Did Obama Snub the Nobel Prize Committee?

[jimmy olsen]

Maybe you meant to be sarcastic with that first post Jos, but it just didn't translate on screen.

[KRonn]

What is going on here anyway? Aren't Grumbler and Tyr arguing with each other, but each  has the same view? Tyr, I think you misread Grumbler's first post. That is, unless I missed something in the jumble of posts and trolls made by people along the way.   

[Josquius]

What is going on here anyway? Aren't Grumbler and Tyr arguing with each other, but each  has the same view?

Pretty much.

Tyr, I think you misread Grumbler's first post. That is, unless I missed something in the jumble of posts and trolls made by people along the way.   

Nah, he misread my first post but he continues to insist he knows better than I what I believe.

[grumbler]

How on earth would you suggest he 'made' the nobel prize commitee vote for him?
As I said its just crazy. No one could possibly believe that. 

  I certainly never said he made the committee vote for him.   Making up a quote is a rather blatantly dishonest maneuver.  Not sure why you are doing it, or thinking you can get away with it.

What you did was you saw my post and you thought 'I know a fun way to totally misinterprate this to fit a easy argument I want to set myself against and thus make myself look good!'

Ah, is that what I did and thought?  Thanks for telling me.  I am sure you would know better than I.

That I said I think Obama to be a bit of a fake NPP winner and not at all deserving says nothing at all about whose fault it is that he is in that position, merely that he is.

And this is where you are "out there."  You didn't say he was "a bit of a fake,"  you said "the fake he was." 

YOU are the only one who suggested it was Obama's fault.

Calling someone a "fake" is blaming them.  You can try to weasel out of this truth, but good luck getting anyone to buy into your weasel.

Yep.
That pretty much proves you aren't trying to be rational but just looking for some sort of easy 'contest'.

Ah, so you are adding the strawman (telling me what my argument really is) to the list of yuor fallacies! 

Well done!  There are still some fallacies you have not used, though, so keep trying.

[grumbler]

What is going on here anyway? Aren't Grumbler and Tyr arguing with each other, but each  has the same view?

I am not arguing with him at all.  I am simply pointing out that his "arguments" are just a mishmash of ad hioms, personal attacks, unilateral declarations of victory, and (now) strawmen.

None of this is really debatable, but rather than responding to what i am saying, he is just repeating the fallacies over and over.  I am enjoying it, so I keep responding.

[Josquius]

  I certainly never said he made the committee vote for him.   Making up a quote is a rather blatantly dishonest maneuver.  Not sure why you are doing it, or thinking you can get away with it.

Making up a quote? Now that is just patent bollocks.

Ah, is that what I did and thought?  Thanks for telling me.  I am sure you would know better than I.

Which is the basis of your entire argument....

And this is where you are "out there."  You didn't say he was "a bit of a fake,"  you said "the fake he was." 

Fair enough, leave the harsher language intact, it changes nothing and and the point stands.

Calling someone a "fake" is blaming them.  You can try to weasel out of this truth, but good luck getting anyone to buy into your weasel.

No its not. Not in any way.
You have a fake $10 in your wallet. OMG you forged it.

Ah, so you are adding the strawman (telling me what my argument really is) to the list of yuor fallacies!  :lfao:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I am not arguing with him at all.  I am simply pointing out that his "arguments" are just a mishmash of ad hioms, personal attacks, unilateral declarations of victory, and (now) strawmen.

None of this is really debatable, but rather than responding to what i am saying, he is just repeating the fallacies over and over.  I am enjoying it, so I keep responding.

And you claim you're not arguing 
Never having joined (or much liked the idea of ) debate club myself it is interesting to see that mentality at work.

[KRonn]

Ok, I understand a bit better. Carry on!   

[grumbler]

Making up a quote? Now that is just patent bollocks.

Your statement was

How on earth would you suggest he 'made' the nobel prize commitee vote for him?

See the quotation marks?  Those were added by you, and since quotation marks indicate a quote, and since i never said Obama [ quote]made[unquote] rthe prize committeee..., is is a quote you make up.

I fully expect you to weasel around arguing that quotation marks don't surround quotes, or whatever, and I look forward to that... because the alternative is confession that you made a dishonest statement.

Ah, is that what I did and thought?  Thanks for telling me.  I am sure you would know better than I.

Which is the basis of your entire argument....

The basis of my entire argument is that you know what I did and thought better than I do?     Okay, dance some more on your crank!

Fair enough, leave the harsher language intact, it changes nothing and and the point stands.

It changes everything, of course.

Calling someone a "fake" is blaming them.  You can try to weasel out of this truth, but good luck getting anyone to buy into your weasel.

No its not. Not in any way.
You have a fake $10 in your wallet. OMG you forged it.

Even for you, this is a feeble weasel.  I am just gonna let it sit there so people can point at it and laugh.

Ah, so you are adding the strawman (telling me what my argument really is) to the list of yuor fallacies!  :lfao:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Ah, you hadn't used the childish "I am rubber, you are glue" argument so far in this exchange, so that is new. I am just gonna let this sit here also.

And you claim you're not arguing 

I am not making any arguments, just pointing out that you are using ad hominims, personal attacks, strawmen, weasels, and childish arguments.  You are not denying (indeed, cannot deny) denying any of my observations.  You are simply trying to weasel out of the implications or accusing me of the same thing.  That is not "arguing" either.

[LaCroix]

all this based off a misunderstanding of a poorly worded post 

[Malthus]

all this based off a misunderstanding of a poorly worded post 

This is madness! No, this is Languish. 

[dps]

Just for the record, grumbler, how are you supposed to rationally respond to an argument that's just completely out there?  If someone makes an argument that leaves you thinking "Wow, that was just bizarrely idiotic, can that guy even read?", how are you supposed to let that be known without being judged to engage in "ad homs"?

Since grumbler doesn't want to touch this, I answer it.  I'll assume, for this purpose, that the "you" in your post was used generically, as in "how is one supposed to rationally respond..." instead of being directed to grumbler as an individual, because in that case, it would be presumptuous for me to try to tell you how he would respond. 

At any rate, the way to respond without an ad-hom is to NOT say something on the lines of, "Gee, you're an idiot" but rather something such as, "That's so bizarre that I don't even see a way to respond to it".  That way, you're not characterizing them as an "idiot";  you're merely referring to their argument in this particular instance as "bizarre".

[Josquius]

Your statement was
See the quotation marks?  Those were added by you, and since quotation marks indicate a quote, and since i never said Obama [ quote]made[unquote] rthe prize committeee..., is is a quote you make up.

I fully expect you to weasel around arguing that quotation marks don't surround quotes, or whatever, and I look forward to that... because the alternative is confession that you made a dishonest statement.

That was not a quote, it was a over simplification.

This is a quote

The basis of my entire argument is that you know what I did and thought better than I do?     Okay, dance some more on your crank!

Now you're getting desperate. You know fine well what I mean yet avoid the point.

It changes everything, of course.

OK, it changes everything. What does it mean then?

Even for you, this is a feeble weasel.  I am just gonna let it sit there so people can point at it and laugh.

What is it with you and small furry ferret-brethren?
That analogy is 100% relevant to the point.

Ah, you hadn't used the childish "I am rubber, you are glue" argument so far in this exchange, so that is new. I am just gonna let this sit here also.

Keep going, you're breaking new ground in hypocrisy.

And you claim you're not arguing 
I am not making any arguments, just pointing out that you are using ad hominims, personal attacks, strawmen, weasels, and childish arguments.  You are not denying (indeed, cannot deny) denying any of my observations.  You are simply trying to weasel out of the implications or accusing me of the same thing.  That is not "arguing" either.

Are you for real? What on earth are you even talking about now?
Of course I'm using ad hominim (look at my big scary italics!). There's no argument to be had yet you insist you have one with me so what else is there. Its pretty fun to watch you over analyse someone calling you dumb without realising quite why what you're saying is dumb.

[grumbler]

all this based off a misunderstanding of a poorly worded post 

Not really, and I am astonished that you would even notice.

I am just in this for the amusement.  I would urge everyone who isn't amused by this kind of thing to avert their eyes.

[Admiral Yi]

I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.

[jimmy olsen]

I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.

It's already all over the internet, and the reaction is pretty split.