Husker_x Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Has anyone ever given a sh#t about who's won the Nobel Peace Prize before? I know I never have, and still don't. Jimmy Carter. Al Gore. Barack Obama. The first two were puzzling, but now what little luster the prize had has faded. The Nobel committee should be pleased. I'm not sure handing it to Osama Bin Laden could have done more damage to their reputation. Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Has anyone ever given a sh#t about who's won the Nobel Peace Prize before? I know I never have, and still don't. Ummm yeah . . . it's just a bit more prestigious than the Heisman . . . I'd imagine you care about that one. yeah, but (without using Google) I can remember the past 10 years of Heisman's a lot easier than I can of Nobel prize winners Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 Has anyone ever given a sh#t about who's won the Nobel Peace Prize before? I know I never have, and still don't. Ummm yeah . . . it's just a bit more prestigious than the Heisman . . . I'd imagine you care about that one. yeah, but (without using Google) I can remember the past 10 years of Heisman's a lot easier than I can of Nobel prize winners Doesn't mean they are less important... Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Doesn't mean they are less important... that depends on who you ask. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 Doesn't mean they are less important... that depends on who you ask. Not if you are taking a big picture view of things. Sure Heisman winners get a lot of publicity . . . but they sure aren't going to affect everyone's daily lives like a Nobel prize winner can. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Doesn't mean they are less important... that depends on who you ask. Not if you are taking a big picture view of things. Sure Heisman winners get a lot of publicity . . . but they sure aren't going to affect everyone's daily lives like a Nobel prize winner can. A big picture view?? Really?? From The Prince of Peace The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by five people, chosen by the Norwegian Parliament, a body of people who use force and violence to rule over Norway . They are elected by a portion of the Norwegian populace that prefers this forceful and violent institution to continue. It is unclear to me how such a body can meaningfully decipher which individual or organization should receive this “peace” prize from year to year. Is that the type of affect it can/should have? Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 Doesn't mean they are less important... that depends on who you ask. Not if you are taking a big picture view of things. Sure Heisman winners get a lot of publicity . . . but they sure aren't going to affect everyone's daily lives like a Nobel prize winner can. A big picture view?? Really?? From The Prince of Peace The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by five people, chosen by the Norwegian Parliament, a body of people who use force and violence to rule over Norway . They are elected by a portion of the Norwegian populace that prefers this forceful and violent institution to continue. It is unclear to me how such a body can meaningfully decipher which individual or organization should receive this “peace” prize from year to year. Is that the type of affect it can/should have? Right. . Something like pasteurization of food isn't as important as a hyped up college football player? Check. I can't even see how this is debatable. Enlighten me. I'm saying the things that the Nobel Prize is supposed to recognize are far more important than the things that the Heisman recognizes. It's simply incredible how you can take something as obvious and straight forward as that and attempt to twist it into an argument about the violence of government. It's a tired, silly, theme. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 A big picture view?? Really?? From The Prince of Peace The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by five people, chosen by the Norwegian Parliament, a body of people who use force and violence to rule over Norway . They are elected by a portion of the Norwegian populace that prefers this forceful and violent institution to continue. It is unclear to me how such a body can meaningfully decipher which individual or organization should receive this “peace” prize from year to year. Is that the type of affect it can/should have? Right. . Something like pasteurization of food isn't as important as a hyped up college football player? Check. I can't even see how this is debatable. Enlighten me. I'm saying the things that the Nobel Prize is supposed to recognize are far more important than the things that the Heisman recognizes. Please try to argue that without bringing anarchy into it. I'm not disagreeing with what you state. But once again this discussion isn't really about what the Nobel prize is "supposed" to recognize, but rather what it does. I don't know where the anarchy comment came from because what I'm trying to point out is that when a mass murderer can be awarded a peace prize, and then use it as a war strategy, I'd say the prestige of the award is pretty bankcrupt!! Do you agree or disagree? Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 Your quote takes an unnecessary jab at the Norwegian government: "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by five people, chosen by the Norwegian Parliament, a body of people who use force and violence to rule over Norway." I agree that it's often awarded to people, or for reasons, that it probably shouldn't be (present included), but the idea of the prize and the history of the prize is far more important than some sports award. If you wanted to take a shot at past winners, do so. You included an unnecessary and scarcely relevant shot at government. This is hardly rare from you. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Your quote takes an unnecessary jab at the Norwegian government: "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by five people, chosen by the Norwegian Parliament, a body of people who use force and violence to rule over Norway." I agree that it's often awarded to people, or for reasons, that it probably shouldn't be (present included), but the idea of the prize and the history of the prize is far more important than some sports award. If you wanted to take a shot at past winners, do so. You included an unnecessary and scarcely relevant shot at government. This is hardly rare from you. Ahhh yes... my irrelevant and unnecessary potshots!! Seriously, do you really for one minute think that any of the recipients of this award are granted such without the slightest tinge of government meddling? As we all can plainly see, I think not!! I wasn't really intending to make a jab at their government with that quote, though it does work quite well, but actually at what you stated was a big picture view. I'd hardly call 5 individual’s views, those that are selected by a coercive monopoly, as big picture. Yes, there are a few recipients whose actions did help many and warranted an award, but there are also those who did horrendous things. Does that big picture you state also include those people? Namely: Roosevelt, Wilson, Arafat, Kissinger, Sadat, Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Elihu Root, Cordell Hull and countless others. Is the big picture really what 5 men think? Is it not true that what might be viewed as good by some might not be good for all and even what might be good for many might not be good for a few. Is either less worthy of the "big picture?" I for one don’t believe so, which is exactly why I advocate the right of each individual to live and make choices as he or she sees fit. Since you continue to see the world as a collective I can see why you would say otherwise. In reality, I could care less about the Nobel Peace Prize because I see it for what it really is; a coercive, corrupt and constantly discredited government prize that awards those who completely contradict the meaning of peace. And as long as a government is involved in the process of awarding a peace prize it will always remain a contradiction. You can rag on anarchy all you want but I'm not the one who advocates and supports the use of force against individuals and then gets upset when someone pulls up the blanket and exposes it for what it truly is. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 Your quote takes an unnecessary jab at the Norwegian government: "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by five people, chosen by the Norwegian Parliament, a body of people who use force and violence to rule over Norway." I agree that it's often awarded to people, or for reasons, that it probably shouldn't be (present included), but the idea of the prize and the history of the prize is far more important than some sports award. If you wanted to take a shot at past winners, do so. You included an unnecessary and scarcely relevant shot at government. This is hardly rare from you. Ahhh yes... my irrelevant and unnecessary potshots!! Seriously, do you really for one minute think that any of the recipients of this award are granted such without the slightest tinge of government meddling? As we all can plainly see, I think not!! I wasn't really intending to make a jab at their government with that quote, though it does work quite well, but actually at what you stated was a big picture view. I'd hardly call 5 individual’s views, those that are selected by a coercive monopoly, as big picture. Yes, there are a few recipients whose actions did help many and warranted an award, but there are also those who did horrendous things. Does that big picture you state also include those people? Namely: Roosevelt, Wilson, Arafat, Kissinger, Sadat, Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Elihu Root, Cordell Hull and countless others. Is the big picture really what 5 men think? Is it not true that what might be viewed as good by some might not be good for all and even what might be good for many might not be good for a few. Is either less worthy of the "big picture?" I for one don’t believe so, which is exactly why I advocate the right of each individual to live and make choices as he or she sees fit. Since you continue to see the world as a collective I can see why you would say otherwise. In reality, I could care less about the Nobel Peace Prize because I see it for what it really is; a coercive, corrupt and constantly discredited government prize that awards those who completely contradict the meaning of peace. And as long as a government is involved in the process of awarding a peace prize it will always remain a contradiction. You can rag on anarchy all you want but I'm not the one who advocates and supports the use of force against individuals and then gets upset when someone pulls up the blanket and exposes it for what it truly is. I think you are grossly misconstruing my "big picture" comment. The ONLY thing it meant was that Nobel prize winning activities should be (and generally are) more important than Heisman winning activities. I apologize for not making this clearer because you've apparently wasted some time on it. Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I heard Obama's seriously gonna challenge for the Heisman.... Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 I heard Obama's seriously gonna challenge for the Heisman.... I believe there is already a website for that. Link to comment
Recommended Posts