Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize???

[Chief Rum]

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

Short answer being yes to my question.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

"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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Short answer being yes to my question.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

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

"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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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 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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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?

[Chief Rum]

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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?

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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.

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

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

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.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It really was a situation ripe for issues.

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.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

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

[gstelmack]

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?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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

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

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by cartman

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

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

[duckman]

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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?

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dude, Barack Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize after nine months in office, during which the Iran situation has gotten worse, he refused to meet with the Dalai Llama for fear of upsetting the Chinese, gave up missile defense in Europe, which angered Poland and didn't net us any noticable return on diplomatic relations with Russia (and which of those two countries has been the aggressor over the past century?), and has been played like a fool by several tinpot South American dictators.

After all that, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, not when he's 60 years old and has actually (hopefully) accomplished amazing and wonderful things for the world. He won it now. After that, anything's possible, including Bush's experiment in Middle East democracy bearing some fruit.

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

In other news on the net: