My "goal" is to point out logical fallacies.
Mono made a non-sequitor.
The word "insecurity" has been thrown around throughout the entire argument.
However, you can replace "insecurity" with "close-minded" in my sentence and the point is still the same.
"I repeat, strength actually IS a characteristic of the category, whereas one's close-mindedness is not a characteristic of the category of monogamous wiring"
"I'm not intent on reading emotion-that is an assumption you are making based on my written word"
that's not an assumption, that's what you said:
"If you are too angry, hostile and pissy to be friendly in your writing"
You are assuming that the recipient of your comment is angry or hostile, which is not true. You are reading that emotion when that emotion is not felt by the person you are accusing of being angry or hostile. You have claimed that being angry, hostile or pissy was the motivation for the "unfriendliness" of the writing. If the writer does not feel angry or hostile or "pissy", then you have assumed an emotion and a motivation that does not exist.