▲ 372 ▼ Cum (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by PP_BOY_@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 years ago (3 children) it’s pro hoc, not cum hoc. which is to not say that it is not objectively, very funny. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemm.ee 37 points 2 years ago ha ha your mom hock my cum every night thru my jorts lol gottem permalink fedilink source parent [–] lapes@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation# permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) In this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating. Right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CTDummy@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] CTDummy@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Quik@infosec.pub 2 points 2 years ago I think you might mean "post hoc…" which is a more specific case of "cum hoc…" and sets focus on time/order of events permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 4am@lemm.ee 37 points 2 years ago ha ha your mom hock my cum every night thru my jorts lol gottem permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lapes@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation# permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) In this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating. Right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CTDummy@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] CTDummy@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) In this case, then, it would be pro hoc, since the crankiness comes after the not eating. Right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CTDummy@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] CTDummy@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CTDummy@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I though it was post hoc, ergo propter hoc? After the fact, therefore because of the fact? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] CTDummy@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] CTDummy@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] CTDummy@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quik@infosec.pub 2 points 2 years ago I think you might mean "post hoc…" which is a more specific case of "cum hoc…" and sets focus on time/order of events permalink fedilink source parent
