If I tell you that serial killers kill people because it is the nature of sociopaths, I am NOT EXCUSING it, I am EXPLAINING it.

But fair enough point about your reply being a counter-example, I stand corrected. I interpreted your reply as more akin to "your observation about general human behavior has absolutely no merit because not every human follows the same pattern, just look at me", rather than a formal logical counter-argument to an informal assertion made outside of a proof that not only personifies nature without the usual caveats but also to which a more charitable interpretation of being a comment in a discussion (not an attempt at a proof) would not apply the universal quantifier reserved for formal arguments. I guess I should have interpreted your reply more charitably as well, but in the other direction with respect to being an attempt at a proof.

That was my reply exactly, except I would've used fewer big words ;) I guess conversation and arguments like this still follow the same rules as formal logic - they're just applied in a fuzzier way.

I generally tend to avoid the less wrong set. While there is some good stuff on there, the bulk of it to me seems to be overwhelmingly arrogant and self-absorbed, which doesn't seem to strike me as likely to pick up any new biases, just regurgitate old ones.