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.
Wait, cum has Latin roots? How the fuck is this how I find that out? Hahaha, cheers for the elaboration. IT CHANGES EVERYTHING
I think you might mean "post hoc…" which is a more specific case of "cum hoc…" and sets focus on time/order of events
it’s pro hoc, not cum hoc. which is to not say that it is not objectively, very funny.
ha ha your mom hock my cum every night thru my jorts lol gottem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation\_does\_not\_imply\_causation#
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.
Wait, cum has Latin roots? How the fuck is this how I find that out? Hahaha, cheers for the elaboration. IT CHANGES EVERYTHING
I think you might mean "post hoc…" which is a more specific case of "cum hoc…" and sets focus on time/order of events