Exceptions prove the rule by being exceptional. You're looking at regularly occurring contradictions and then choosing to interpret them as "exceptions".
You don't get to say that the exceptions prove the rule when the exception isn't exceptional, and is an utter rebuke of the rule and it's foundational premises. That's called: "being wrong". When you still reject it after that, it's called "motivated reasoning".
Exceptions prove the rule you dolt.
Exceptions prove the rule by being exceptional. You're looking at regularly occurring contradictions and then choosing to interpret them as "exceptions".
You don't get to say that the exceptions prove the rule when the exception isn't exceptional, and is an utter rebuke of the rule and it's foundational premises. That's called: "being wrong". When you still reject it after that, it's called "motivated reasoning".