Well, do you think the British were justified in attacking US over property damage?
I'd like to focus on the actions of people doing property damage, not the actions of people owning property, but if you think the latter is important in determining the former, please elaborate.
Philo 0316, I think that the Boston tea party was not a publicity stunt staged by attention starved children still living off their capitalist parents. They were not looking to destroy the property of random colonists, and they did not expect to be protected from consequence by the British. To compare the two events is awkward at best. These guys don't even put forward a believable cosplay. If you know any, have a beer with one and just listen.. Just one. Not more than one at a time. Listen to their goals. Then ask very basic questions. Easy ones. Count how many seconds before a wingman is called in or the conversation is ended in a huff. As far as attacking over property damage, that's what keeps most of the small group of people that don't have any ethical problems with it from doing it.
never, is your point that the goal is the important distinction here?
You're writing a lot but not really explaining your views well. Things like having "wingmen" or wanting protection seem morally irrelevant. People who get help aren't any more evil than people who don't.
Philo 0316, I'm claiming that they are a sad cosplay of men and they don't even know what their cause is. They destroy the property of random fellow citizens like they were storming Berlin, always with the three assurance that they will be protected by the same people they are trying to hurt. That is not protest. That is vandalism..