To me -- and please know I'm not accusing you of having this intent -- this seems like a Kafka trap.

In other words: if you claim to "not be one of those men," you're peddling a #NotAllMen narrative and "mansplaining," thus proving the point. Whereas if you outright agree with the premise itself, you're also proving the point.

This is bad-faith argumentation. It sets up the premise that there are absolutely NO FLAWS in the narrator's premise or theory.

Again, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that YOU are trying to do this, Tony. But I see people doing it on Medium -- and in daily life -- all the time. It's probably a classic example of that "hurt people hurt people" cliche.

I think your M&Ms analogy is a good one in the respect that, no, you wouldn't eat ANY of the M&M when you have evidence that a handful of them were poisooned. At the same time, you also shouldn't create a fire hazard by setting ablaze the entire bag of M&Ms -- and then go binge endlessly on Reece's Pieces, to compensate for it.