You know how folks will sometimes take something like “X can lead to Y” and insist you’re saying “X necessarily leads to Y"?

I’ve witnessed it used a lot by folks who display other fruits consistent with abuse and manipulation, so I’m leery of it when I see it. Depending on context, it can be equivocation, a non sequitur, or a straw man argument—but always logically fallacious.

What’s bothering me is how prevalent it is in some circles, how if you make an illustration that’s demonstrating a conditional connection you’re described as seeming to make a universal point—or how if you point out flaws in an argument, you’re necessarily disagreeing with it.

My habit is to assume the other person just doesn’t know any better, but…

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew 7:18, KJV

and

Therefore by their fruits you shall know them.

Matthew 7:20, KJV

So when it’s a habit for someone to conflate conditional and general statements, and particularly when the person denies doing such a thing when it’s pointed out, might that be considered a fruit we’re to recognize? Or is the denial itself the fruit we’re to identify?

What I’m mulling on, today. :-)