I already paid when it was cheap. I’ll stay and get my full dollars worth and then some. I paid for it, I’ll use it. When it is unusable I’ll bail. Anything else is stupid.
That’s not a sunk cost fallacy at all. I’m not playing catch up, I’m already ahead.
I am thinking about it logically. Plex is the superior experience, and considering I’ve already gotten my money’s worth out of it, they are both free. So why would I use the service that works less well for my use case?
If the user experience continues to degrade, when it finally gets to jellyfin level, I’ll switch.
The part I quoted is the fallacy. You wrote you will stop using it when it is unusable, not when it is inferior to Jellyfin. Maybe you were thinking something different, but we can’t read your mind. We can only read what you wrote and what you wrote is a sunk cost fallacy.
It’s ok bud. You misattributed the sunk cost fallacy. It happens. I’ve done it before too… No worries.
A sunk cost fallacy requires a continued investment in a lost cause. I financially have contributed no extra to Plex after my initial investment. I’ve nothing to lose now. No sunk cost. Is time or effort a sunk cost? Possibly? But I already invested that time and effort. My maintenance is also zero, same as my future financial investment. Switching to jellyfin increases my cost in time and effort that I already invested in Plex. Why bail unless necessary? It’s illogical.
The difference between unusable and inferior was never the cusp of this argument to begin with. The distinction of “unusable” vs “inferior” can clearly be acertained by the context of my first full reply. Interestingly enough, your reubuttle is a textbook use of the informal fallacy known as “moving the goalposts”
One again, it’s all good. Don’t worry. My point that Plex is still superior for my use case and I have the incentive to continue using it, still stands. Your use of the sunk cost falacy is disproven on the merit of, that’s not a real example of sunk cost, and also using additional fallacies to defend your position render your point invalid.
Sunk cost fallacy does not require continued investment. No idea where you got that from. It just requires considering a sunk cost in your decision making.
The difference between unusable and inferior was never the cusp of this argument to begin with.
Literally quoted the inferior part in my original response and specifically mentioned you should just consider both on their merit without considering the sunk cost:
The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.
Never said you should switch. Just because you seems to lack reading comprehension skills and misread my comment does not mean I am moving the goalpost. You are using a straw man argument: pretending I argued something I didn’t and debunking that nonexistent argument instead of my real argument.
One valid complaint is that I did ignore switching costs in my shortened explanation. This is a mistake on my part, though it does not affect whether your statement as written is a fallacy. It is.
The sunk cost fallacy is when you keep sinking more money into something because of how much you have already sunk into it. It doesn’t apply when you simply make a one-off purchase and then don’t ever spend another cent.
no. What you describe is just one form of the fallacy. Sunk cost fallacy in general is when you include a sunk cost in your decision making process at all, instead of just considering the costs and benefits that are affected by the decision at present.
You’re right, but I don’t care if they switch honestly. I used that wording because of the “anything else is stupid” statement, which just irked me when paired with the obvious fallacy.
I already paid when it was cheap. I’ll stay and get my full dollars worth and then some. I paid for it, I’ll use it. When it is unusable I’ll bail. Anything else is stupid.
What you are saying is called sunk cost fallacy. A notoriously common stupid way of thinking.
The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.
That’s not a sunk cost fallacy at all. I’m not playing catch up, I’m already ahead.
I am thinking about it logically. Plex is the superior experience, and considering I’ve already gotten my money’s worth out of it, they are both free. So why would I use the service that works less well for my use case?
If the user experience continues to degrade, when it finally gets to jellyfin level, I’ll switch.
Perfectly logical, no fallacies here.
The part I quoted is the fallacy. You wrote you will stop using it when it is unusable, not when it is inferior to Jellyfin. Maybe you were thinking something different, but we can’t read your mind. We can only read what you wrote and what you wrote is a sunk cost fallacy.
It’s ok bud. You misattributed the sunk cost fallacy. It happens. I’ve done it before too… No worries.
A sunk cost fallacy requires a continued investment in a lost cause. I financially have contributed no extra to Plex after my initial investment. I’ve nothing to lose now. No sunk cost. Is time or effort a sunk cost? Possibly? But I already invested that time and effort. My maintenance is also zero, same as my future financial investment. Switching to jellyfin increases my cost in time and effort that I already invested in Plex. Why bail unless necessary? It’s illogical.
The difference between unusable and inferior was never the cusp of this argument to begin with. The distinction of “unusable” vs “inferior” can clearly be acertained by the context of my first full reply. Interestingly enough, your reubuttle is a textbook use of the informal fallacy known as “moving the goalposts”
One again, it’s all good. Don’t worry. My point that Plex is still superior for my use case and I have the incentive to continue using it, still stands. Your use of the sunk cost falacy is disproven on the merit of, that’s not a real example of sunk cost, and also using additional fallacies to defend your position render your point invalid.
I rest my case.
Sunk cost fallacy does not require continued investment. No idea where you got that from. It just requires considering a sunk cost in your decision making.
Literally quoted the inferior part in my original response and specifically mentioned you should just consider both on their merit without considering the sunk cost:
Never said you should switch. Just because you seems to lack reading comprehension skills and misread my comment does not mean I am moving the goalpost. You are using a straw man argument: pretending I argued something I didn’t and debunking that nonexistent argument instead of my real argument.
One valid complaint is that I did ignore switching costs in my shortened explanation. This is a mistake on my part, though it does not affect whether your statement as written is a fallacy. It is.
No, it’s not the sunk cost fallacy lol
Not sure if you’re trolling or you just had a brain-fart 🤔 Happens sometimes. Maybe think about it a little more.
The sunk cost fallacy is when you keep sinking more money into something because of how much you have already sunk into it. It doesn’t apply when you simply make a one-off purchase and then don’t ever spend another cent.
no. What you describe is just one form of the fallacy. Sunk cost fallacy in general is when you include a sunk cost in your decision making process at all, instead of just considering the costs and benefits that are affected by the decision at present.
No, what I described is the sunk cost fallacy. You misunderstood it.
No I didn’t.
Why are you being rude to somebody you’re trying to convince to put in extra effort to switch services?
You’re right, but I don’t care if they switch honestly. I used that wording because of the “anything else is stupid” statement, which just irked me when paired with the obvious fallacy.
You thinking it’s an “obvious fallacy” is what should be irking you, cause you’re wrong lol
I wouldn’t call it “stupid way of thinking”. That sounds almost offensive, while it’s just a common fallacy that affects most humans.
It was just a reaction to the “anything else is stupid” statement paired with the fallacy. I wouldn’t use that phrasing otherwise.