You do know that that refers to the misconception that just because two things followed each other in time that one caused the other right? My argument was not based on the temporal sequence of Lin playing and then Melo getting hurt but instead on the effect Lin had on Melo's place on the court.
gmoney: Everything I quoted was in chronological order. Nobody took what you said for a fact because it was a ridiculous premise. Supposition is faulty reasoning, which was actually my original response: Then you were pretty adamant about how it was a but for cause, as if that absolves you from said faulty logic: You went from being certain that it was a but for cause, to kinda-maybe-only-if-I'm-factz, to no definitely not but for cause. That's the backtrack; it's within your own irrelevant tangent. And now you're here again saying that if your own scenario were true (which it's not), it would be a but for cause. But for playing Jeremy Lin, Carmelo would not have been injured. You do realize that but for cause still implies fault, right? As for post hoc ergo propter hoc, Jeremy Lin played, Melo was injured, therefore Jeremy Lin playing caused Melo's injury which is the whole freaking point of the but for test. Seriously, ask your professor to read your responses in this thread.
No it isn't I responded to archinkent about but for cause before I responded to you. It's not fault reasoning it's just not definite. Lots of things are based off of assumptions. If you were able to prove that if Lin plays Melo gets hurt and if Lin doesn't play Melo doesn't get hurt then he is the but for cause. If you don't believe me that I was saying it assuming that people were taking me to mean that Lin playing actually caused Melo to get hurt then it is pointless to even talk about it because we would be arguing two different things. In the legal context it does not. That's why we don't hold all but for causes liable. If you are to assume that with Lin playing he gets hurt and without Lin playing he doesn't get hurt it's not faulty logic because Lin would then be the but for cause. The whole point of post hoc ergo propter hoc is that there is no real proof to show that the temporal nature caused the act. If Lin is the only variable then theory doesn't apply because he is the but for cause. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is better used for situations where you don't have a controlled environment and there are tons of variables that could have caused the effect. Seriously, ask your professor to read your responses in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Not true at all. But for implies a fault (or a cause) attributed to something. Proximate cause is the legal actions you can take concerning the but-for cause. For example, if a deer ran across the road when you were driving which led to a car accident. The deer would be the but for cause. If you were walking on the street and slipped on ice, damaging your back. The ice would be the but for cause. In each scenario there is a cause. You were implying in this case, that had Jeremy Lin not been on the same court as Melo, Melo would not be injured. That's not but for, that's equivalent to the butterfly effect. You could very well say that had a fan stood up instead of sat down during that scenario, Melo would never have gotten injured. I'm seriously doubting if you are even in law school. I'm minoring in law and these are the basic things you should be aware of. You can't charge a civilian on the street and say "if you weren't there, there wouldn't have been a crime on the other side of the road".
Gmoney: So basically, post hoc ergo propter hoc is more applicable to, oh I dunno, real life scenarios (like a real life basketball team in New York?) versus the idiosyncratic context of law. Bravo. A lot of things are based off assumptions and a lot of things are wrong because they're based off ridiculous assumptions; your original statement is among the latter. Oh, and the posts I quoted were in chronological order. Not quoting all of your 9000 posts in this thread doesn't change that, lol.
You can't use fault and cause as if they are interchangeable words. Fault in the legal context is more about blameworthiness. You can cause something without being to blame for it. A good example is that you are driving down the street going the speed limit following every traffic law possible and somebody runs out in the middle of the street and you hit them and they die. You are the but for cause of their death but in no way are you at fault. There is nothing you could have done to prevent it. That's not what I'm saying unless it can be proven. You can't have a but for cause unless you are sure there actions lead to effect which in the Melo case we can't. You can say I should have been more clear earlier or I should have been more specific what I was talking about but I'm saying right now that in no way am I saying that Lin is the but for cause for Melo getting injured. I only brought up but for to explain that I wasn't putting fault on Lin even IF he was found to be the variable which caused Melo's injury.
I am fully aware of the possible ridiculous nature of my first comment. I tend to think that things are more connected than they sometimes are. Maybe Melo had a sore knee already and regardless of Lin he was going to go down or maybe he tweaked it before in warm ups and then tried to play on it who knows. However, it's not the illogical fallacy that you made it out to be because I wasn't talking about the temporal nature of the events. I only started this whole debate to disprove the way you attacked it. The but for posts weren't.
This argument is obviously spinning down so I'm not going to escalate it further. Just know this: in a court of law you won't be able to get away with assumptions and backtracking. Whether you see it or not is irrelevant, because others will and it may well cost you your job. Good day sir.
Why is it that you think I haven't been in a court room before and that I still have professors? I practiced for a year in Cali and then quit bc I hated it and now I'm taking the TX bar. I am fully aware of what is ok to do and not to do in a court room. You can't seriously think my arguing about hypos and Lin is the way I conduct myself at work do you? This is a fan forum where arguments get twisted and lost as they go along. It's basically a game of telephone most of the time. Good looking out though.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bPvAe86KyWg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I couldn't agree more. If I wasn't doing this because I sit in front of my computer all day studying I would be very ashamed of myself. Actually, I'm a ashamed of myself anyways. However, what are you doing on this at 230 in the morning?
I don't work tomorrow cause it's a holiday and I have terrible sleeping habits. Actually, I haven't really traded in like 2 weeks. I'm just lazy nowadays .
