It was excessive eisegesis. There may be a less scholarly word for it. Basically op presupposed a dynamic and then found his suppositions in my comment.

Considering possible eisegesis is one of the primary ways responsible experts with an audience police their speech.

It's probably impossible to both effectively communicate complex ideas and defend against all potential eisegesis. I wouldn't be surprised if enlightenment era philosophers talked about this. I'll readily admit their literature are beyond my patience so forgive me for my ignorance