?"


- VERY well said!

[KittyWampus]

24. Prime example of someone who refuses to acknowledge reality. Leftward progress under Obama

is real. It's measurable.

The only way you can make that commentary is by ignoring reality.

[Fuddnik]

31. !

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[nashville_brook]

50. as long as you've got the measuring stick out, you might have a look at his conservative "progress"

Thus Obama took office under roughly the same political and economic circumstances that Nixon did in 1968 except in a mirror opposite way. Instead of being forced to manage a slew of new liberal spending programs, as Nixon did, Obama had to cope with a revenue structure that had been decimated by Republicans.

Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.

Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism:

His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary;

He continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary;

He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals;

He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever;

And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans (by offering to slash SS and M/M).


(snip)

Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.


http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx#page1

[nashville_brook]

49. +1

[bhikkhu]

21. That logical fallacy is a fallacy

Government is based on compromise not because the middle is "correct", but because people who disagree on issues typically must each concede something.

If we're speaking of absolutes, then the choices are not "correct or incorrect" but "compromise or disunion".

[bvar22]

22. I would agree, with this qualifier:

Obama is NOT looking for "the middle position between two extremes".
If so,
he would balance the Far Right Wing Republicans against their ideological opposite which is Communism,
and wind up somewhere around FDRs New Deal, which I could accept.

Instead, Obama is looking for the middle ground between ONE Extreme, The Far Right Wing Republicans,
and the already "Centrist" positions of Bill Clinton, and "compromising Ever to The RIGHT from there.

That Balancing Act results in policy that is to The Right of Moderate Republicans like Nixon,
and certainly Eisenhower, and in some cases, even to The Right of Reagan.

[grahamhgreen]

40. I think that does make it more accurate!

[MissDeeds]

58. Exactly right

In every sense of the word.

[KittyWampus]

23. Another idiotic premise. Politics involves various factions and necessitates

compromise.

[Mimosa]

25. Kitty, compromising with something toxic and destructive results in *some destruction* n/t

[Raksha]

26. My pet gripe when it comes to false moderation

is the belief or assertion that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle."

Nope, when one side is telling the truth and the other side is LYING, the truth does NOT lie "somewhere in the middle." There's no middle ground between the truth and a lie.

[grahamhgreen]

34. +1

[Maven]

43. This is what some of us have pointed out since 2008

:hi:

[florida08]

79. and that's the truth

:thumbsup:

[trotsky]

86. Thank you. n/t

[noiretextatique]

obama reminds me of my friend sarah who knows some "good" republicans

which blinds her to the reality of the destructiveness of the GOP's agenda. i''ll concede that there are some decent individuals who happen to be republican, but when good people support a destructive agenda...they are destructive also.i am not a fan of obama's strategery, and unfortunately it is a path he has chosen, not a path he had to chose.

[noiretextatique]

28. obama reminds me of my friend sarah who knows some "good" republicans

which blinds her to the reality of the destructiveness of the GOP's agenda. i''ll concede that there are some decent individuals who happen to be republican, but when good people support a destructive agenda...they are destructive also.i am not a fan of obama's strategery, and unfortunately it is a path he has chosen, not a path he had to chose.

[drm604]

29. I don't think that he believes that the middle position must be correct.

He's too intelligent to fall for that kind of fallacy.

I think what he believes is that the middle is the best that it is possible to achieve when trying to get two diametrically opposed groups to compromise. I'm not at all sure that he's right about that, but I think that may be what he believes as opposed to what you're saying.

[bvar22]

87. When the American People give you:

*The White House

*BIG Majorities in The House

*A Filibuster Proof Majority in the Senate

*A Dying Republican party gasping its last breath

*And Most Importantly, A HUGE MANDATE for "Change"
and an ARMY Standing in the Street

...the LAST thing to do is form a compromise coalition with the people and policies that were just run out of Washington.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[Doctor_J]

30. I don't know if it's logical problem or character problem

He seems to have battered wife syndrome. Every time he goes "bi-partisan", the foam-at-the-mouth wing nuts hate him even more.

Some times concessions have to be made, but in this case bad morals = bad governance = bad politics

[Romulox]

33. A madman storms a bank, taking 50 hostages, who he threatens to kill...

A brave customer stands up and says, "I'm not going to let you harm a single person in here!"

The "reasonable" solution is to kill 25 people. :shrug:

[Jim_Shorts]

35. What are points A & B to Obama ?

A --> 311,857,665 of the population and B --> the top 400 people who pretty much own everything

or

A -- 287 bought & paid for repugs in congress and B --> 245 bought and paid for dems in congress

[Jakes Progress]

36. The ogre wants to eat both of your children.

You don't want him to eat either.

The sensible thing, as any woodchuck knows, Is to let him eat only one. See. Problem solved. Everyone is happy.

[russspeakeasy]

39. or let him eat half of each. This seems to be the path we've taken.

[grahamhgreen]

42. That is the clearest summation yet!

[Ignis]

37. K&R. This fallacy certain contributes to pulling the country to the Right.

Bipartisanship and compromise are great, but treating extreme Republican propositions as serious and meaningful does a disservice to the entire country.

[Maven]

41. Yes, absolutely it is.

And a cynic would say that he's well aware of that fallacy and continues to push it as a false justification propping up the status quo.

[Kaleva]

44. The example given is incorrect.

"Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price."

Wanting to sell it for the current market value is not an extreme position. He would have to be asking for much, much more then that what it's worth for it to be extreme.

A better example would be a person wants to sell a computer that has a market value of $800 for $1601. The buyer first offers $1 for it but after negotiations, they agree to split the difference and the purchase is made for $800.

The same error is applied to the other example:

"A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars."

[Maven]

46. No it isn't. It is part of the fallacy itself to assume that *both* positions are extreme

and that therefore the middle position must be correct.

In the first example, it is the offer of $1 that is truly extreme, not the asking price at market value. Therefore, splitting the difference to get the "fair" result is wrong.

The example is a perfect illustration of the fallacy.

Same thing in the second example. Bill's position (not paying a cent) is the extreme one, because it is clearly unfair and wrong based on the circumstances as he should pay for all of the repairs. It is not right that Joe should have to pay for half of the damage, although that is the result of taking the "centrist" position.

[Kaleva]

51. Here is what the author said:

"This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes.."

Is the initial asking price of $800.00, which is the market value, an extreme position? It is not.

[Maven]

52. Exactly. It isn't extreme.

Which is why it is a fallacy to assume that something between $800 and $1 is actually the fair price.

I think our misunderstanding may lie in different interpretations of the word "extreme." If you're using "extreme" in a normative sense - that is, to mean "excessive" - then it is true that $800 is not "extreme," which is very point that people who fall into this logical fallacy miss, because they are too focused on finding the middle ground.

If you are using the word in a neutral sense, i.e., two values which are at opposite ends of a spectrum are the two "extreme" values, then $800 is one extreme because is the highest value in a two-member value set. However, if you assume that market value must be the median between the two extreme values (as you seem to be doing) then in fact $1600 would be the other extreme value as you pointed out.

[Kaleva]

53. It's your last sentence I'm going by

"However, if you assume that market value must be the median between the two extreme values (as you seem to be doing) then in fact $1600 would be the other extreme value as you pointed out."

When someone mentions "extreme", I think of "unacceptable", "unworkable", a position that is the complete opposite of one extreme or a position that only a few would support.

I offer the issue of gun control. One extreme view is that anyone who wants a gun, ought to be able to do so. Regardless of age, mental capacity, criminal record and so forth. The opposite extreme to that is to ban all guns; including those normally used for hunting such as muzzle loaders. What we have now is pretty much a moderate, centrist policy and debate is about the minor details.

[Raksha]

57. Yeah, who does Bill think he is...Enron?

You only get to pay half the damage (or less) if you can afford to hire the best lawyers and have a few politicians and judges in your pocket too.

[desertrat777]

65. National Health Care for all?

For example, instead of starting out high, as you suggest in the computer sale example, President Obama did not start out negotiations on health care with a call for nationalizing health care as in Britain. Instead,he started out with a health insurance plan. A compromise bill might have been national health care or a single payer system, like what many countries in the developed world offer their citizens. So instead of getting national health care or even a public option, we got an insipid health insurance plan. Health insurance is not health care.

[grahamhgreen]

96. A perfect example of Obamoderation

[eridani]

45. Middle ground--if the Teahadists demanded that we reduce the deficit by

-- making it legal to hunt and kill old sick people, Obama and the "centrists" would no doubt propose limiting the number of hunting licenses.

[JoePhilly]

47. Consider this math ....

1) Obama wants 1 trillion in stimulus money. He gets 800 billion. Which would be about 80% of his goal. But much of the left see this as accomplishing ZERO Percent.

2)Obama wants to pass sweeping Health care reform. He gets about 70% of what he wanted. But parts of the left sees this as accomplishing ZERO percent.

3) Obama wants to pass sweeping financial reform. He again gets about 70% of what he wanted. But, again, parts of the left see this as accomplishing ZERO percent.

4) Obama want to over turn DADT. Together with congress he does so. He should get a perfect score here, 100%, but no. he gets maybe 50% credit here.

The math from parts of the left looks like this ...

0% on Stimulus, times, 0% on HCR, times 0% on Finance reform, times 50% on DADT = 0%.

By this math, Obama is evil.

[MessiahRp]

59. What he wants is what Republicans want. So he gets 70% of what they themselves would have offered...

Because he moved immediately to the right to cave instantly. Now not only did they get 100% of what they were originally willing to give, they get a net +30% gain. If Obama wanted what people in his party wants and got what he actually got his numbers would be like 20% success.

Rp

[sabrina 1]

78. Well, you are right when you say he got most of what HE

wanted. I don't think anyone doubts that. And that is the problem, on all of those issues. It was NOT what got him elected.

Re DADT btw, the LCRs got that done. This administration was stalling as much as possible on that, one of the easiest issues to get done actually and should not have required any court case to do it. And even after that ruling, his DOJ fought it. So, no, he doesn't deserve 100% on that issue.

On the HC Bill, he stated that he got 95% of what he wanted. So rather than move away from the disaster of Private Insurance, which was happening anyhow as they were losing money, he saved them, instead of pushing out the door. Many people believe that was the goal, to save the Private Ins. Industry.

He did get most of what he wanted. When he wants something he gets it. So he is capable of fighting for what he wants. But what about the people? His goals were not the goals of those who elected him.

Some people think he doesn't fight hard enough. I think he does, but nor for us. And that is why he gets so much of what HE wants.

[TheKentuckian]

48. It would be a logical fallacy but the strategy seems to be more

like one extreme is essentially correct and his mission is to get the other "extreme" to accept the other's general ideology by throwing in some bones and using the threat of the other extreme to make them tolerate the oppositions basic premises.

He is not "splitting the difference" and arriving at the center of the political spectrum. He is deep in right field and using those deeper and on the other side of the fence as a stick to make deep right seem alright. The reality is to be more extreme than our regressive party you probably have to go to theocracy or unleash the monarchs. There is so much room on the other side of what he is using as the other extreme that you cannot find another governing party more conservative in the west except for our regressive party. In most of the west our "extreme" would be around center and at times bee seen as conservative.

I don't know what the "center" between radical regressive and conservative is but I'm pretty sure it far right in orientation.

The Teabaggers as a mile marker is crazy and I begin to believe a set up.

[dogmoma56]

54. but one must consider the Variables the average GOP'r has an I.Q of a steam'n pile of dog shit >>>

they do what they are told to do, it isnt an ideology, it is a sick twisted religious cult

more details
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=616641&mesg_id=616692

[yurbud]

55. he's not that stupid: he has consistently been trying to say yes to the GOP since he was inaugurated

and they won't take yes for an answer.

[yurbud]

56. Obama pursed this method even when he didn't have to. When Democrats controlled both chambers

of Congress, he could have told them to go balls to the walls and marginalize the GOP, and when the Senate had a chance to vote on filibuster rules, he should have told them to end it don't mend it.

Essentially, from the start he governed as if he controlled NEITHER chamber, always gave up half at the start of negotiations, and bargained down from there to a position inperceptibly different from the GOP's.

A guy with his educational background cannot be that naive, but he can be bought.

[Raine]

60. VERY interesting ... THANKS for posting this. nt

[better days ahead]

63. it could even be worse if the other guy could offer $5.00 that would make the middle $2.50

thats about where we are at today and it is gross to watch.

[ijiji]

64. Bi-Partisanship

As I've watched Obama's presidency through the Health Care debacle and the extension of the Bush tax cuts debacle, and now the debt ceiling debacle, it is clear to me that Obama's number one priority is to be "post partisan". I truly believe that the legacy he wants to leave behind is that of being a President who brought the two sides together. Only problem with that is it ain't never gonna happen. And he's selling out Democratic core principles in the process.

He's gonna go down in history, alright. But, it won't be for bridging the partisan gap. It will be for being the worst Democratic President since, I dunno, Carter? If not Carter, we have to go back to the 19th century. He's been that bad, and shows no signs of growing a pair. Not b/c he doesn't have it in him to do so. Because he doesn't see the *need* to do so to further his number one, first and only agenda -- working with the Republicans, even if it means destruction of the safety net (which it does).

[AlbertCat]

66. WTF?????

Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.


********

Does it?

Some say the Easter Bunny exists, and other claim he does not. So the best position is that he leaves 1/2 eggs around?, Or only gives eggs to some children?

How about:
Some claim god exists (regardless of powers or how you define him) and some claim he doesn't. So the best position is he half exists?

Your premises don't jive. Existing and being all powerful are not the same thing. Something can exist and have no power.



With faulty reasoning that does not take into account evidence and is poorly structured, why should I consider your other gems of wisdom?

[grahamhgreen]

73. That passage

is an example of the fallacy of middle ground.

The middle position is not a valid compromise between the two positions.

The thought that the compromise to the current crisis lies in having some cuts to social security (which does not contribute to the debt), is false.

[quaker bill]

68. Some might say

that 2+2+3 and others might say 2+2=5, in this case the "centrist" position would be correct. A logical proposition should not be so easily falsified.

There are occasions where the truth does in fact lie in the middle as surely as there are cases when it doesn't.

One cannot make such as claim as you seem to posit with integrity.

Further, there is the notion of Truth itself. In politics the "truth" is not an abstract philosophical proposition derived through deduction . There are many choices and most are favorable to some and unfavorable to others. The decision with the least harm to all often lies somewhere between the poles.

[grahamhgreen]

75. From the post:

"It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning."


The assertion that the middle position in the current crisis is a valid one (having some cuts to social security when it does not contribute to the debt), is false.

[quaker bill]

85. An assertion not supported by facts

The notion that SS does not contribute to the deficit. Currently, benefits exceed revenues, largely due to the economy, this was not anticipated until 2026. Benefits that exceed revenue are paid by redeeming T-bills on account. The cash to redeem T-bills comes from general revenues which are in deficit, so in fact, at some level current benefits do add to the deficit.

This could be cured by getting people back to work, so the problem is not "structural" but it does exist. Over the longer haul, which is largely what most of these proposals address, SS benefits will either have to decline, or taxes be increased, I believe that date is around 2036.

The first problem I have is with your use of the word "entire" in the title. Nothing is "entire".

Secondly arises the notion of what "truth" is in a political context. There are occasions where politics touches on things universally true, civil rights, woman's sufferage, come to mind as quick and easy examples.

There is unfortunately rarely any essential "truth" in resource allocation decisions. The Norwegian model for taxation, spending and income distribution is not inherently more "truthful" than what we do here, even though I prefer it. It is a decision point along a continuum, none more essentially "true" than the other, regardless of my preference. The mid point in such discussions, is simply another point on the continuum, no more "true" than any other point.

[grahamhgreen]

89. Could you live with the term

"overarching" instead of entire?

The problem with Obama's thinking is that he winds up negotiating between what he thinks is right - a position center-right or far right on the spectrum, a position arrived at not by polling the American people, but by gut instinct (for example 80+ percent want to solve the deficit simply by taxing the rich) - and the ultra-far-right-neo-fascist teabag position, IMHO.

--------

It is no more appropriate to say that SS contributes to the debt because the fund bought t-bills, than it is to say that every billionaire contributes to the debt because the billionaires may cash in their t-bills.

The long term SS issue - 25 years away - is easily solved by allowing those that make over $116,000 a year pay into it.

At least, that's how it appears to me!

[bertman]

71. Very informative and very interesting. REC. nt

[certainot]

72. more significant: the Left evaluates relative power in politics while ignoring Right's best weapon

which is talk radio.

the leader of the GOP/tea party is not boehner, or cantor, or norquist, or bachman.

the leader of the GOP and the tea party is the point man for the talk radio empire that created the alternate reality in which 2+2=3, rush limbaugh

so when the Left gets to judging the motives and performance of the obama administration it might help to know this

[alp227]

74. Good point. He should know better...but won't act on his mind. n/T

[krispos42]

76. I walk up to a beautiful woman on the street and demand she undress for me.

She does not feel she should. Ergo, the middle ground option (half of her clothes removed) is the one she and I should pursue.


Because, after all, we must, as Democrats, NEVER question whether one or both of the extremes is acceptable.

[grahamhgreen]

90. Well put, thank you!

[defendandprotect]

77. I'm more concerned with our voting "fallacy" .... voting for the lesser evil ... !!

Voting for the "lesser evil" only moves the party and the Congress

further to the right!

[rucky]

80. And even when Middle Ground is the likely outcome...

you don't get there by starting there. You take a stronger position in your favor and work your way to the middle.

The outcome of a negotiation depends on the influence, resolve, and starting positions of all involved.

[florida08]

83. excellent presentation that provokes critical thinking

"It's not what we don't know that get's us into trouble it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." If A and B are the extremes than C can't possibly be the middle but rather a collusion of the two leaving out any sense of moral discernment which this thesis lays out beautifully. Reminds me of the judgement of Solomon.

[grahamhgreen]

97. I'm afraid that in our scenario,

the baby may well be cleaved in two.

[creon]

84. No

I am afraid not.

[yurbud]

94. Thom Hartmann was talking the other day about Madison writing that he realized too late

the way the constitution was written, it would naturally evolve into this two party false dichotomy because any competitor would be a spoiler for their most similar opponent.

[jtown1123]

95. sounds about right