Yes, but spending money on counterterrorism doesn’t reduce the funds avaible for anti-smokimg measures specifically. If B’s argument about the importance of anti-smoking measures is valid, it is valid not just against proposals for new expenditures on counterterrorism, but for new expenditures on any objective, or indeed for the maintenance of existing expenditures on any objective, or indeed for the continuation of any level of expenditure at all on any objective at all. Alternatively, B could insert any other policy objective into his argument against counterterrorims in place of the policy of promoting anti-smoking measures, and his argument would be just as strong, or just as weak.
B draws a specific link between expenditure on counterterrorism and expenditure on anti-smoking meausures, because the objective of both is to save lives. But the link is bogus; just because they have some degree of commonality in their objective doesn’t mean that the two expenditures are linked any more than any two randomly-selected items of expenditure. Both are small parts of the “universe” of government expenditure. They can be adjusted upwards or downwards quite independently of one another, and enormous expenditures on non-life saving objectives, such as agricultural subsidies or education adjusted to absorb this.
I certainly agree with the first paragraph of your last post. B could have offered any counterclaim as to resource allocation. And I also agree his particular claim is weak.
Where we differ apparently, is I don’t believe a claim based upon resources or prioriities, is a “logical fallacy”, which was the original question. The strength of B’s statement is not the same as its logical merit. IMO, B’s statement is relevant and not self-contradictory, therefore no logical fallacy.
Well, yes, but B’s argument is I]not* based on the objective of using resources efficiently. He doesn’t claim that as his argument, and his position is not consistent with that objective. If it was, he would argue for expenditure on anti-smoking measures instead of expenditure on counterterrorism, but he argues for spending on both. If his argument is based on effeciency, he would urge spending on whichever program would save more lives per dollar spent. Arguing that the money should be divided between the two programmes means that some at least of the money must be spend in the less efficient programme
I still believe that B is making a link between the two expenditures because both are for life-saving objectives, and he believes it is “unfair” to increase expenditure on one objective without also increasing expenditure on the other, regardless of efficiency.
You must have changed your view on B’s motivation. If “he argues for spending on both”, how is that consistent with your earlier view that he was setting up a false dilemma?
Back on point, I think your view of B is plausible, even though I don’t share it. I think it leads to the same conclusion as my view however, there’s no logical fallacy in B’s statement.
We know from the original post that there was a disagreement over policy. That’s a given, based upon the title of the thread. There was a debate – you can’t really have a debate over taste. Even though the statement includes the word “unfair”, it could hardly be a subject for debate, as fairness depends entirely upon the speaker.
No, I still think B is setting up a false dilemma. Whether he is arguing on the grounds of fairness or efficiency – and you certainly can debate what is fair and what is unfair – he is positing a particular link between expenditure on counterterrorism and expenditure on anti-smoking measures which simply doesn’t exist (except in the sense that every conceivable expenditure or revenue decision is linked to every other conceiveable expenditure or revenue decision, which is not a meaningful link). From that he argues that a decision about expenditure on counterterrorism cannot or should not be made independently of a decision about expenditure on anti-smoking measures - and he is wrong.
No, that isn’t true. The two problems are linked because any measures to address either one would require real resources, and real resources are limited. To a certain extent effort put into counter-terrorism makes less effort available to combat smoking. For example, if we posted armed agents to prevent the importation of tobacco, and sent planes equipped with high-tech detectors up to discover hidden tobacco farms, that would mean that we had less equipment and fewer suitable people to devote to security efforts.
IF B had argued “We can’t do 1 because we have to do 2”, when it is possible to do both, that would be false dichotomy. But his argument is “2 would be more benefit than 1, and we don’t bother with 2. So why should we bother with 1.” To point out that you can do both does not address this argument.
