Not really. The point that I'm arguing, is that in a universe as vast as ours, the possibility that conditions exist on other planets that are capable of supporting life in some form, are endless.
I'm saying that life is capable of arising under an immense range of physical conditions, and that we shouldn't narrow our analysis of the odds for life to only those conditions and life forms found here.
"The possibilities are endless."
In one's imagination they are endless, but in terms of the table of elements and, within those elements, those that could plausibly serve in place of carbon, they are very limited.
I'm not arguing for the existence of non-carbon based lifeforms (although they might exist). I'm saying that even within the scope of conditions that life is known to inhabit on this planet, there are endless possibilities.
Expand that out to postulate that a planet that couldn't support animal life as we know it, could support life forms we're familiar with, which thrive in conditions that are hostile to us.
Who's to say that a planet that falls outside of our "Goldilocks Zone" couldn't support an ecosystem that thrives in some of the harsh conditions we observe on our own planet?