Today, the Carney government joined the Conservatives and the Bloc to defeat Jenny Kwan’s No More Loopholes Bill — legislation that would have stopped Canadian weapons sent to the U.S. from being used to fuel the genocide in Gaza.
It’s a deeply shameful vote that suggests they would rather appease Trump than protect vulnerable civilians.
But this moment also shows why voices like Jenny Kwan and her colleagues in the NDP caucus matter so much. They continue to champion human rights, peace, and international justice with courage and persistence, even when few others in Parliament will.
Millions of Canadians share that vision. They want Canada to be a force for peace, not a junior arms dealer.
This is exactly why our country needs the NDP.
#cdnpoli #gaza #NDP
Oh, my God. You’re doubling down? Seriously buddy, you are absolutley ridiculous. It’s been pretty obvious for the last couple of exchasnges that you aren’t arguing in good faith, but this is just bizarre. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about this concept.
The sunk cost fallacy is specifically in regards to a BAD investment. Not ANY past investment. If you have been investing in something that is profitable…then holding onto that investment, is good. It is considered an ASSET. It holds VALUE. Losing that asset is bad. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve had that asset, or how long it’s been since you paid it off.
But when you have been investing in something that is NOT profitable…meaning that it has never yielded a return on your investment, but you continue to pour more time, money and resources into it, despite that fact…that is a “sunk cost fallacy”. This is not my “made up definition”. Again, you should try READING the defintion I provided…or even just anything on the subject.
It’s absolutely insane that you are now quoting my ENTIRE point back to me, about updgrading your equipment when it becomes outdated, in an attempt to claim that I am the one who doesn’t understand this concept. What. The. Actual. Fuck. You have been arguing against me for saying that this entire time, by barking about “sunk cost fallacies”. You haven’t even understood a single thing that I’ve been saying, because you have no idea what you are talking about.
It’s breathtaking to watch you confidently dig this hole all the way to the center of the earth. You’re fundamentally confusing the historical profitability of an asset with its current marginal utility which is literal day one freshman economics. Yes a machine that makes money is an asset but the absolute second the market demand for that specific product drops to zero that machine becomes a liability if it costs money to maintain or prevents you from retooling.
A sunk cost is just a past unrecoverable expense period. It does not magically require the investment to have been a failure from day one for the fallacy to apply. If you refuse to scrap an obsolete machine today simply because you paid a million dollars for it ten years ago you are committing the sunk cost fallacy regardless of how much money it printed in the interim. The fact that you cannot grasp that a formerly profitable asset can transition into a sunk cost trap the moment market conditions change explains perfectly why you think businesses simply evaporate when a single contract ends. Please actually read an economics textbook instead of furiously misinterpreting the first paragraph of a website you hastily googled to win an argument like the lost reddit debate bro that you are. 🤣
Dude. You are embarrassing yourself, here. I am embarrassed for you. I can’t tell if you’re just too stubborn to admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about, or just too stupid to realize it.
Sure, buddy. Feel free to go back and actually read this entire exchange again, whenever you’re ready. Except instead of trying desperately to make strawman arguments out of the details…try and actually understand what I’m saying.
And for real…do your homework on what sunk cost fallacy is. It isn’t hard.
should really follow your own advice lmfao, since you desperately need the last word, I’m going to end here and let you make a clown of yourself for one last time
Oh, my God. You’re doubling down? Seriously buddy, you are absolutley ridiculous. It’s been pretty obvious for the last couple of exchasnges that you aren’t arguing in good faith, but this is just bizarre. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about this concept.
The sunk cost fallacy is specifically in regards to a BAD investment. Not ANY past investment. If you have been investing in something that is profitable…then holding onto that investment, is good. It is considered an ASSET. It holds VALUE. Losing that asset is bad. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve had that asset, or how long it’s been since you paid it off.
But when you have been investing in something that is NOT profitable…meaning that it has never yielded a return on your investment, but you continue to pour more time, money and resources into it, despite that fact…that is a “sunk cost fallacy”. This is not my “made up definition”. Again, you should try READING the defintion I provided…or even just anything on the subject.
It’s absolutely insane that you are now quoting my ENTIRE point back to me, about updgrading your equipment when it becomes outdated, in an attempt to claim that I am the one who doesn’t understand this concept. What. The. Actual. Fuck. You have been arguing against me for saying that this entire time, by barking about “sunk cost fallacies”. You haven’t even understood a single thing that I’ve been saying, because you have no idea what you are talking about.
It’s breathtaking to watch you confidently dig this hole all the way to the center of the earth. You’re fundamentally confusing the historical profitability of an asset with its current marginal utility which is literal day one freshman economics. Yes a machine that makes money is an asset but the absolute second the market demand for that specific product drops to zero that machine becomes a liability if it costs money to maintain or prevents you from retooling.
A sunk cost is just a past unrecoverable expense period. It does not magically require the investment to have been a failure from day one for the fallacy to apply. If you refuse to scrap an obsolete machine today simply because you paid a million dollars for it ten years ago you are committing the sunk cost fallacy regardless of how much money it printed in the interim. The fact that you cannot grasp that a formerly profitable asset can transition into a sunk cost trap the moment market conditions change explains perfectly why you think businesses simply evaporate when a single contract ends. Please actually read an economics textbook instead of furiously misinterpreting the first paragraph of a website you hastily googled to win an argument like the lost reddit debate bro that you are. 🤣
Dude. You are embarrassing yourself, here. I am embarrassed for you. I can’t tell if you’re just too stubborn to admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about, or just too stupid to realize it.
sounds like you’re doing a lot of projecting there kiddo
Sure, buddy. Feel free to go back and actually read this entire exchange again, whenever you’re ready. Except instead of trying desperately to make strawman arguments out of the details…try and actually understand what I’m saying.
And for real…do your homework on what sunk cost fallacy is. It isn’t hard.
should really follow your own advice lmfao, since you desperately need the last word, I’m going to end here and let you make a clown of yourself for one last time
bye