Nothing wrong with it, just that without you have no real insight into a fundamental aspect of humanity. So you might end up suggesting that women should lose their rights and be treated as literal children / property.
Wanting women to lose their right => not having sex because you are an asshole
This is the correct implication. Not having sex doesn’t imply anything about the former:
It is snowing => it is cold
It is cold =/=> it is snowing
(Note: the => arrow is an implication. A => B stands for A implies B, meaning if A is true then B must be true, however B can be true regardless of whether A is true)
Whats wrong about not having had sex before?
You have to cram in a reddit phrase somehow
Nothing wrong with it usually.
In this case it is, because he doesn’t know anything about women and doesn’t respect them.
Nothing wrong with it, just that without you have no real insight into a fundamental aspect of humanity. So you might end up suggesting that women should lose their rights and be treated as literal children / property.
I just don’t think one has anything to do with the other. Sex isn’t anything magical that nets you wisdom or insight into not being a misogynic prick.
Incels are not cool
…yes, and?
Just no.
Wanting women to lose their right => not having sex because you are an asshole
This is the correct implication. Not having sex doesn’t imply anything about the former:
It is snowing => it is cold
It is cold =/=> it is snowing
(Note: the => arrow is an implication. A => B stands for A implies B, meaning if A is true then B must be true, however B can be true regardless of whether A is true)