1
   

"Bush falls victim to a bad new argument for the Iraq war."

 
 
blatham
 
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:03 am
The Sunk-Cost Fallacy

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2125910/
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,267 • Replies: 61
No top replies

 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:10 am
I wonder why he has not offered the "I am a blithering idiot who wanted the war because Saddam dissed my daddy" argument.

It has one thing going for it that the many others do not. It has a ring of truth.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:11 am
Oh, by the way...

...good post, Bernie.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:05 pm
hi frank

"Sunk cost fallacy" isn't a term I've bumped into before, and it is valuable in pointing to a particularly species of fallacious 'logic'. As David Halberstam noted (somewhere in something I read this last week), the argument "we can't leave Viet Nam now or all those kids lives are wasted" began to appear as early as 1964!!!

But I confess to being uncomfortable with a term in paragraph two..."decision scientists"?! It reminds me much too much of a WC Fields snowjob.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:07 pm
sunk cost fallacy... is that anything like throwing good money after bad?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:07 pm
blatham wrote:
But I confess to being uncomfortable with a term in paragraph two..."decision scientists"?! It reminds me much too much of a WC Fields snowjob.


Is this a game of chance, Mr. Sousé?

Not the way I play it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:15 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
I wonder why he has not offered the "I am a blithering idiot who wanted the war because Saddam dissed my daddy" argument.

It has one thing going for it that the many others do not. It has a ring of truth.

It has nothing to do with Bush's reasons for invading Iraq, which he stated about a thousand times back then, but actually, attempting to assassinate the president is a valid reason for invading another country.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:21 pm
I see, so you think the Venezuelans would be justified in invading Virginia to hunt down Pat Robertson?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:24 pm
blatham wrote:
"Sunk cost fallacy" isn't a term I've bumped into before, and it is valuable in pointing to a particularly species of fallacious 'logic'. As David Halberstam noted (somewhere in something I read this last week), the argument "we can't leave Viet Nam now or all those kids lives are wasted" began to appear as early as 1964!!!

Much earlier:

In McBeth, Act 3, Scene 4, William Shakespeare wrote:
I am in blood
Stepped in so far that,
should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.

Observant fellow, that Shakespeare. It's a pity he doesn't have a blog -- people ought to read him more often.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
I see, so you think the Venezuelans would be justified in invading Virginia to hunt down Pat Robertson?

Not relevant, and I am unwilling to allow someone to attempt to defeat my point by means of fragmenting it into multiple questions. It is undeniable that an attempt to assassinate our president is a valid reason for invading another country.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:26 pm
You're so silly . . . i bet you're just the life of the party, ain't ya . . .

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:31 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
I wonder why he has not offered the "I am a blithering idiot who wanted the war because Saddam dissed my daddy" argument.

It has one thing going for it that the many others do not. It has a ring of truth.

It has nothing to do with Bush's reasons for invading Iraq, which he stated about a thousand times back then, but actually, attempting to assassinate the president is a valid reason for invading another country.



Well...even if there were indisputable proof that Saddam did attempt to assissinate a president of this country...

...I dare say THAT IS NOT A VALID REASON for invading another country.

There is a sense of proportion that must be brought to bear in these situations, Brandon.

Not that I want to include the word "sense" in a discussion that involves George Bush.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:32 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I see, so you think the Venezuelans would be justified in invading Virginia to hunt down Pat Robertson?

Not relevant, and I am unwilling to allow someone to attempt to defeat my point by means of fragmenting it into multiple questions. It is undeniable that an attempt to assassinate our president is a valid reason for invading another country.


No it isn't!


NO IT ISN'T!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:38 pm
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:
"Sunk cost fallacy" isn't a term I've bumped into before, and it is valuable in pointing to a particularly species of fallacious 'logic'. As David Halberstam noted (somewhere in something I read this last week), the argument "we can't leave Viet Nam now or all those kids lives are wasted" began to appear as early as 1964!!!

Much earlier:

In McBeth, Act 3, Scene 4, William Shakespeare wrote:
I am in blood
Stepped in so far that,
should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.

Observant fellow, that Shakespeare. It's a pity he doesn't have a blog -- people ought to read him more often.


thomas

That's a brilliant observation. Tip of the hat to you.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:38 pm
A game theoretic examination of the "sunk cost fallacy" is the "dollar auction."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:40 pm
We better take precautions. We've attempted to have Castro assassinated. We can never be too vigilant against the possibility of a Cuban invasion. Hell, Miami is probably just crawling with fifth columnists . . .
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:41 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I see, so you think the Venezuelans would be justified in invading Virginia to hunt down Pat Robertson?

Not relevant, and I am unwilling to allow someone to attempt to defeat my point by means of fragmenting it into multiple questions. It is undeniable that an attempt to assassinate our president is a valid reason for invading another country.


No it isn't!


NO IT ISN'T!

Well, then we simply have differring positions. I believe that an attempt to assassinate our president gives us the right to take military action against another country and you do not. Enough said.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:42 pm
Setanta wrote:
blatham wrote:
But I confess to being uncomfortable with a term in paragraph two..."decision scientists"?! It reminds me much too much of a WC Fields snowjob.


Is this a game of chance, Mr. Sousé?

Not the way I play it.


Lots of gems from that delicious fellow. I read a bio on him years ago that had me in stiches cover to cover. I was thinking, particularly, of a scene from one movie where he bamboozles an inquisitive cop with his credentials as a "memory expert".
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:43 pm
Setanta wrote:
We better take precautions. We've attempted to have Castro assassinated. We can never be too vigilant against the possibility of a Cuban invasion. Hell, Miami is probably just crawling with fifth columnists . . .

If this is some kind of sideways argument that we do not have the right to invade a country because they tried to assassinate our president, I believe you are mistaken.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:44 pm
If the Socialists ever take over Chile, we're in big trouble. We were complicit in the overthrow and murder of Allende. Now if the Chileans, the Venezuelans and the Cubans form a "coalition of the willing," what hope do we have?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Bush falls victim to a bad new argument for the Iraq war."
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 06:00:23