• nahuse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    In this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating.

    Right?

    • CTDummy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      I though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?

      • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.