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)
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)