Noble Poker Vips

HP asked:


… fallacy as though it is a noble idea?

“We’ve lost thousands in Iraq. If we pull out now we dishonor their sacrifice.”

In reality, whether we should or shouldn’t pull out of Iraq must be decided on the basis of whether we can reasonably, from our current situation, accomplish our mission there - not the cost already paid in trying to accomplish that mission.

Gamblers make the same mistake in thinking they should continue gambling because, otherwise, everything they’ve already lost will have been lost for nothing.
mooyang - True, people are not dollars but sacrificing more people for an unsuccessful cause is WORSE not better.
“You question is assuming that what you say is correct. It’s not.”

I notice you didn’t correct my supposedly “incorrect” assumption.
Aphex - What you say is hollow.
@Aphex - what you say is also a red herring and a strawman. I’m not a pacifist nor want to build a society as one, nor would it be relevant to my point even if I was.
Just as an exercise I decided to dissect Aphex’s comments:

“Well that sounds like an anti war argument. Well that sounds like an anti war argument. Anti-war under any circumstances.”

This is complete non sequitur. That we should not make the “sunken cost” fallacy in relation to war does not mean we shouldn’t have war, it means that we should not take past losses into account when deciding future actions (at least not for emotional reasons).

“You should associate with the other types that won’t have any kind of war, build a country and see how far it goes.”

Non sequitur and also an ad hominen. Using logic means one is a pacifist who wants should join a pacifist society? Ridiculous.

Tyler