Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by tlrobinson on Monday December 14, 2015 @06:40PM
(#10734832)
I'm not sure which headline you're reading, but the one here references both "Ford dealer" and "truck with logo" (I had to shorten from "truck with company logo" to fit Hacker News' 80 character limit)
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by munificent on Monday December 14, 2015 @07:09PM
(#10734984)
It's easy to interpret the "after" in your headline as "because". But the real "because" is because the dealer didn't remove the decal, not because it ended up in Syria.
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by dragonwriter on Monday December 14, 2015 @08:20PM
(#10735337)
> But the real "because" is because the dealer didn't remove the decal, not because it ended up in Syria.
In a causal sense, the ending up in Syria seems to be a key actual cause, as does the fact that the decal was still present.
Both are probably key points legally, too, as one is the alleged omission, and the other the alleged mechanism of harm, both of which are important to the legal action.
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by EGreg on Monday December 14, 2015 @07:18PM
(#10735031)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
edit: why the downvote?
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by TeMPOraL on Monday December 14, 2015 @08:13PM
(#10735315)
I guess it's because this fallacy is not relevant to the topic. The association of "after" with "because" in cases like these is not about fallacious reasoning, it's because particular two things were chosen and put together to form a headline, and it doesn't make sense to create a headline like this if you only want to connect the two things with a temporal relationship (one came after another).
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by danielvf on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @10:18AM
(#10738206)
Tlrobinson, at the time I commented, both the original article headline and the title here did not say "dealership". I'm guessing your title had been overwritten by the original article headline. No worries.
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by tlrobinson on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @12:12PM
(#10738919)
Nope, it definitely always said "dealer". I remember the original title being exactly 86 characters because HN told me so, and it still is. I removed "company" so it would fit in 80 characters.
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by FF76 on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @03:26PM
(#10740235)
regardless, thank you for the concise tl;dr
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by rickdale on Monday December 14, 2015 @07:36PM
(#10735135)
I find this really strange. The first thing dealerships do to cars is peal off them emblems, particularly if they are from another dealership. Pretty crappy overall, but at the end of the day he probably signed something that said he was selling it, "as is".
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by SilasX on Monday December 14, 2015 @07:42PM
(#10735156)
We have a term for someone who assures a counterparty that they're going to do something, knowing that the contract says they don't have to, and then fails to do it...
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by AnimalMuppet on Monday December 14, 2015 @07:45PM
(#10735171)
Is "liar" the term you had in mind?
"Oh teller of untruths, your trousers are combusting..." (Stolen from my kids, who stole it from online somewhere.)
Re:Plumber sues Ford dealer after truck with logo was used b...
by pervycreeper on Monday December 14, 2015 @07:02PM
(#10734948)
Really poorly written article.
Both being much more reasonable than the what the headline implies.