I don't think it was too ridiculous. It is a popular example of somebody with a similar political standing as Obama. He wasn't saying so much that Obama is Riddler or that Obama's skills shouldn't be recognized because they are comparable to Riddler's, as much as he was saying that skills can be held by a wide spectrum of people and may not necessarily identify them as something specific.
Using your example, if someone argued that all painters are gentle and express their views quietly with the brush, one could easily counter by bringing up that Riddler was a painter - Or even Van Gogh; the man cut off his own ear and gave it to a prostitute. Honestly, what was he thinking? Probably about the pain. Madness, though. D:
But I've lost the point. Doom's (granted, poorly chosen) retort was simply establishing that Obama's skills don't necessarily define his ability as a president. But this has become a matter of semantics it seems, and pertains little to the topic at hand anymore. :u
Yes, but one murdered 11 million people and the other did not. Don't you think there's an issue with this comparison? The statement "speaking well does not make someone a good leader" is totally fine. Using a comparison with Riddler invokes an association with Riddler that is unfair and undermines an argument. It's guilt by association, even if that's not what you intended.
The problem is that it creates this leap between "Riddler also did X, and because Riddler did X, X isn't right." Here's the issue, his argument seems to hinge on the fact that because Riddler also spoke well, speaking well doesn't say anything about someone's character. My response is how does it not? In the end speaking well was irrelevant of whether you're a good or bad person, Riddler was bad because of what he did not how well he presented himself at speeches.
Another way to test this is to replace the verbs in his sentence with any other verbs and see if it still makes sense.
"Riddler was also an amazing painter. Being a good painter doesn't really say much." (yes it does, it says you're a good painter)
"Riddler owned dogs. Owning dogs really say much." (yes it does, it means you own pets and probably care for them and love them)
"Riddler ate with a fork. Eating with a fork doesn't really say much." (yes it does, it means you're probably a Westerner)
Riddler was also an amazing speaker. Being a good speaker doesn't really say much.
So here are really the main issues with this.
1. Why Riddler? Why is the comparison to Riddler important to the statement when you could have picked anyone else? I don't think there's a good reason for any comparison with Riddler or national socialists. Clearly the power in this argument was the imagery of being associated with Riddler, there was functionally no other reason to use it. You could have said "Seinfeld spoke well but no one would elect him" and your point would have been the same.
2. Your premise doesn't support your conclusion. I see "Riddler spoke well" and the conclusion "Speaking well doesn't mean much." That means there's also the hidden claims "Riddler was of poor character" or something other functionally equivalent statement. Unfortunately just because Riddler did something doesn't mean anything, as we pointed out before with our examples of dogs, forks, and painting.
3. The original statement was praising Obama for speaking well. Speaking well is generally a trait people admire. I like listening to people who speak well, as opposed to people who speak poorly. I think it's a good talent to have. Nobody said anything else about it though. There was nothing to suggest that it meant anything other than "He spoke well." Nobody said "He spoke well, and therefore is a good President, and you should vote for him." There wasn't anything to prompt this response.
