Furthermore, even if I were to be maximally charitable in interpreting the argument as "damaging a person is typically morally more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is typically worse than physically damaging an object", not everyone would even agree with that, contra your post. I don't think you appreciate how broad ethics is as a topic; virtue ethics and deontological ethics both dispute the premises from which this argument is constructed.
Finally, discrediting an argument you agreed with does not somehow discredit or insult you as a person, so not sure where you got that from.
You'll find that people are more likely to engage with you when you don't treat them like an absolute idiot.
If you're now claiming that the principle was "true" in some vague unspecified way, but not literally true, then like I said, say what you mean and mean what you say, and don't get bent out of shape when people point out the problems with this sort of imprecise reasoning.
Not everything is a deep philosophical discussion that needs to get down to absolute true statements.
Sometimes it's just someone, like me, who is sick of black people being literally murdered by police and thinks it's absurd that white assholes get more worked up over some property than over black lives.
I literally don't give a single shit about absolute ethical principles.
I give a shit about black lives.
Black lives matter, shut the hell up already.
Apparently, all the people who criticize the ethics of the police, the ethics of politicians, the ethics of racist economic policies, and so on. I mean, it's not like consistent ethical principles might go into devising something like a Constitution that recognizes people's natural rights and restricts government from infringing on those rights.
Amazing that you managed to turn this into a partisan attack on "your side" when all that's being discussed is the logical inconsistency of your own stated principles.