mommykink to Lemmy [email protected]English • 7 months agoCumlemmy.worldmessage-square26fedilinkarrow-up1392
arrow-up1392imageCumlemmy.worldmommykink to Lemmy [email protected]English • 7 months agomessage-square26fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink4•edit-27 months agoIn this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating. Right?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink12•7 months agoI though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•edit-27 months 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