How is that? So, if I say a President is the best President ever, I need not know anything about past Presidents? If I say a President is the worst ever, I don't need to know anything about the previous ones? How would I have any reasonable foundation of knowledge on which to make that claim?

It is true that you do not have to be informed in order to form an opinion, but uninformed opinions have little value. We all have equal rights to these opinions, but not all opinions are equal.

You are contradicting yourself. Wouldn't you have to know about past history of the award to know if it always was a sham? Or are you trying to infer that your reaction to the most recent awarding is the only barometer for judging all past awards?

Not true. If my criticism of the award involves calling you out in a negative manner, it would no longer entirely be a reflection on the committee responsible for the award. They, at the very least, border on ad hominem attacks. Those don't get us anywhere positive.

Really, though, I don't care that much. I'm actually more concerned about anything Limbaugh approves of.


Merely being alive makes you eligible for the award, but I don't think it is as fine a line as you do. The criticisms of the Nobel Committee (by some) come off as poorly disguised criticisms of the President. Orrin Hatch, for example, appears to have been able to express a criticism of the committee without having to backhand it to the President as well.

You can see the edit history of articles on Wiki, and that language (not the exact wording) has been in the article since at least 2004.

Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed. His choice of quotes to make his point was baffling at best. Those quotes call out the committee.

So, you are claiming there is nothing in those comments that was about the President and it was entirely about suggesting the Nobel Committee has a problem with their process? If it were entirely about the committee and their selection process, why would these comments be made:


That has nothing to do with possible problems or flaws in the selection process and has everything to do with the President. It's important to read the word "his" in the statement. This is about the President, not the Nobel Committee.

They can be critical of whomever they wish to be, but let's be honest about what they are talking about.

You don't need to know the success or failure of past Presidents to know that if the current one has done nothing, then it's pretty likely he isn't one of the more successful Presidents.

With respect to peacemaking, and especially as of the end of the nomination period for this award, Obama has done nothing. Ergo, by virtue of his winning this award, the award means nothing.

You are mistaking relevance here. The information you believe we require is not necessary in this debate.

Yes! That is my point. I would need to know the history to know if it was always a sham. Read my post more carefully. I state the only thing we can NOT know is whether it's just a sham now or has always been a sham.

I have made no statement whatsoever about the worthiness of past selections. Once again, they are not relevant to the discussion at hand.

With this statement, you display a lack of understanding how the nomination and selection process works for this award.

On the contrary, what if there are several selections that you might consider a sham, but not all of them? It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and just because you consider it a sham does not mean it is. Furthermore, if they have a pattern of making selections that you do not agree with, that just means you may care a little less about the award. It does not mean anything more than that.

No, you're wrong. This award is for peacemaking. Therefore, judging one's claim to such an award relates directly to the peacemaking he has done. The quotes you quote, while obviously rooted in conservative bias, are still very much criticisms on Obama's "peacemaking", which is entirely relevant given what this award is for.

As for Limbaugh, he's a policy shill who veers far too much to the right for me.



I can see your point here, but fact of the matter is, if the criticism is encased in relevant discussion of Obama's peacemaking and the overall intent of the criticism is to criticise the decision reward Obama with this award, then it is a valid point to make with respect to the current discussion.

If conservatives are using this announcement to point out Obama's lack of qualifications for the award, that sucks, but that's life. You shouldn't be mad at the conservatives, but at the committee for making such a bad decision and opening your guy to criticism he himself did nothing to warrant (double entendre there).

Not at all. I read your breakdown of the process, and I understand it doesn't end two weeks after Obama's inauguration. He hasn't done enough in nine months, much less two weeks to be a good recipient of this award.

Just like he wasn't born in Kenya, he wasn't born in February either. Why are people so fixated with that date as if you have to be President to be eligible for the award? People have already mentioned that the committee cited actions he took before being President as well.

I don't believe I said that they cannot do it. I'm just saying that it is more than a questioning of the selection process for the award. That's life too. I can accept it for what it is, but everyone should be honest about what it is. It is a criticism of both parties at best, and focuses too much on the President at worst.


I wouldn't go so far as to say "your guy" in this situation. I don't really care much who the Nobel Committee picks. It isn't going to change my life one way or the other. I'm not upset about it, nor am I overjoyed. I admit surprise, but I don't have more insight into how their process works beyond what I have already shared in this thread.

Unfortunately, you are not on the committee that makes these decisions. It appears there are people that do not agree with you.

The award has a much more clear requirement than "peacemaking". According to Nobel's will the award goes:

Good piece from The Globe and Mail on this subject:

Obama deserves the Nobel - The Globe and Mail

First of all, I can't put this more baldly for you, Tekneek. The past award recipient list is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I have never set out to discuss the worthiness of past candidates. I don't know a fig about them, and they don't have bearing here, so it doesn't matter. I am not making a statement about past awards.

I am making a statement about this award. Follow the logical path:

Point A: The Nobel Peace prize is given to people who perform critical peacemaking achievements.
Point B: Barack Obama has done little to nothing notable as a peacemaker in his time in office or as a politician period.

Given: Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now we have two divergent arguments:

1. The award this year is valid.
2. The award this year is a sham.

In order for the award to be valid, Obama's peacemaking would have to be considered more significant and valuable than other possible candidates at this point in time. We are positing here that, relatively, Obama has done nothing as of yet, or certainly falls well short of, let's say, Ghandi or Martin Luther King. So if this minimal achievement is still indeed worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, then this prize is given for doing nothing. Since I would posit that no true award is given for nothing, if this award is valid, then it is an award for nothing, and so is not true.

Since we are positing that Obama has done little to deserve this award at this point, and yet he has still received it, then just based on this specific instance alone, we have to presume this specific award is a sham.

As for whether the NPP is historically a sham, I leave that for others more knowledgeable than myself to argue.

It is my opinion that he has not done enough in the scope of his entire lifetime, President or not, up to the point of this key stroke, that warrants he receive an award for peacemaking.

Another reason that an understanding of the history of the award is relevant to any discussion about the legitimacy of the current selection.

This thread has turned comical.

I hope Obama lives up to responsibility of winning the award.

Here is where your entire premise fails.

As quoted earlier by JPhillips, and as found at the official web site:

You may believe that, and that's your opinion, but fact of the matter is, those quotes are entirely consistent within the framework of criticising Obama's peacemaking efforts, which have come under scrutiny because of the committee's decision. I'll concede (in fact, I already did) that conservatives are using the opportunity to lambast Obama indirectly, but you introduced those quotes as being invalid and not a criticism of the committee, and in that, you are wrong. They criticize the decision (and in an added bonus for too gleeful conservatives, an opportunity to sideswipe Obama at the same time).



Is this a "I shouldn't have gotten involved in this because I don't know enough"?

It would be relevant if the award was intended to be solely about "peacemaking."

No, because I never pretended to be an expert on it. You, and others, did.

Im going to state that I think I called the Haines Bottom in the Iran thread, jus' sayin'.

I knew that before posting in this thread. It was put forth sometime yesterday, some two or three thread pages ago as well. If the committee feels that hope for peace is enough to earn this award, then I am entirely comfortable rejecting this award altogether, at least as I have come to understand it.

An award that promotes peace, IMO, should be given to those who have actually achieved, not hoped to achieve. I hope to one day write a great novel. Please let Pulitzer know, so they begin etching my name.

Awards shouldn't be for hope; they should be for accomplishments. Obama has accomplished, relative to anything one would presume to be a peacemaking accomplishment, nothing.

So if this award has correctly followed its own precepts in giving this award to Obama, then it is far less a prestigious award than I had once thought. I would far more value an award given to those who actually accomplish peace, rather than the hope for such.

I think this is important. We tend to want to make the award be about what we think it should be about rather than what it is. A lot of that is the fault of the committee that over time has often strayed from the intent of Nobel, but we need to stick to what the award is supposed to be honoring.

Given the decree from Mr. Nobel's will, I think the Obama case is stronger than that for Martin Luther King, even though I wouldn't put Obama's overall contributions to peace anywhere near King.

No, actually you said I was an expert. I challenge you to find where I said I was. In fact, I can find where I tell you I am not.

These are areas that could have been addressed with an understanding about the history of the award. It is ok that you do not know the history and therefore drew false conclusions based on that faulty view. Everybody does it at one time or another. It is hard for me to blame the Nobel Committee or the President of the United States for it, though.

I agree 100% with this. My ideas on this award has been that it is to be given to those who have achieved something that goes toward peace (one tends to think that when you include "Peace" in the award title).

Clearly, that perception is not reality. Therefore, it seems likely that while Obama's case for the award is stronger within rules of Nobel and the committee, the award itself is severely diminished because it is not about achievements in peacemaking.

You said it was a sham. I can't see how you could determine that without knowing a lot about the process, previous winners, etc. I didn't choose sides. You did. Sorry if I expected too much from someone speaking so definitively about the issue. I'll take the blame for that and I'm sorry. Now we know that you are largely uninformed about it and based your views on those misconceptions. I understand and have no hard feelings about it.

But my point was about a logical point to point about this specific award. Not about history, which is irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

How can it be irrelevant when the answers you were seeking could be found in the history of it? The answers to your puzzled views about how he could have won, or that it was somehow a sham, could be found in its history. How is that not relevant?

My argument is an experiment in logical argumentation based on commonly accepted perceptions, and is tied only to this specific award given to Obama.

There are no sides. That presumes only two. There are stances, of which there can be a million. I have a stance. You have a stance. Don't act like you don't have a stance on this. Otherwise, why are you wasting your morning responding?

I did not need to go to history to determine it is a sham. The specific argument in the present day was enough.

There are more ways than one to determine if something is a sham.

Given highlighting the Nobel's criteriae for the award (i.e. "the hope for peace" or whatever), I am willing to amend my stance on the award from it being a sham to the award being almost worthless now with respect to the perception (wrong though it was) that it was about peacemaking achievements.

IMO, an award for "hope in peace" is insignificant. An award for peacemaking achievement is very significant. I (and apparently most of the world) had always presumed this award was the latter, and it turns out it is the former, which is rather disappointing.

As the former, Obama seems to be a worthy recipient. But since the value of that award is very little, it may not be a sham, but it is certainly not anything I consider of value.

If I have an interest in this, it is largely an attempt to get an objective fact-based discussion of the issue, rather than an emotion-based discussion driven by uninformed opinions.

Which was my point earlier. That you are likely to find that you no longer care for the award, but not that it is actually a sham.

What is the value of any award? They only have as much meaning as you care to give them. Don't let common perceptions of awards shape your view of them. Find out the real criteria and decide for yourself. I mentioned earlier that it didn't matter much to me who wins this award, and I meant it.

Heh...never really figured out how the editing works.

Before & After....

In Nov 2007 it read...


10 Oct 2009 it reads...


So, we were both right. It did say that, but it was clearly edited to move the negative aspect further down the article.

I'm not sure that either version was truly accurate.

I don't recall you making that point before. That's not an attack, I literally don't recall. If you could point out where the post is, I would appreciate it.

And thanks for the lesson, professor. I'll try to remember to open my mind to not let common perceptions affect them.

Just as you state who wins doesn't matter to you, you have never understood that the award itself is not of real consequence to me either, it is the logicial argument I have been arguing. I have been pointing out all along how the logic follows. You were arguing illogically, and I called you on it.

You're welcome, and thanks.


Please point it out. If truly the case, I would appreciate the opportunity to learn from it.

logic |ˈläjik|
noun
1 reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity : experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic | he explains his move with simple logic | the logic of the argument is faulty.
• a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference : Aristotelian logic.
• the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument.
• the quality of being justifiable by reason : there's no logic in telling her not to hit people when that's what you're doing.
• ( logic of) the course of action or line of reasoning suggested or made necessary by : if the logic of capital is allowed to determine events.

You stated that while I was in the process of amending my stance. Sorry, no credit for you there. In fact, I give far more credit to JPhillips for bringing it back up.

As for calling you out logically, you argued that conservatives were unfairly taking swipes at Obama over this and included quotes.

I pointed out that their swipes were at Obama's peacemaking achievements, and so were perfectly valid for the discussion at hand.

You also continued to discuss the relevance of history to the discussion, which was not relevant to the discussion at all. Relevance is also a logicial argument. If you are discussing irrelevancies, you are not being logical. I called you out on that several times in fact.

Oh, and thanks for the logic definition!

Doesn't matter. I'm not keeping score.


I never said "unfairly."


I never said they weren't about Obama. I said they were. We appear to agree on this point.


How can you have a logical discussion about something if you don't know what it is? All of the concerns you had about the award were answered in the origin and history of the award, making them very relevant. We already know that your position was based not on fact, but a commonly held misconception. You claim to have had a logical argument that was premised on a false belief?

You're welcome.

In post 197, this is what you responded to with your conservatives' quotes.


Your quotes were put forth as a contrary to this, particularly the bolded part. Did you use "unfairly"? No. But clearly you disagree with someone attacking Obama about this. So, however you feel about the treatment of Obama, you clearly don't agree with it. I labeled your belief as "unfair". You can call it what you want. The only fact that matters is that you disagreed with his assertion, and you used those quotes as your "evidence".

I then pointed out that your evidence was actually evidence for his point, that the criticism was on the decision, not on Obama. Whereupon you got into a strawman side discussion about conservatives piggybacking the opportunity to take swipes at Obama, which no one really disagrees. But your original assertion, that these conservatives were attacking Obama and not the decision, was false.

You do understand that logic has nothing to do with fact, right? You are actually thinking too far outside of the box.

The discussion was within a context that turns out to not be entirely factually true. I was only arguing within the construct of that context. Within the construct that the Nobel is given to someone for peacemaking achievements, the award to Obama is indeed a sham. My whole argument was that that theorem is entirely consistent within that construct, and history is not required to understand the logical argument.

You refused to stay within that construct, though, and now are trying to apply my arguments within that construct to outside, which is also a logical violation.

Outside of the construct (or more to the point, setting a new construct, within which the Nobel criteriae have been more accurately identified and shown to be different than that of traditional perception by the public), I have a different stance, in which the award seems to be valid, but is of much less prestige than once thought to be.

"Unfair" goes both ways. If someone is critical of Obama while supposedly attempting to be critical of the Nobel Committee, they are still being critical of the President. Is it fair? Sure. Fine. I don't care, but don't pretend that comments specifically about the President are not about the President. That is what logic dictates.


Ok. Please tell me what portion of the nomination or selection process they were attempting to critique, because it reads largely as their views about the President.

Let me expound on the logic != fact, just to head off any misunderstandings.

Take this argument:

Point A: The Nationals have the best record in baseball.
Point B: The last draft pick in every round of the draft is given to the team with the best record in baseball.

Ergo: The Nationals will have the last draft pick in every round.

This is demonstrably not true, of course. The Nationals do not have the best record in baseball (sorry, lord scarlet), so they will not have the last draft pick in every round of the draft.

But this argument is still entirely logical.

Short answer being yes to my question.


Ok. So you want to claim that created your own criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize and Obama does not meet the criteria? Fine. History, however, is required to understand if your premise was even true. It became a situation where you claimed that either it was a sham this time, or it has always been a sham. At the end, you said it is not a sham.


You did not define the boundaries. You cannot arbitrarily define your own boundaries, therefore creating your own victory conditions. The major point of the discussion, as I understood it, was whether or not Obama getting the award was a sham. You appear to admit that it is not the case. I am sorry that I missed the part where this thread was about you creating a false premise, and anything that might make your premise untrue was outside the boundaries of the discussion.


If you had looked at the history of the award, you might have determined that for yourself much earlier in the process. While I did not know the portion from the will prior, I have looked over lists of winners from time to time and it is clear from such an exercise that Obama getting it would not be a sham.

No one said they weren't about the President. You said they were specifically blaming the President (by contrary to the post to which you responded). They were not. As I said earlier, it's all fine and dandy if you want to complain that conservatives are using the opportunity to lampoon the President as well (and I agree they are taking that opportunity with gusto), but that doesn't mean they are blaming the President, as you posited. It still a criticism of the committee's decision, using the President's actions (or non actions) as evidence for how bad the decision is.


An award for peacemaking (within that construct) was assumed at that time to be about peacemaking efforts (not the later digression brought on by JPhillips' point). Therefore, the peacemaking efforts of an award recipient are fair game for commentary. Those quotes were about Obama's peacemaking efforts, and clearly were in the negative on those efforts (i.e. criticism). Therefore, they are criticisms of the decision to award Obama with the Nobel.

The quote was not about "blaming", it was about "attacking." Going down a laundry list of items, or saying that he "gives speeches trashing his country", is an attack on the President and not much of a critique about the selection process. The very tone of the statements reveal that there is much contempt for the President. That is not hard to infer.


I can agree that they were critical of the decision, but not that they were not shots at the President. I only attempted to drive you, and others, to education about the award. Such that you wouldn't have to push flawed beliefs about it. You resisted that very strongly, content to push forward a flawed premise.

For what it is worth, you can easily contrast the tone of the following statements and see which are more about a critique of the decision and less about attacking the President himself:

Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]:

“I can’t divine all [of the Nobel Committee’s] intentions, but I think part of their decision-making was expectations and I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. As Americans, we’re proud when our President receives an award of that prestigious category. […] I think all of us were surprised at the decision, but I think Americans are always pleased when their president is recognized by something on this order.

Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]:

I can’t second guess the Nobel, but I will say this: we never expect a conservative Republican to be chosen. For instance, when Ronald Reagan helped to bring about the end of the Cold War and he was ignored by the Nobel Committee. I mean, to me, we’re just used to having the Nobel people picking Democrats or liberals to honor in this way. But it is an honor and there’s no use kidding about it, and especially to have our President win. I think for Barack Obama, this will be an incentive for him, as he indicated, to do an even greater job around the world, and hopefully he’ll be able to do that with our help.

Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK]:

“This just reemphasizes how this president has moved the United States from a foreign policy of strong national defense to one based on multinational cooperation,” says Inhofe. “That is the kind of change that the Nobel committee believes in.”

“I fear that this could change the president’s view towards Afghanistan,” adds Inhofe. “General McChrystal has a strategy to win. We need 40,000 more troops. If getting the Nobel Peace Prize somehow influences our policy Afghan policy, I’ll be disappointed.”

Rep. J. Gresham Barrett [R, SC-3]:

Congratulations to President Obama on his prize. I’m not sure what the international community loved best; his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran. The world may love it, but following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter is not where America needs to go. Hopefully, this surprise award will give the President cause to reevaluate his current course.

Actually, no. Your question: "How can you have a logical discussion about something if you don't know what it is?"

"What it is" is a factual issue. You do not need facts to have a logical discussion. Please see my Nationals post above for perhaps a clearer example.



The only thing needed was the perception that the award was for peacemaking achievements. This is not based on fact, but it was a common perception, one both you and I were under, as well as others. I would argue in fact that it was (and still is for those not paying attention) the prevalent perception regarding the criteriae for the Nobel.

Once you have the perception, you don't need history for the logical argument. The perception forms one of the givens.

It turns out the perception is wrong, and that is fine. We can start a new discussion with the correct perception. But from the perspective of accepting that perception, the logical argument worked, and history was not required because we are "given" the historical record via the perception.

Given that perception, the award was a sham. Your quote of my point, that I "claimed that either it was a sham this time, or it has always been a sham" is actually an allowance for a need to look at history to determine that question, which is why I did not say it has always been a sham (I lacked the historical background to make that call), but that this specific award was a sham.

I did not care to put in time to historically research the larger point--I only cared about the specific logical argument, which did not require history. My either A or B above was basically to say, "I leave it to others to determine if it was always a sham".

In the end, I said it was not a sham--outside of the construct of the original argument (made null by JPhillips' info). You should take care not to mix my stance within the construct and without.


My responses outlined the boundaries, and I can arbitrarily define them. It is up to you whether you want to argue within those boundaries. You attempted to, and then decided to create new boundaries, but continue to hold me to my original arguments that might not have been valid under a new construct.

Within the original construct (the Nobel is given to those who achieved peacemaking efforts), the award is a sham. Within the modified construct (the "hope for peace" criteriae), the award is not a sham (but much, much less important).

My "false premise" was the very one you and apparently most of the world thought was the case before we were more enlightened by the actual criteriae for the committee to award the Nobel.


Had you looked at the history of the award earlier, maybe you could have brought it up instead of JPhillips, or avoided getting into a logical discussion with me. I guess mea culpa for both of us.

As I have stated ad nauseum, though, history was irrelevant to the point I was making, and it was only in that context that I was making my point. You wish to change the context and yet filligree me for my position within the original context.

Ok. You did not quote the question, so I had to assume which one you were answering.


Ok. You only need facts if you really want to make a useful point.


No, I don't think I ever agreed to be bound by your terms.


Are you sure I thought that was the case, or making an assumption? I said history would reveal whether it was a sham or not, and I was right even if I did not do the research.


The reason it was irrelevant is purely because you wanted it to be irrelevant. Not because it actually was.

If you want me to say you defined some arbitrary criteria, based on a false premise, that would be true if your false premise were true, then you would be right. I believe I said as much in the thread, although I never agreed with the premise so I wasn't really living in your arbitrarily defined problem world during this discussion.

Too bad I thought we were discussing the real world and not a Chief Rum logical problem. Maybe you can start a new thread next time for your logical problems, rather than hijack a discussion about a real world event.

But the quote still has logical validity, even if you have a poor opinion of it or the reasons why the speaker might be making it. Limbaugh, for instance, is inferring that Obama is kowtowing to the international community by "giving speeches trashing his country", which Limbaugh sees as an element working in favor of international opinion of him, which would of course influence a decision by a committee of Norwegian academics (or whoever they are, let's agree they're not conservative Republicans). It's a valid critique first. The fact it can also be an attack is a "side benefit" for those who lean that way.

As I said before, anyone who is upset that this has opened up criticism for Obama should take it up with the Nobel committee.



I don't know that anyone has disagreed with the point that the conservatives are using fair critique to also lay aspersions on the President.

As for the last, look, I'm hoping you don't intend this, but you come off very patronizing. You fail to understand that what drives me (at least, not speaking for others) is not a need to educate myself, but to hold true to the legitimacy of the argument.

You also continue to act like you were never under that "flawed belief" yourself. You were being "educated" at the same time the rest of us were.

My contentment to push forward the "flawed premise" is based entirely in what I am trying to do in this discussion, and it shows how little you understand of my perspective that you do not see the value in the discussion for discussion's sake.

You see me as someone with my head in the ground, ignoring the "truth". You refuse to see what I really am--arguing the logic of the premise, not the facts. It was never about the facts. I don't get worked up about facts. I get worked up about people who argue unfairly and illogically.

Clearly we have gone well beyond anything where further discussion will be of any value. If you care so little for my discussion, next time don't participate.

Never complained about criticism. I complained about pretending that the criticism was entirely about the Nobel selection process, which it clearly is not.


And I am about getting it right, not about operating within your arbitrary boundaries. I think that was accomplished. As new evidence came to light, the proper understanding of the event was arrived at. That is sufficient to me. JPhillips can have all the credit. I'm not looking for any of it.


To some degree, yes, but I claimed history held the answers and it did. I pushed that early.


I see the value, but I would like to know the rules before I'm presumed to be playing the game. I thought it was a discussion about a real world event, which would not normally have any arbitrary boundaries that were not agreed to from the start.


I may have held that view, but only until you've made it clear that you were engaging in something beyond what I thought we were doing. I have a different view, and can see the value, but I need to know ahead of time that there are arbitrary boundaries, and we are discussing a non-real world premise, and such. This thread appeared to be about a real world event, which caused me to want to arrive at a point of real truth/understanding.

I just missed the part where it changed from discussion of a real world event and into discussing your premise by itself. The facts being what they are, it would be hard for me to argue against your premise within your arbitrary bounds. I think this devolved when there was a misunderstanding between us, whether my fault or yours, that was not bridged until just a few minutes ago. For that I am sorry. I see the value in what you were doing, I just did not know we had moved into that sub-discussion and out of arriving at a real-world understanding of this event.

An equivalent might be if I believed that the Congressional Medal of Freedom meant you had to have had some great freedom-expanding accomplishments in your past. Effectively this:

Point A: The Congressional Medal of Freedom is given to those who have expanded freedom in the world.
Point B: How the hell did Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr. expand freedom in the world?

Tekneek, so you know, every discussion you have has boundaries to make it logically valid, and no one needs to state it baldly, it is clear from their arguments the point they are making. You can respond within the scope of their arguments or create your own boundaries, and see if they will follow you to those boundaries or want to discuss within theirs.

You set your own boundaries as much as I did without stating anything other than your argument.

What I did does have real world relevance, because people cannot come to an agreement unless they agree on the boundaries of the discussion.

I understand, and I agree, but I still do not recall agreeing that further discussion of this event was going to be within your definition of it. I was originally just trying to push the discussion towards a real world understanding of how this came about, and away from the whole thing being a scam/sham perpetrated by a bunch of crooked people in some far away land. I never really intended to make this many posts or get involved at the level that I did.

Correct!

Then take it one step further...what if it turns out this medal is given to people who intend to expand freedom and DeBartolo Sr. is about to embark on just such a mission? That was the boundary changing point when JPhillips refocused the discussion. It causes a whole different sort of discussion.

I am sorry, too, for anything I said that might have been misunderstood. I'm not the easiest guy to understand, I think, especially in long-winded posts. You actually did a lot better in that respect than many others I have encountered here.

Yes, on the real world discussion, clearly the "new" information from JPhillips' adjusts the discussion significantly. The result being, for me at least, that I learned abit more about the Nobel Peace Prize, but not for its benefit, as its value is now lessened in my mind.

FWIW, I do hope that Obama lives up to the promise this award represents.

That's the thing, it's not about agreement. By responding and arguing within my context, you are accepting my context. By arguing for history in another point, though, you are setting your own boundaries; a new context, a new discussion. And I engaged you there, too, whereby I essentially agreed to discuss within your context. Essentially, we are arguing two contexts with each other at the same time, and getting them a little confused. On top of that, you were arguing more about facts and real world relevance, while I was arguing about logical consistency and fair argumentation.

It really was a situation ripe for issues. ;)

I might have placed a real wager on that being the case from the start.

I tend to take a dim view of any awards that are ultimately subjective in nature. It is interesting, and an honor to be chosen, but I don't place a lot of emotional stock into it. I know that the selection is that of whatever committee makes that selection, and does not mean I have to agree with any of it. Once I arrived at that view, awards shows and such became far less interesting/entertaining. An evening spent seeing who the MPAA/Foreign Press/whatever thinks was great is not all that appealing. I can read the results later and be happy if something/someone I like received recognition, but aren't bothered if it's all shite.


Indeed. I don't see how that would be bad for any of us. If it doesn't turn out that great? It won't be the first, or last, selection that is looked upon as poor.

Hah. I screwed up. I'll try to look for the scope of a sub-discussion developing next time. At least I (finally) understood what you were really getting at and trying to accomplish. Hopefully you get that it was my misunderstanding that made me come off as patronizing. I also have a way of expressing myself that gives that impression often, although it is rarely intentional.

Ultimately, it was fun and educational. Thanks for the patience and understanding at the end, when we could've just called each other assholes and let that shape our views going into the future.

Hey, maybe Obama will invite you guys for a beer.

Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize

Come on, even Jimmy Carter had to wait until 2002.

The 2008 winner: MARTTI AHTISAARI for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts.

THREE DECADES!

Let me see: Obama, Mother Teresa. Obama, Mother Teresa. Obama, Mother Teresa. We really want those two in the same sentence at this point?

I can't believe that fucker Lars Olof Nathan Soderblom has won the prize.

Crap. I can't believe it took your post for me to figure out what won him the award.

I hear the Swedes were really pissed that he won it, too.

Of course not. Mother Teresa had to die before she was canonized. By my reckoning, Obama should be nominated for sainthood shortly before Election Day, 2012. :)

I was previously unclear as to the definition of "butt hurt", but then was enlightened by this glorious example so thanks for that, Cam. :p

In other news on the net: