The context doesn't change the meaning. Your goal in using the word zealous is to defend the status quo by denigrating the people who think the status quo needs to be changed. That's basically name-calling and is an intellectually bankrupt argument.
First off, I'm not the one who originally described Greenpeace supporters as "zealots." phantomfive, the poster to whom I replied, essentially made the argument that Lego had to choose between supporting one of the two groups (either Shell by continuing the advertising contract, or Greenpeace by not continuing it), and that the only people who would care either way were the zealotsin support of Greenpeace or the zealots in support of Shell.
phantom's argument is intellectually bankrupt because it fails to differentiate between "pro-Shell zealots" and "just against Greenpeace harassing people." I'm not saying that Lego did the wrong thing by terminating the contract because Greenpeace threatened them. However, that doesn't make it right for Greenpeace to be harassing them. Greenpeace is 100% in the wrong here, and you, phantom, and Slashdot shouldn't be pretending otherwise.
If you want to argue that it is a matter of degree, then there are whole lot more extreme actions than making a protest video and posting it youtube. The day you see greenpeace beheading shell employees and posting that video to youtube is the day you can honestly use the word zealous to describe them
I have no idea what you're babbling about here. Let me say for the record that although Greenpeace may be a bunch of crazy leftists, they're not as crazy, bloodthirsty, or prone to behead their enemies as the Reign of Terror-era French leftists. Happy now?