You seem to define "where I'm using it" to mean "anywhere my statements don't make me look foolish." So far your statements have all been about "extremism" or "moderation", without context, or alternatively and more recently about "absolute belief." This would seem to mean that you are objecting to a belief in absolute truth, or at least about being sure about any given truth. But that way leads to relativism and from there nihilism, with truth itself as the enemy. This can be most clearly seen by examining mathematics, which nearly everyone agrees to be objective and absolute, which is why I brought the topic up.
I address you using rhetorical devices because you are vague and it is often unclear whether you have a firm knowledge of your own principles and definitions. If you stated l of those things clearly, then we could address each other in a manner closer to the rigid and precise methods of scholasticism. But as it is there would be no profit to either of us if I addressed the conversation in that way.
Of course, I could be mistaken about your views. The purposes of showing the absurd consequences of what beliefs would seem to entail is to force the other person to clarify how their beliefs do not lead to that conclusion, or to admit that their beliefs lead to absurd conclusions. That is to say, I'm willing and in fact eager to see whether my characterization of your position is mistaken.
There was a time when I put something like "of course, I might be wrong" in nearly everyone of my posts that addressed what someone else believed. But I haven't seen a significant change in how people respond to me based on whether I included such a caveat or not, so now I drop it most of the time. But if you want you can imagine that it is implicitly there. I still am willing to admit my mistakes, particularly about in guessing what other people think since I can never have direct access to the thoughts of any other person.
