defunct_punk to Lemmy [email protected]English • 1 year agoCumlemmy.worldimagemessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up1397
arrow-up1397imageCumlemmy.worlddefunct_punk to Lemmy [email protected]English • 1 year agomessage-square30fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink29•1 year agoit’s pro hoc, not cum hoc. which is to not say that it is not objectively, very funny.
minus-squarelapeslinkfedilink8•1 year agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink4•edit-21 year agoIn this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating. Right?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink12•1 year agoI though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•edit-21 year agoYeah, 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.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•1 year agoI think you might mean “post hoc…” which is a more specific case of “cum hoc…” and sets focus on time/order of events
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink37•1 year agoha ha your mom hock my cum every night thru my jorts lol gottem
it’s pro hoc, not cum hoc. which is to not say that it is not objectively, very funny.
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.
deleted by creator
I think you might mean “post hoc…” which is a more specific case of “cum hoc…” and sets focus on time/order of events
ha ha your mom hock my cum every night thru my jorts lol gottem