This is exactly my point. There is no reason to use an arbitrary percentage. More to the point, if you're "100% for something, except for [whatever]", you're simply not 100% for that thing. Why even use a percentage at that point, let alone 100%? It's just involving numbers with no purpose.

Inside the category, it's 100%. It's a good way to signal that it's not a vague thing.

Let's take the statement "I'm 100% for punishing people that deserve it". That's a perfectly good statement, and the "100%" shows certainty across the category. Reinterpreting it as "I'm 40% for punishing people" is just being bad at discourse. The scope is not arbitrary, and shouldn't be treated separately.

Technically speaking, you're correct.

But would it not be linguistically simpler (and maybe less taxing for the reader) to use emphasis without resorting to percentages? The fact that 100% can be mapped to an unqualified boolean ("Yes, in favor, no buts.") and 40% cannot be doesn't mean that either are appropriate.

It's not elegant to parse sentence structure as categories to contrive percentage use as correct, even if it's technically sound. I understood the parent's sentence, but I had to read it several times because it just came across as a bit odd.

Honestly, when we start using category theory to analyze whether or not someone has appropriately quantified their stance on something, we've gone pretty far off the reservation.

I suppose my overall point here is that we shouldn't use percentages to quantify our opinions in place of emphasizing in a more linguistically elegant way. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree?

The way I see it, "100%" and "completely" serve the same purpose, and there's no problem with either. It's not something that actually involves math. You can treat it as a non-number.