Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize???

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You continue to assume that knowledge of past Nobel Peace prize history is necessary for us to come to the conclusions we have. You are wrong.

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You continue to assume that knowledge of past Nobel Peace prize history is necessary for us to come to the conclusions we have. You are wrong. All the information we need is presented right here in the present. The only thing in doubt is whether the award is just now become a sham, or if it has always been and because we didn't pay attention before, we never noticed. So stop going with that argument; it is a logical fallacy, and if something annoys me even more than blind partisanship, it is illogical argumentation.

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?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Both of your examples are criticisms on the decision to give Obama this award, based on their opinions of what he has done (Barrett's long list; Limbaugh's speech reference). They do not represent the small minority RomaGoth mentioned. Look harder.

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.

Here is a fictitious example of something that would make your case better: "Obama is a piece of crud for making himself eligible for this award."

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Wiki also had this neat tidbit just below that date, that I'll bet was added in the last couple of days...

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Both of your examples are criticisms on the decision to give Obama this award, based on their opinions of what he has done (Barrett's long list; Limbaugh's speech reference). They do not represent the small minority RomaGoth mentioned. Look harder.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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:

"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."

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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 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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cartman

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?

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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.

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.

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).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If conservatives are using this announcement to point out Obama's lack of qualifications for the award, that sucks, but that's life.

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.

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).

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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

[JPhillips]

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

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

[Young Drachma]

Good piece from The Globe and Mail on this subject:

Obama deserves the Nobel - The Globe and Mail

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Good piece from The Globe and Mail on this subject:

Obama deserves the Nobel - The Globe and Mail

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

[Swaggs]

This thread has turned comical.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Point A: The Nobel Peace prize is given to people who perform critical peacemaking achievements.

Here is where your entire premise fails.

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

As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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).

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.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Have you been watching or reading the news the last few months?

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Here is where your entire premise fails.

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

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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?

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.

[Chief Rum]

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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?

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

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

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

Before & After....

In Nov 2007 it read...

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which recognize completed scientific or literary accomplishment, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace. As some such processes have failed to create lasting peace, some Peace Prizes appear questionable in hindsight. For example, the awards given to Theodore Roosevelt, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, Lê Ðức Thọ and Henry Kissinger were particularly controversial and criticized; the Kissinger-Thọ award prompted two dissenting Committee members to resign.^[7]

10 Oct 2009 it reads...

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which recognize completed scientific or literary accomplishment, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So, we were both right. It did say that, but it was clearly edited to take out the negative aspect of it and only leave the positive aspect of the article.

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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

You're welcome, and thanks.

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

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.

[Chief Rum]

Oh, and thanks for the logic definition!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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

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

I never said "unfairly."

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

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

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.

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?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Oh, and thanks for the logic definition!

You're welcome.

[Chief Rum]

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

While this may be true for a small minority, most of us believe this is an absurd choice regardless of our dislike for Obama. I would also point out that it is not rage we feel, but disbelief. I have not seen anyone attack Obama for this decision, rather, the comments have been directed towards the committee's decision.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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 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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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".

"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.

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.

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.