Recently, I read the following comment:
If you aren't pissing someone off some of the time, you're not doing anything very useful or interesting.
The context was that some people were pissed off and the implication was that therefore something very useful or interesting had caused that anger.
Now I'm pretty sure the argument is fallacious since there are any number of things that can piss people off and doing something useful or interesting is only one of them. But I can't tell if the fallacy is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc or not. According to Wikipedia, the form of the fallacious argument is:
- A occurred, then B occurred.
- Therefore, A caused B.
But the argument doesn't seem to fit that pattern. Is the quoted argument fallacious and, if so, what fallacy does it commit?