This form of rhetoric for criticism is silly, though. For one, you are giving no charity to the side of my conversation. For two, you have to take it to the a

This form of rhetoric for criticism is silly, though. For one, you are giving no charity to the side of my conversation. For two, you have to take it to the absurd caricature of claiming that others think someone is an axe murderer to try and make your point. Literally a type of rhetorical fallacy. I flat out feel it is dishonest, in the vein that it is cherry picked data to further support a point that they agree with. Such that, using "this is a casual conversation" as a rubrik, I absolutely call BS from people when they say stuff like this to me. If this was a "town square debate" where the conversation is partisan and folks are trying to score points, I'd agree with your assertion a bit more. But for casual conversation specifically, I ultimately reject this view. Now, if the poster is specifically offended, I'm more than willing to apologize on that and to clarify my point. I had no ill things to say about the poster or the main topic. Heavily critical of cherry picked data, with a justification of why.