Nobel panel defends their decision

[Travis Retriever]

Definitely post the rebuttal to that BS.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I did a point by point rebuttal but I later posted this as a bit of a summary.

I'll start with this then.

I get accused of being closed minded and refusing to look at new ideas. It's really an accusation out of ignorance and desperation to discredit me. The very fact that I used to embrace those ideas myself is proof of that. I don't reject them because I'm afraid of new ideas. I reject them because they're old ideas I have long discarded when they failed under objective testing. Most of the arguments employed here, I used to use them myself.

I have explained this repeatedly. Disagree all you want but don't try accusing me of never trying to see your position. I have seen it, I have once embraced it, I moved on from it and it was not something I did lightly either.

Now, quiz time!

To those who defend Obama's award on the basis of him uniting people under a promise of peace, can you name me a scientist who won a nobel prize in physics, astronomy, biology or otherwise because they PROMISED to deliver a major breakthrough in their field?

To those who defend the rule saying that Irena Sendler is inelligible because her accomplishment happened decades ago, what say you to the example I present to you of Jack Kilby who won the 2000 Nobel Prize in physics for inventing the integrated circuit back in 1958?
I don't deny the rule is there, it's the fairness and validity behind it as well as motives that I question. Does the nobel peace prize just play by different rules? Being as it's the only one decided by politicians rather than scientists and experts in their respective fields, that would certainly be par for the course.
If you say "It's their award, they can give it how they choose," would you take this position if they excluded certain people from eligibility based on circumstances of birth, religious or political reasons?

To those who say the US's foreign policy is just and neccessary for peace, let me just say that accusing me of being a cold hearted wretch for opposing it is on par with saying I'm in favor of domestic violence because I oppose prohibition...or that I hate the poor because I think welfare is ineffective...or that I want ignorance to run rampant because I think government controlled schools do an inexcusably poor job of educating...or whatever other topic people like to polarize for their convenience.

The truth is simple: I oppose it because I believe, based on historical precedent, that it won't work and will only leave you AND the people you're trying to help worse off in the end and you'll make more enemies in the process thus making your own people poorer and less safe. There is nothing to admire out of spending your people's money and sending them to risk their lives as sacrificial lambs to what you think is a good idea. It is dangerous and irresponsible and a despicable violation of their oaths.

Simple version: I don't oppose those things because I disagree with the intended goal, I disagree with them BECAUSE THEY DON'T WORK!!

If you actually DO create peace in those places and it remains as such, your government is an absolute genius and I will take back every cruel thing I ever said about them. I give you my word of honor on that.

But to the one who refered to me and those who hold my views as, and I quote, "internet junkies who didn't know squat about politics", you are a bigot and deserve nothing but ridicule and contempt for having the nerve to try to pass such filth off as rational debate.