Thanks! I actually think both of these elements are at play in the conversation, and now that you’ve articulated them I can see that better.

I think A gives all the protestors the benefit of the doubt (assumes sincerity), and is saying that people only “know” what they “know” (believe) and, given what A is willing to grant that they believe, it’s reasonable and even commendable that they behaved as they did.

I think B does not necessarily give all protestors the benefit of the doubt (assumes at least some are insincere), and is saying that any sincere protestors could have done more due diligence before acting.

Any clarifications on the bits about intension vs extension, epistemology vs ethics, and the idea of any act done in sincere belief being justified?