I can see your point about it adding to the deterioration of the property in the unlikely event that it can be renovated, but I cannot at all relate to the idea that vandalism is like hitting someone. When hitting someone, it hurts and/or injures; breaking the odd window is hardly comparable.

First - the reason I posted twice was I didn't know where the most appropriate place to post was - so I tried two. Second, I'm not advocating vandalism - I'm merely re-stating a difference of two opinions I've come across. Third, the reason I haven't responded before is that I don't have 'net facilities at home, so I have to use public facilities when I can.
On the other hand, it could be argued that even passive urbexing is illegal trespass and doing "light, unstructural" damage (smashing windows, etc.) is not hurting anyone and is actually part of the natural decay of a building, as it tends, almost inevitably, to occur in places which are left unguarded.

I recently came across an issue as to whether it was OK to do damage in derelict buildings, as they're not being used for anything anymore. Anyone care to opine?