Rules:

thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works · 2 年前

it’s pro hoc, not cum hoc. which is to not say that it is not objectively, very funny.

4am@lemm.ee · 2 年前

ha ha your mom hock my cum every night thru my jorts lol gottem

lapes@kbin.social · 2 年前

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#

nahuse@sh.itjust.works · 2 年前

In this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating.

Right?

CTDummy@lemm.ee · 2 年前

I though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact?

nahuse@sh.itjust.works · 2 年前

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.

CTDummy@lemm.ee · edit-2 2 年前

deleted by creator

Quik@infosec.pub · 2 年前

I think you might mean “post hoc…” which is a more specific case of “cum hoc…” and sets focus on time/order of events

Cum

Cum