[DeathArrow]

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.

[diydsp]

It doesnt have to be universally true to be true in a mathematical system like options/puts/calls.