defunct_punk@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 years agoCumlemmy.worldimagemessage-square29linkfedilinkarrow-up1395arrow-down124
arrow-up1371arrow-down1imageCumlemmy.worlddefunct_punk@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 years agomessage-square29linkfedilink
minus-squarenahuse@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down3·2 years agoIn this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating. Right?
minus-squareCTDummy@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up12·2 years agoI though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?
minus-squarenahuse@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down2·2 years agoYeah, that’s what I mean. The person I was responding to was comparing it to cum hoc which means that the two events being considered simultaneously, which I don’t think is correct.
In this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating.
Right?
I though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?
Yeah, that’s what I mean.
The person I was responding to was comparing it to cum hoc which means that the two events being considered simultaneously, which I don’t think is correct.
deleted by creator