>It's not necessarily a "correlation implies causation" fallacy when there is clear and detailed reasoning of how one thing causes the other. If that reasoning

>It's not necessarily a "correlation implies causation" fallacy when there is clear and detailed reasoning of how one thing causes the other. If that reasoning is unproven, it's just as fallacious to assume that one thing is the result of the other. There are so many arguments that this doesn't work for that it's ridiculous. You can't just make something up and say it's the truth because it isn't illogical and you believe there's an inferred relationship between the two events.