Just because one action is demonstrably harmful does not mean its negation is automatically beneficial. Or, formally, my claim is A implies B. The only logical

Just because one action is demonstrably harmful does not mean its negation is automatically beneficial. Or, formally, my claim is A implies B. The only logical contrapositive is non B implies non A. (not losing money means not following advices on r/wallstreetbets) But you say: non A implies non B, which is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.