Eh, I myself never speak in absolutes.
Here is something probably stupid that I've noticed. Extraverted Thinkers speak in absolutes about the details, but not for the bigger picture, and Introverted Thinkers do the opposite. Te dominants seem to make more assumptions about semantics and collective knowledge (one right way, one definition, one perspective), which comes across as absolutism, but anything sufficiently unapparent to require abstractions of an introverted nature will be spoken of in probabilistic, impressionistic, and irrational terms (Pi). Introverted Thinkers are mostly absolutist when it comes to what is possible or not possible (conceivable or inconceivable). The objective situation, when analyzed, will be seen as accidental/irrational as befits their creative extraverted perception, thus meriting a less absolute or "necessary" vocabulary.
From psychological types fwiw:
"Almost it seems as though it were a sequence of external facts, or as though it could reach its highest point only when chiming in with some generally valid idea. It seems constantly to be affected by objective data, drawing only those conclusions which substantially agree with these. Thus it gives one the impression of a certain lack of freedom, of occasional short-sightedness, in spite of every kind of adroitness within the objectively circumscribed area. What I am now describing is merely the impression this sort of thinking makes upon the observer, who must himself already have a different standpoint, or it would be quite impossible for him to observe the phenomenon of extraverted thinking. As a result of his different standpoint he merely sees its aspect, not its nature; whereas the man who himself possesses this type of thinking is able to seize its nature, while its aspect escapes him. judgment made upon appearance only cannot be fair to the essence of the thing-hence the result is depreciatory. But essentially this thinking is no less fruitful and creative than introverted thinking, only its powers are in the service of other ends. This difference is perceived most clearly when extraverted thinking is engaged upon material, which is specifically an object of the subjectively orientated thinking. This happens, for instance, when a subjective conviction is interpreted analytically from objective facts or is regarded as a product or derivative of objective ideas. But, for our 'scientifically' orientated consciousness, the difference between the two modes of thinking becomes still more obvious when the subjectively orientated thinking makes an attempt to bring objective data into connections not objectively given, i.e. to subordinate them to a subjective idea. Either senses the other as an encroachment, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, wherein either type reveals to the other its least favourable aspect, The subjectively orientated thinking then appears [p. 433] quite arbitrary, while the extraverted thinking seems to have an incommensurability that is altogether dull and banal. Thus the two standpoints are incessantly at war. "