Men of peace counter armchair quarterbacks of peace on Obama's Nobel

Mandela Foundation, Tutu, hail Obama's Nobel Prize





Dalai Lama asks Obama to champion 'liberty'



Also of interest:

Leading Cuban dissidents cheer Obama's Nobel prize

?

"South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, who won the prize in 1984 for his long battle for a non-violent end to South Africa's apartheid system of racial segregation, called Obama a younger incarnation of Mandela on Friday.

"He is a younger Mandela who meant so much not just to us here, but the world," Tutu told reporters in Cape Town.

"It is a very imaginative and somewhat surprising choice. It is wonderful," he added.

"He has had a very significant impact. It (his presidency) has changed the temperature and almost everybody feels a little more hopeful about the world," he said.

Mandela and Tutu are still considered voices of the nation's conscience. Mandela, 91, has retired from public life, but Tutu remains active in promoting peace around the world."

Tutu's 91..what an Inspiration!

Nice to read the feedback from these guys!

:yourock:

I just got off a thread in PV where Naomi Klein was suppose to be knocking the Honor given to PO.

I didn't watch but posted some positive reactions of people like Michael Moore to counter the naybobbing.

This is what I want to concentrate on...the positive approach as a Call To Action for World Peace.

eating away at their common sense.

Look, you are using PR statements to deride "armchair quarterbacks" (presumably, when talking about the left, those critical of Obama's handling on the wars--correct me if I'm wrong).

PR statements are nice public acknowledgments to curry favor, build relationships, or express grace, but rarely used to present an incredibly thoughtful and balanced view of an event. Few public world figures want to take an award like this and piss on it when it is going to the most popular public figure in the world. Therefore, I wouldn't exactly use them as a basis of truth or refutation of opposing viewpoints.

This is both an argument from authority and an argument from popularity: "Oh, let us see what most of the really "credible" experts in this field say publicly"

With that said, carry on with the circle jerk.

Yeah, Mandela and Tutu sold out.

And its a great way to actually avoid talking about specific issues. Just take the "experts" opinion (in the form of a PR release).

Clearly, you are cool with basing arguments on logical fallacies. Thats your right.

sent how: smoke signal? dove?

Last I noticed, they already weighed in.

Beyond that, without opinions, there is the approach of "proving he deserves it" (if that is what you are intending to do) using real example of his actions as a basis for the proof. Remarkable concept, yes.

Just citing what people think about it, regardless of their credibility and authority on the issue, doesn't hold water among intelligent people.

So the people mentioned in the OP have no credibility to comment on whether he deserves it or not?

Doesn't sound like a conclusion arrived at via intelligence.

"Doesn't sound like a conclusion arrived at via intelligence."

Please stop trying to be impromptu witty and read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thanks. Have a good night. Hope you learn something.

Why don't you make the logical fallacy case when you are lauding arguments from other sources of authority, whether its Kucinich or another member of Congress or any leader/public figure, etc.?

This BS diversion is only used because you have no friggin rational counter to the argument presented.

Mandela, Tutu and the Dalai Lama are men of peace. You throw out their opinions by implying that they are trying to curry favors.

You say that only the committee's opinion matters, and beyond that it's a matter of opinion about whether or not Obama deserves it. Yet those cited, including the dissident, in the OP state that he does, and you dismiss their opinions.

There is no argument to refute. It is a logical fallacy.

Im sorry you don't understand this. Please take the time to read about it.

and I was in trouble last week for only saying it seems premature :rofl:

Why would I be in trouble? I didn't actually present a view on the issue (which I am pretty ambivalent about). I just said this approach is pretty much bunk.

Your in a thread with people who engage in the typical brow beating. I think you can handle yourself.

Knew this thread would attract you.

:hide:

can't or won't get it..it has to be twisted? You bash everything President Obama and expect to be taken seriously?

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and there ain't nothing you and the anti-Obama gang can do about it..except reguritate more whine.

"Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore"

Who goes on to say at the end..

"My prediction for the future? You become the first two-time winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!, Yeah!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8695710


"Ten reasons Obama won the Nobel"


"Before he became president -- Obama forcefully argued, at great political risk, that the U.S. should talk to its enemies (famously, in a debate with John McCain). He convinced a majority of Americans, and that is now U.S. foreign policy.

January 22 - On his second day in office, Obama announced plans to close Guantanamo in a year. He has made great diplomatic efforts to find residences for innocent detainees, even as fearmongers accused him of wanting to release terrorists in America.

February 27 - Obama details his plans to pull out of Iraq. He made his speech in front of uniformed Marines and explained that combat troops would be out by 2010.

March 13 - Obama Justice department drops 'enemy combatants' label on detainees, marking a return to the Geneva Conventions.

April 5 - Outlines details of nuclear weapons reductions plan in a speech to the public in Prague. The plan calls for intense international diplomacy and a respect for the right of fledgling countries to enrich uranium for energy purposes, proposing an international nuclear fuel-bank for those aims. All this was in the face of North Korean long-range missile testing.

April 13 - Repeals restrictions on Cuban Americans, allowing them to visit home as long as they want and to send money. Also allows telecommunications companies to pursue agreements in Cuba, hoping to promote communcation. This is the boldest move towards peace with Cuba any president has made in over 40 years.

June 4 - Obama makes landmark speech in Cairo, in which he quotes three different holy texts and speaks Arabic. Again, at tremendous political risk at home, Obama makes empassioned tribute to the achiements of the Muslim world and admits U.S. role in overthrow of Iranian government, attempting to create environment of honesty, respect, and cooperation.

June 27 - The U.S. begins removal of combat troops from major cities in Iraq.

July 6 - Obama heads to Russia to speak with Russian president about nuclear arms reduction. He makes a speech at a Russian University, notably saying, "There is the 20th century view that United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists. And that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. And there is a 19th century view, that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance on another. These assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonishing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chessboard are over."

Sept 24 - In a first for a U.S. president, Obama presides over a U.N. Security Council summit, where members unanimously agreed to a sweeping strategy to stop the spread of and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons"

http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2009/10/ten-reasons-obama-won-nobel.html

And that point is clear as day.

Instead of creating a sound argument to address the specific points of "armchair quarterbacks", this poster tried to undermine their claims in totality by citing opposing "experts" opinions.

That is an Argument from Authority (among others).

Now, you can try and group me into some "anti-Obama" group and try to discount my claims of a logical fallacy, by using an Ad Hominem logical fallacy, or you can pretty much read up on how this poster made a fundamental mistake in the realm of arguments and move on. The choice is yours really, but remember, in the end it reflects on your credibility and intelligence.

you just are.

President Obama got the NPP for the reasons stated by the PPC and Alfred Nobel's Will.. not bc of what some posters at DU insist is the reason he should not have gotten it.

"President Obama got the NPP for the reasons stated by the PPC and Alfred Nobel's Will"

As I said: "The only relevant opinions in this matter are those of the committee. Last I noticed, they already weighed in."

Beyond that, all this banter is pretty worthless. But clearly, this poster was trying to contribute further justification, or at least, detract from those who disagreed with the committee's decision. While that is all good and fine, they just went about doing it in a terrible way with, as I stated, "twisted logic". They don't need you to carry their water for them.


"you just are"

Im sorry. That's just a really shitty argument. To each their own.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Add Rush to the other side's list. I guess some on DU want to side with him, too.


By the way, this "premature" argument is crap. If they would just READ Nobel's Will (which has been posted on DU a few times) it would be crystal clear that the committee did exactly what Nobel was asking them to do, when they bestowed the Prize to President Obama.

"Can someone tell me who did more than him this year? It is difficult to name a winner of the peace prize who is more in line with Alfred Nobel's will."

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4098367

"Facts on the Nobel Peace Prize"

"On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes, the Nobel Prizes. 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". Learn more about the Nobel Peace Prize from 1901-2008. The 2009 Nobel Prize is not yet included."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.html

on one side.. and Desmond Tutu, Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandelda, and Michael Moore(Men who have actually gone out and done something) on the other.