Craven de Kere wrote:
The "sunk-cost" fallacy is ONLY fallacious logic if the costs of continuance outweigh the benefits.
I'm not sure I agree.
Nor am I, and I agree with every element of your post. Hence the "I was joking" disclaimer.
If I were serious about trying to defend Bush's campaigning as a logical argument I would probably try to argue that lending emotional meaning to loss of life recoups some of its costs and thereby renders the cost a variable cost
, not a sunk cost
But then I would be stuck with a pretty lame argument that the war is about feeling good. Which is why I won't try to support his emotive campaigning.
I'm just ribbing a poker buddy of mine on A2K who frequently misinterprets "pot odds" in poker using those words.
Plus I christened two new (and IMO real) fallacies. :-D
Note: the second one isn't really a fallacy so much as a loathesome argument tactic so this is a disclaimer that those aren't serious either.