[Gobbler]

See that's the beauty of it! When the prize is given to people after the deeds are done, it really isn't much more than a medal worth ten billion Swedish krona. But now it's more like a challenge cup being passed around. "Here, hold this for a while and see how much peace you can get out of it. We'll be watching from over here and will definitely start to snigger contemptuously every time you even so much as think of not doing what you've promised."

[Dorothy]

Spoon Poetic, on 08 October 2009 - 12:16 PM, said:

"Obama's mom's brother's ex-girlfriend's cousin smokes pot."

Seriously big news here. Seriously.

I deserve the peace prize. I didn't punch anyone today.

[Ninja Duck]

Are we going to start awarding scientists based on their potential too? Because the winners of the Nobel Prize for physics are being recognized for things they did in the 60s and 70s because their research then has such an impact today. It may not drive them to do more in their career, but it will inspire younger scientists to achieve those standards. If they gave prizes for potential here, then high school science projects would be valid contenders.

The Fields Medal for mathematics is only eligible for people under the age of 40. Partly because the sponsors are crazy, and partly to drive them to do more and keep achieving. So we're going to say that suddenly the peace prize is the same way now?

[Gobbler]

The difference should be obvious. Studies in chemistry and physics return definitive results, exploring the facts that our universe presents us with. Peace, on the other hand, isn't just a concept or a definitive fact. It's the Utopian result of a process. I think it makes more sense to reward potential for reaching that than to just give it to whoever tried something this year and then keep quiet until next year.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Gobbler, on 18 October 2009 - 11:17 AM, said:

See that's the beauty of it! When the prize is given to people after the deeds are done, it really isn't much more than a medal worth ten billion Swedish krona. But now it's more like a challenge cup being passed around. "Here, hold this for a while and see how much peace you can get out of it. We'll be watching from over here and will definitely start to snigger contemptuously every time you even so much as think of not doing what you've promised."

The problem with that idea is that Obama is, whatever anyone says about him, the sorta person who WOULD try to bring peace whether he got a prize or not. So are the people he appointed. And whatever you or anyone else thinks about US Politicians, there is not one who does not KNOW the international community is watching, only ones who do not CARE the international community is watching. In the US more than any other first world country, the international community sniggering is not going to change a damn thing. You saw that in 2004, when all the sniggers in the world didn't stop Bush from getting re-elected.

Obama's approval rating dropped when it was announced he won the Nobel prize. And out of curiosity, when was the Nobel prize last used the way you're describing, to award someone for what they COULD do instead of what they've done

Quote

studies in chemistry and physics return definitive results, exploring the facts that our universe presents us with

Are there really not definitive results for peace?

Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho won the prize for ending the Vietnam War, Gorbachev won for helping end the Cold War. These were definitive things. It wasn't awarded to Kissinger (Le Duc Tho declined) to make him keep ending wars, it was awarded to say "Good job, you helped make people stop killing each-other."

I don't think the Nobel Prize should be awarded for inspiration, I think it works better if the Nobel Prize is inspiration unto itself. Something that's awarded to people like Mother Teresa, or Martin Luther King, or Desmond Tutu, and makes people want to be like them.

If you just use it as a political cudgel, it MIGHT get someone to fulfill the promise they made. But if you use it to reward something truly amazing, then you will certainly inspire at least fifty or a hundred people to try to be like that, deal with similar issues. The Nobel Prize can be an eye-opener, because when people don't just see it being used as a tool, when they see it being used to bring attention to something truly amazing, they realize just what a single person, or a group of people, is capable of. If you shine a light on what's been done, it'll inspire people. Most people I've talked to weren't inspired by Obama winning, they were confused. Even the ones who love the guy admit there are people out there who are more deserving.

This post has been edited by Otal Nimrodi: 25 October 2009 - 10:51 PM

[Gobbler]

Otal Nimrodi, on 26 October 2009 - 04:49 AM, said:

The problem with that idea is that Obama is, whatever anyone says about him, the sorta person who WOULD try to bring peace whether he got a prize or not. So are the people he appointed. And whatever you or anyone else thinks about US Politicians, there is not one who does not KNOW the international community is watching, only ones who do not CARE the international community is watching. In the US more than any other first world country, the international community sniggering is not going to change a damn thing. You saw that in 2004, when all the sniggers in the world didn't stop Bush from getting re-elected.

I think there's an important difference in the cases described. True, national pride far outweighs any influence that international sniggering may have on votes. True, international sniggering is also pretty much pointless when it's adressed at someone like Mr. Bush, who had repeatedly been described as a fanatic who would do whatever he thought was right in any case. But now you've got Obi, who proved to be as unwise as putting "listening to inernational sniggering" far up on his list of things to be considerate about. He's also out to set an example and establish a role model that will last even after he's retired, and not just for the United States, but for the whole world. Bush already messed that one up, but he really didn't care anyway.

Otal Nimrodi, on 26 October 2009 - 04:49 AM, said:

And out of curiosity, when was the Nobel prize last used the way you're describing, to award someone for what they COULD do instead of what they've done

Far as I know, it hasn't been used that way before. And since that pesky little bugger called "conflict" is still out there, I guess trying a different approach can't be such a bad idea.

Otal Nimrodi, on 26 October 2009 - 04:49 AM, said:

Are there really not definitive results for peace?

Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho won the prize for ending the Vietnam War, Gorbachev won for helping end the Cold War. These were definitive things. It wasn't awarded to Kissinger (Le Duc Tho declined) to make him keep ending wars, it was awarded to say "Good job, you helped make people stop killing each-other."

I don't think the Nobel Prize should be awarded for inspiration, I think it works better if the Nobel Prize is inspiration unto itself. Something that's awarded to people like Mother Teresa, or Martin Luther King, or Desmond Tutu, and makes people want to be like them.

That certainly is desirable, but still too shortsighted for my liking. Those people were awarded for being observant and brave enough to realize that there are big conflicts going on which need to be calmed. Retroactive initiative, if you may. They cured symptoms, but the problem will always remain unless we start to do something about our species' mentality.

I'm aware that there will always be conflict amongst individuals, but with the right attitudes, education and understanding it should be possible to stop them from escalating into widespread conflict. Awarding positions and politics that could make that possible seems like the more effective thing to do in that case.





And yes, I'm trying hard to ignore the fact that humanity has a high tendency to bring forth highly intelligent individuals, yet dumbs itself down to the lowest common denominator as soon as more than three people stand close to each other.

[J m HofMarN]

Wow I neglected this debate for far too long. Ok, point of fact: Obama has created peace.

When was the last time a brother of mine got his head bashed in by the pigs during an anti-war protest?
When was the last time the cops smashed down someones door and hauled them off to a secret death camp?
When was the last time an American was singled out for ill treatment because they're identified with their leader?

If you answered "During the Bush Regime" you're absolutely right.

Domestically, law enforcement has finally chilled the fuck out about the threat posed by Muslims. Protests have become more civil without any bloodshed. I saw what things were like during Bush's reign. He had what is essentially a Doomsday clock ticking all the time on EVERY major news channel to tell us how close we were to terrorismic anihilation. I only began to travel outside North America because Obama was president. When I told Arabs I was an American after January 20th they gave me a thumbs up and mentioned how well they liked Obama. What do you think would have been the result had I done this during the height of Bush's aggression?

You cannot simply say "He hasnt ended war, therefore he does not deserve the peace prize" Well, ok, true, there is still conflict. But this is true of, ya know, everyone who has won the peace prize ever. It's not about creating definative peace. It is about striving for it, the work of an individual to achieve that goal. It does not merely pertain to the cessation of an actual war either.

Is the fact that we stopped torturing and secretly imprisoning people not a step towards peace? Is the closure of Guantanamo not a step towards peace? What about the fact that Obama has begun listening to foreign leaders, including those at odds with his ideas. Didn't he meet with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who his predecessor had tried to have arrested and murdered via a CIA backed coup? Is he not opening lines of communication with Cuba? And with Iran? Wheras previously the only lines of communication with these countries were "Ima git my six shooter an smoke you out boy"

So, no, concrete results may for the moment be lacking. But the fear that once gripped Americans which was forced on them by their government is gone. The fear of an entire worled that felt cornered by an aggressive fanatical superpower is fading. I think that is an achievement, worthy of this prize.

[Deucaon]

There's no such thing as a CIA back coup. The CIA are too inept to do anything, let alone replace a government. They probably outsourced to the job to one of America's many "retired" generals.

[J m HofMarN]

I have read documents taken from the CIA, and written by CIA turncoats. I assure you, while they're not as adept at evil and villainy as the Mossad, the CIA have plenty of blood on their hands and are very capable of overthrowing governments and the occasional assassination.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:26 AM, said:

I have read documents taken from the CIA, and written by CIA turncoats. I assure you, while they're not as adept at evil and villainy as the Mossad, the CIA have plenty of blood on their hands and are very capable of overthrowing governments and the occasional assassination.

The fact that there is evidence shows how inept the CIA is. My guess is that those coups were inevitable and the CIA helped them along by funding them or providing them with intelligence so the transition went smoother. As far as assassinations are concerned, anybody can assassinate somebody.

[J m HofMarN]

What effect has that evidence had on anything? Also, just what is your idea of a non-inept intel service?

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 31 March 2010 - 02:37 PM, said:

What effect has that evidence had on anything?

If they were adapt then they would have destroyed the evidence or there wouldn't have been evidence in the first place.

J m HofMarN, on 31 March 2010 - 02:37 PM, said:

Also, just what is your idea of a non-inept intel service?

It's the one that nobody knows the existence of.

[J m HofMarN]

Adept. Not adapt. Also, I like that your logic often makes it impossible to disprove your statements. "The people winning a war are wrong." "No they're not because the winners deserve to win" "Ok, now the weaker side are winning somehow!" "That is because they deserve to win more."

This one I dont get. The only good intel agency is one that no one knows exists? How is that even possible? Do you have any idea how human society works? Do you not know the basics of communication and bureaucracy and basic principals of government? Are you going to start talking about the lizard people and the queen of england's secret intel groups?

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 02 April 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

Adept. Not adapt. Also, I like that your logic often makes it impossible to disprove your statements. "The people winning a war are wrong." "No they're not because the winners deserve to win" "Ok, now the weaker side are winning somehow!" "That is because they deserve to win more."
This one I dont get. The only good intel agency is one that no one knows exists? How is that even possible? Do you have any idea how human society works? Do you not know the basics of communication and bureaucracy and basic principals of government? Are you going to start talking about the lizard people and the queen of england's secret intel groups?

It's not impossible. You're just stupid enough to think that every "intelligence" "agency" broadcasts their existence. (I prefer espionage service.)

[J m HofMarN]

.... So let me get this straight. You believe there is a perfect intel agency out there (from what country? most countries with the money for such extravagence have documented intel agencies. But moreover, you believe that there is no evidence of its existence whatever.

Remember that discussion with Civ about having no evidence against something not meaning it has to be considered? If not, here it is anyhow:

Quote

Your wolf thing, and I can't believe that you are trying to defend it, is asinine. No, that's the wrong word. It's idiotic. We went over this at length; the fact that you have ZERO evidence of a thing doesn't mean that you automatically MUST entertain its possibility. You would be of no use as a crime scene investigator.


QUOTE
DAVID CARUSO: There is blood here, and a dead body. The knife on the bed is wet with blood, and there are fingerprints all over it, and also all over the door.

DEUCAON: We should consider that maybe aliens did it, and that they used technology to make it look like a knife was used. As there is no evidence that this did not happen, we must entertain its possibility.

DAVID CARUSO: You're fired.

- Civ#2

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 04 April 2010 - 09:32 PM