Surely this is sophistry?

It's obvious isn't it? An award has an element of consensus, we choose to make the Nobel prizes mean something by agreeing they mean something.

I don't think it's controversial to say that they are considered a highly prestigious award.

I also don't think it's controversial to say that treating them as transferable undermines the whole point of the award (that they are exclusive, that they are awarded based on merit and careful judgement and not just some free-market commodity that can be bought and sold). If they were, they would be completely worthless.

This is like.. the whole point of awards, trophies etc.

I vehemently have no horse in this race, I'm just trying to live my life, but I refuse to believe that someone who browses HN and articulates themselves well doesn't grok the generally well-understood social contract which underpins things like the Nobel prize and how some might see giving one away as undermining not just to the prize but to the many others who have been deemed worth enough to earn said prize.

Integrity is exactly the right word IMO because awards rely on the integrity of the participants to not do exactly what has been done in this instance at the risk of basically throwing the honor they were given back in the faces of the ones who bestowed it.

Honestly I don't care and I wish I hadn't said anything, but surely you're not sat genuinely scratching your head at why some groups find it objectionable

> I also don't think it's controversial to say that treating them as transferable undermines the whole point of the award (that they are exclusive, that they are awarded based on merit and careful judgement and not just some free-market commodity that can be bought and sold). If they were, they would be completely worthless.

My point: what's more important "the whole point of awards, trophies etc," or the well being of your country?

I'd gladly "undermine the whole point of the award" if that act offered some more important benefit to the people I care about. The integrity of the awards process is not a very important thing to me, in comparison. If I took such an action, maybe the award-granters would be mad, but who cares about them? They're comfortably ensconced in some paneled office somewhere. They'll be fine.

It is sophistry. Common problem around here is that a lot of tech people are too busy thinking they're incredibly smart and always need to be playing 5D chess instead of being decent human beings. I hate to blame Paul Graham for that, but holy shit that /r/iamverysmart shit needs to stop.

It's not sophistry, it's just the assertion that there are far more important things than the feelings of the Nobel committee and the "integrity" of their award. If you're ranking the committee's feels over those other things, then you've got your priorities out of whack.

> Common problem around here is that a lot of tech people are too busy thinking they're incredibly smart and always need to be playing 5D chess instead of being decent human beings. I hate to blame Paul Graham for that, but holy shit that /r/iamverysmart shit needs to stop.

I agree with you there. Another problem around here is getting kinda morally unglued, and prioritizing some weird abstract thing over more important and practical considerations.

It is sophistry because that's not the point. Of course there are things that matter more than awards. But pretending like there's some world where we're trading the integrity of awards to solve important problems is a laughable fantasy.