PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoCumlemmy.worldimagemessage-square14fedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10
arrow-up10arrow-down1imageCumlemmy.worldPP_GIRL_@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square14fedilink
minus-squarenahuse@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up0·edit-22 months agoIn this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating. Right?
minus-squareCTDummy@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·2 months agoI though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?
minus-squarenahuse@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up0·edit-22 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.