Not at all. If looting and vandalism is “the action of a few”, then it doesn’t make sense to characterize it as “self-defense” on behalf of some collective “organism”. It’s like you switched sides and started arguing my point in the middle of the argument.
> If looting and vandalism is “the action of a few”, then it doesn’t make sense to characterize it as “self-defense” on behalf of some collective “organism”.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree, opportunists don't exist without a crowd.
