Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
OK, "insane" was clearly hyperbole, but the point still holds: "the committee should be trusted" is specious at best, and demonstrably false at worst. You clearly have to do better than that here, but you refuse to.
How about this? "You can't be serious?" which, at least in terms of connotation, is functionally identical. "Boarding the crazy train" is not.
|
First, to the bold: yes, it is and no one chided you on it, though you "struck the first blow."
Second, I don't blindly support anybody, but I do acknowledge that they and not I have been entrusted to make these decisions and award these prizes. As the Foundation is a private entity, I understand that any protest or objection that I might raise, for this specific scenario, is generally pointless and perhaps presumptuous; much in the same way that someone outside of your fraternity could not really make any protests about members that you admit to your fraternity, at least none that you would consider worthy of acknowledgement and, honestly, most of which you would probably deride.
The committee collectively decided that Obama deserved the honor and they are the ones that matter with regards to the prize, which is theirs to give. To me, that's the bottom line to the question of merit. To paraphrase a colleague, only in America could a Nobel Peace Prize inspire so much hate.
Edit to address your edit: The things that I run, I take care of. My whole point is that the decision of the committee of this private organization--in which the assertion of merit is implicit--should be respected. What does all of this second-guessing gain anyone? Why do people feel that their perspective has more merit or validity than those of the people that were chosen to sit on this committee? Why does anyone feel a need to talk about who does or does not deserve the prize? What is the point?