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)
Lol. „Braingetter.“ All girls are into girlie stuff like glitter and Minnie Mouse and this equals being stupid.
Tell me you never had sex before, without telling me you never had sex before…
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.
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)
Someone mentioned it’s actually a comedian and this is him making fun of people who actually believe it.