The problem with quoting in absolutes is you don't leave any margin for error in your assumptions.
This tells me that you're emotionally invested in your topic, instead of approaching it rationally and objectively.
Its unfortunate, because this kind of binary extremism fosters all kinds of reactionary and ill-informed actions.
That's incorrect. I have argued very clearly that:
Your statement about the necessity of arbitrarily leaving a margin of error in one's "assumptions" is rather meaningless here as I have not made assumptions but stated facts.
I don't need to leave any "margin for error" when I tell you that a molecule of water is two hydrogen atoms and and oxygen atom. This is established.
Again, you seem emotionally invested. Your argument is biased and doesn't have the balance I would expect from an objective observer.
Just by saying you don't "need any margin for error" tells me that you are used to dealing with perceived absolutes, and don't integrate contrarian views into your theories.
Its fine, believe what you wish. I'm just pointing out what looks like a one-sided presentation.
Nothing you have said so far has been an argument, but unsubstantiated assertion and opinion.
You could make an argument at any time.
I see we've reached the limit of useful interchange.
Have a good one.
Lol. Later bro.
Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists believe that taxation is theft, and therefore what taxes pay for are inherently illegitimate. Thus, to us, yes, there is no ambiguity here - especially when the other aspects of the concept of police forces, like the fact that we grant a certain class of people to inherently have the right to be violent against others, are taken into account.