> There is only one acceptable level of violence and abuse and that is zero.

You don't actually believe that because governments commit violent using their police and military and you accept that.

When did I say that was acceptable?

When you said tolerating any violence was unacceptable. It takes violence to protect people from violence.

That's quite a logical leap. Would you care to lay out the exact steps from somebody saying they find violence unacceptable, to asserting that they definitely support state sanctioned violence?

For the state to not tolerate any violence, it must prevent violence among its citizens and from foreign attackers. The only way we have that works is using violence to restrain criminals, or fight against enemy armies. We don't have any perfect safety shield that can protect everyone without harming the attackers, or to prevent people from doing violent acts without physically restraining them (violence).