Why would Obama receive the nobel peace prize when he's escalating war?

Obama is escalating the Afghanistan war, he's suggesting a potential military strike against Iran, he's not pulling our troops out of Iraq. Oh well. I guess it just goes to show that the Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with peace.

Former winners of the Nobel Peace Prize include the following war mongers and advocates of building up the military...

-Woodrow Wilson
-Theodore Roosevelt
-Yasser Arafat
-Shimon Peres
-Henry Kissinger
-Le Duc Tho

Ghandi was never given the award.

*note* I changed the name of this thread since it's no longer about the subject

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nice Guy Donnie,

Why would Obama receive the nobel peace prize when he's escalating war?

Ad hominem tu quoque!

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because...inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Example:

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

http://www.nizkor.org/features...minem-tu-quoque.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: witilinki,

Rush Limbaugh was masturbating on air today while talking about President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

What,oh he must have won it on a lottery....

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
Ad hominem tu quoque! This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because...inconsistent with him/her actions.
http://www.nizkor.org/features...minem-tu-quoque.html

The Nobel Prize itself is not an argument. It's given by a matter of votes and nominations by the committee, which is made up of more then one person. I didn't say the claim was false. I asked a question why they would choose him. Do you understand the difference? If you read through my post I never say at any point that the nobel peace prize is making a false claim. Sure I think they are hypocrites but I recognize that an award is just a prize, not an argument.

I might have the opinion that Obama does not deserve it, but I never made the argument that the award is false.

Further explanation and from your link...

quote:

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false

I was calling the nobel peace prize committee hypocrites, who gave him this award.

While we're on the topic of the Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel's will stated the following reason that people should receive the award...

quote:

Originally said by Nobel:
The Peace Prize should be awarded "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"

Obama was nominated for this award 12 days after getting elected, before he had "done the most or the best work" for anything...
http://online.wsj.com/article/...SJ_hpp_sections_news

Secondly, witilinki, let me also take the time to point out your lack of a conclusive logical response in this seperate thread. I'm still waiting for you to explain why an opinion is not a belief, something you've avoided answering multiple times in that thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:
The Nobel Prize itself is not an argument.

You're being ridiculous, now. Did I quote the Nobel Prize "itself" or did I quote YOUR argument in the subject line? You didn't start this thread to congratulate BamBam.

By your very subject line, you attacked an aspect of BamBam’s character (the fact he is escalating war) to undermine the argument he should receive the Nobel Prize, a clear case of ad hominem tu quoque (arguing the inconsistency of actions).

Once again, argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine the argument (to award BamBam the Nobel Peace Prize) by attacking the person's character (BamBam is escalating war) instead of addressing the claim (the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize).

It is not necessary to prove a claim, FALSE, only to undermine/counter an argument by attacking “the person”. In the example, below, Bill is not trying to prove Peter’s assertion, false. He undermined Peter’s argument by demonstrating the “inconsistency” in Peter’s words (it is morally wrong, etc.) and actions (wearing a leather coat, etc.). THAT is ad hominem tu quoque.

Example:

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

-------------

According to one of your interpretations...

quote:

-Person A would be the links I provided
-Claim X would be liberal bias in the named personalities
-Steve claims there is something objectionable about Person A (The links)
-Therefore Claim X (liberal bias) is false

By your formula/definition:

- Person A is BamBam (the subject matter of this thread)
- Claim X is that he will be receiving the Nobel Prize
- Nice Guy Donnie claims there is something objectionable about Person A (BamBam is escalating war)
- Therefore, claim X (awarding the Nobel Prize to BamBam) is inconsistent with BamBam’s actions (escalating war) (ad hominem tu quoque) - He should not receive or is not worthy of receiving the Nobel Prize.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: witilinki,

just curious:even though Obama was nominated 12 days into office, couldn't the Nobel committee take his actions after that date into consideration?

I was in Indonesia in March and wore an Obama tee shirt a couple of days and the amount of joy and love it attracted was unbelievable. A lot of haters in the US just don't realize what kind of change for the better Americans made by actually electing a President again.

quote:

In Oslo, Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjørn Jagland said "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do."

quote:

Quote by Donnie Witt: I might have the opinion that Obama does not deserve it...

Well, my response to you, Donnie is this...considering the quote from Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjørn Jagland, President Obama DOES deserve Nobel Peace Prize. And as Peter D. suggested, Obama has changed the way much of the world views America. We are seen in a much more favorable light. And that is a very good thing. That goes a long way in establishing peaceful relations around the world.

That's a complete turn-around from the pugnacious, war-mongering years of Bush and Cheney.

This award is not solely Obama's...it also reflects one of America's purpose and goals, to encourage peace amongst all nations. How could you be against that, Donnie? If you don't think Obama "deserves" the Nobel Peace Prize, then you don't think America deserves it either?

Because he's not Bush?

quote:

Originally posted by little nel:
Well, my response to you, Donnie is this...considering the quote from Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjørn Jagland, President Obama DOES deserve Nobel Peace Prize. And as Peter D. suggested, Obama has changed the way much of the world views America. We are seen in a much more favorable light. And that is a very good thing. That goes a long way in establishing peaceful relations around the world.

That's a complete turn-around from the pugnacious, war-mongering years of Bush and Cheney.

This award is not solely Obama's...it also reflects one of America's purpose and goals, to encourage peace amongst all nations. How could you be against that, Donnie? If you don't think Obama "deserves" the Nobel Peace Prize, then you don't think America deserves it either?

I'm basing my opinion of whether he deserves the award on the founder of the award and his very wishes. Allow me to quote it for you again...

quote:

Originally said by Nobel:
The Peace Prize should be awarded "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

No one can possibly achieve in their first 12 days as President what Nobel considers "having done the most or best work."

Can you point out anything Obama did in his first 12 days that would constitute this? Even Obama himself agrees he did not deserve the award. I agree that Obama's tone toward foreign policy has been much better then the Bush administration.

Giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is a "premature canonization" and an "embarrassment" to the process of designating a laureate, a presidential historian says.

"The jury is still out as to what his presidency is going to add up to," Fred Greenstein, author and professor of politics emeritus at Princeton University, told FOXNews.com.

"It's more of an embarrassment to the Nobel process."

Greenstein said Obama is unlikely to gain any political advantage from the award, and it is unlikely to lead to any major policy changes.

Only two other sitting presidents, Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919, have been awarded the prestigious Peace Prize. Roosevelt was honored largely for brokering an agreement between Russia and Japan, and Wilson took the award for his role in ending World War I and creating the League of Nations.

It's far too early to compare Obama to either of his predecessors, said Allan Lichtman, professor of history at American University.

"They're not comparable," Lichtman said. "[Roosevelt and Wilson] were six or seven years into two-term presidencies, and Obama has not completed a single year of his presidency, so it makes very little sense."

Obama possesses a great deal of "promise," but the jury is still out, Lichtman said.

"It remains to be seen what his foreign policy legacy will be," he said. "It is premature. This was to encourage rather than to recognize an accomplished fact."

The award might even become a "political headache" for Obama, Lichtman said.

"On the one hand, his liberal base will be pushing him to live up to this," he said. "And his Republican critics will say a bunch of Scandinavians socialists have given this award to another socialist. You'll hear quite a bit of criticism from the right."

Stephen Wayne, professor of American government at Georgetown University, praised Obama's "good instincts" and strong belief in diplomacy, but said he failed to see accomplishments that merited the prize.

"It does seem to me, at this point, that's its premature," Wayne said. "When I first saw it, I thought it was a joke. Obama may have been the first to get it for his rhetoric and his orientation."

Wayne said he was "startled" to learn Obama had been nominated for the award less than two weeks into his presidency.

"What had he done by February? He had been the first African-American elected president and provided sawing rhetoric," Wayne said. "In one sense, Obama has always been more popular in Europe than in the United States. That popularity is based in part on the contrast he provides to former President George W. Bush, who was not popular in Europe. I am very favorable toward President Obama, but this prize is a surprise to me."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...process-expert-says/

Well, he's not Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
Once again, argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine the argument (to award BamBam the Nobel Peace Prize) by attacking the person's character (BamBam is escalating war) instead of addressing the claim (the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize).

The Nobel Peace Prize committee is who decides that Obama is getting the award, not Obama himself. For me to call their decision hypocritical is not criticizing an argument. You're trying to give power to the Nobel Prize as an argument and it's not an argument. It's an award, not a statement given as an argument. It's not someone stating a fact or even trying to state a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
It is not necessary to prove a claim, FALSE, only to undermine/counter an argument by attacking “the person”. In the example, below, Bill is not trying to prove Peter’s assertion, false. He undermined Peter’s argument by demonstrating the “inconsistency” in Peter’s words (it is morally wrong, etc.) and actions (wearing a leather coat, etc.). THAT is ad hominem tu quoque.

You're trying to say that the nobel prize is an argument, and even if it were (which it's not) I never said the prize itself was speaking or acting in a way inconsistent with an argument. Giving someone an award is not a statement of fact! I can give you an award right now for being "a great basketball player" but it's not a statement of fact. You're also attributing my comments on Obama's actions to the committee's decision to give him an award, which are two seperate entities.

I wasn't trying to prove the claim false, because there was no "claim" in the first place. For me to proclaim that the argument was wrong would suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize committee does not have the authority to give such an award to Obama. I wasn't saying they didn't have the right to give him an award, I was saying they look like hypocrites for doing so.

Even though I asked my question to you (how is an opinion not a belief?) several times before you asked the below questions, I'm going to go ahead and answer...

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
Question 1:
Are you aware EVERY TIME you DISMISS Liberal arguments as being ‘fascist’ or ‘communist’, etc., or attack Liberals as being ‘fascist’ or ‘communist’ or ‘marxist’, etc., you are resorting to ad hominem?

Namecalling is not "Ad Hominem" witi! It would be "Ad Hominem" if I tried to say someone was fascist and that's all I said for my argument or reason for not arguing. However labeling something and then explaining WHY defeats any potential "Ad Hominem."

The point of "Ad Hominem" is not explaining your position. Do you understand? In Steve's example he simply wrote off the facts I listed as "opinion/belief" and used it as his excuse for not responding to me. If Steve had said it was "opinion" and then listed multiple reasons why he felt the things I said were wrong then I wouldn't have brought "Ad Hominem" up.

Do you understand? "Ad Hominem" is about not backing yourself up and not responding to the substance of an argument or claim. If I had responded to this thread and said, "The Nobel Prize committee is nothing but left wingers so we can't take them seriously" then you may have some ground to go on.

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
Question 2:
By your own logic, you are resorting to ad hominem by dismissing avoiding/ignoring nel’s arguments/questions and refusing to reply, even though she’s raised the subject, several times

I have no idea which of nel's arguments or questions you are referring to, but it's not relevant. You're wrong again. Ignoring someone's question is NOT "Ad Hominem." If Nel or anyone for that matter made a statement or argument and I gave a half assed answer such as "That's your opinion and you're not authoritative" then that would be "Ad Hominem." It takes an acknowledgment to have "Ad Hominem" because a key component is attacking the source instead of making an argument.

You're assuming I read everything everyone types here and I have an obligation to respond to it. Did you ever think that if I'm not acknowledging something said here it's because I didn't even see it? I've answered your two ridiculous questions, now answer the ONLY QUESTION I've tried to get you to answer that you keep ignoring...

how is an opinion not a belief?

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:
I have no idea which of nel's arguments or questions you are referring to, but it's not relevant. You're wrong again. Ignoring someone's question is NOT "Ad Hominem."

Here is what you said in another thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:
There you go pulling out "Ad Hominem" arguments again. Suggesting you don't like a source and refusing to bother arguing any of the facts or points that are mentioned in each article. I'd rather you didn't respond at all...then responding just long enough to tell me you aren't going to respond.

You refused to bother arguing/debating any points/questions raised by nel. And, you well know what questions I asked. You ignored them.

Here they are:

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
OOPS! I missed this.

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:
"Ad Hominem" exists to label people who refuse to argue substance. It takes no skill, effort, or intelligence to simply say, "That's just your opinion, so I don't have to respond."

You always INSIST people back up their claims; please back up this one.

---------------------------


By your logic, ignoring nel's question, repeatedly, is ad hominem.

---------

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:

quote:

Originally posted by little nel:

quote:

Quote by Donnie Witt:His book, "The Underground History of American Education" changed my life...

I'm going act like Socrates and question you on this. How has this book changed your life?

I tell you what nel. Read the book (which you can read on his website for free) tell me your thoughts on it and I'll give a thorough explanation as to how Gatto has changed my perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by little nel:

quote:

can't help it no one has any interest in Dr Ron Paul. Speaking of Paul, in another post you referenced someone who should run the education. I did some research. The guy, among other things, thinks kids shouldn't even go to school. They should get their schooling from just life lessons. Heck, even Deadwood, a lawless town, had a schoolhouse. That guy is scary. I applaud his 30+ year in the NY school system and that's where it ends.

I agree with you about John Gatto. I was hoping to discuss some of him outrageous claims with Donnie. However, Donnie insisted that I read Gatto's 450+ page book beforehand. Ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by little nel:
^All of THIS garbage just because you couldn't answer a simple...legitimate question.

Donnie, it's you who can't debate. Admit it, you are only here to antaganize.

quote:

Originally posted by little nel:

quote:

Quote by Donnie Witt:His book, "The Underground History of American Education" changed my life...

I'm going act like Socrates and question you on this. How has this book changed your life?

^I tried to have a discussion with you. But your response was to, first, evade the question and then DEMAND that I read 450+ pages of a libertarian's book....which is an insane demand to make of anyone.

Your only goal here is set up the terrain for an argument.

quote:

Originally posted by little nel:
Hmmm...You isulted me again by suggesting that I'm "lazy." And I'll bet if I were to answer your insult with the same disrespect you always show me, you'd wail like a baby and...once again...try to convince everyone that you're the pitiful victim and evil 'wittle nel' is sooo mean to you.

quote:

Quote by victim, Donnie Witt: Did you even read it, by the way?

Yes, I did. Twice, because I couldn't believe what I had read the first time. It is total gibberish.

I don't think you've read it, though, Donnie. If you had, you should have been quick to answer the question I posed to you a few days ago. Instead, you avoided it, and then insulted me.

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
Once again, argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine the argument (to award BamBam the Nobel Peace Prize) by attacking the person's character (BamBam is escalating war) instead of addressing the claim (the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize).

The Nobel Peace Prize committee is who decides that Obama is getting the award, not Obama himself.

This is about YOUR "argument", which is ad hominem tu quoque.

By YOUR formula/definition:

- Person A is BamBam (the subject matter of this thread)
- Claim X is that he will be receiving the Nobel Prize
- Nice Guy Donnie claims there is something objectionable about Person A (BamBam is escalating war)
- Therefore, claim X (awarding the Nobel Prize to BamBam) is inconsistent with BamBam’s actions (escalating war) (ad hominem tu quoque) - He should not receive or is not worthy of receiving the Nobel Prize.

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
Question 1:
Are you aware EVERY TIME you DISMISS Liberal arguments as being ‘fascist’ or ‘communist’, etc., or attack Liberals as being ‘fascist’ or ‘communist’ or ‘marxist’, etc., you are resorting to ad hominem?

Namecalling is not "Ad Hominem" witi! It would be "Ad Hominem" if I tried to say someone was fascist and that's all I said for my argument or reason for not arguing. However labeling something and then explaining WHY defeats any potential "Ad Hominem."

It IS 'ad hominem'. You are dismissing the argument as being fascist. This is REALLY bizarre. You just make up your own definitions.

Ad hominem abusive

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

http://www.nizkor.org/features...personal-attack.html

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
By your logic, ignoring nel's question, repeatedly, is ad hominem.

I'm not getting that from what was said there. You should be more specific. I'm assuming the below is what you are referring to...

quote:

Originally posted by little nel:
I'm going act like Socrates and question you on this. How has this book changed your life?

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:
I tell you what nel. Read the book (which you can read on his website for free) tell me your thoughts on it and I'll give a thorough explanation as to how Gatto has changed my perspective.

Nel asked me a question about a book she had already said she wasn't going to read. So I asked her to read the book before we had any further discussions on the matter. I had already introduced who wrote the book, what the book was about, and given a few reasons why I liked his ideas.

Nel was not interested in Gatto, as displayed by her comments in that very thread. That's why I asked her to read the book before her and I had any kind of debate on the subject. This discussion between her and I has NOTHING to do with "Ad Hominem." Not answering that question is in no way related to "Ad Hominem." Once again there was no argument being made by nel, therefore there was no substance to ignore.

If Nel had said, "The book sucks" and I had said "Well you're a liberal so you're opinion does not matter"...that would be a case of "Ad Hominem." All I did was point out that she hadn't read the book, which is true.

I think your confusion comes here...

quote:

Originally posted by little nel:
Yes, I did. Twice, because I couldn't believe what I had read the first time. It is total gibberish. I don't think you've read it, though, Donnie. If you had, you should have been quick to answer the question I posed to you a few days ago. Instead, you avoided it, and then insulted me.

Nel was confused. She had read a small article Gatto wrote online and tried to play it off as if she had read Gatto's 400 page book. I pointed it out to her that she hadn't read the book I was talking about and she quietly/conveinantly stopped posting in the thread.

You ignored/avoided nel's questions, repeatedly. By your many, MANY contradictory/distorted definitions, that would be ad hominem, as you accuse others who refuse to debate the issues with you present.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: witilinki,

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
By YOUR formula/definition:

First of all, you can't say my definition is wrong, and use it as your argument at the same time.

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:
- Person A is BamBam (the subject matter of this thread)
- Claim X is that he will be receiving the Nobel Prize
- Nice Guy Donnie claims there is something objectionable about Person A (BamBam is escalating war)
- Therefore, claim X (awarding the Nobel Prize to BamBam) is inconsistent with BamBam’s actions (escalating war) (ad hominem tu quoque) - He should not receive or is not worthy of receiving the Nobel Prize.

You have the formula wrong. Below is the formula...(according to your link)

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false

-Person A is the Nobel Peace Prize Committee
-Claim X is the award given to Obama
-Person B is Donnie and claims he sees hypocrisy to the award being given to Obama
-Therefore claim X is false

This formula does not make sense. Do you know why? Because giving an award is not something that's false. It's not a fact, or argument. Also you're confusing the role of Obama and the Nobel Prize. Person A is not Obama it's the Nobel Prize committee.

Obama's actions can not be part of the equation because he's not the one who gave himself the award or making a claim. The decision came from the Nobel Prize committee which was not making a factual statement or argument, therefore "Ad Hominem" cannot apply.

Here is the distorted formula you posted in another thread:

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

Nice Guy Donnie interpretation:

-Person A would be the links I provided
-Claim X would be liberal bias in the named personalities
-Steve claims there is something objectionable about Person A (The links)
-Therefore Claim X (liberal bias) is false