From context I gather you’re from Belgium. Isn’t there already OCMW/CPAS for free housing?

Just because they’re from one country (assuming they actually are,) doesn’t mean they’re speaking from the perspective of that country. Most people will assume if you’re speaking English you’re from America or some such.

What do you do when it’s the single mom in free housing that just wants 500EUR extra cash? Find political consensus to give her a bigger free house, with a pool, and a credit card?

You’re just using a completely different scenario to move the goalposts. I believe that they’re point was that imprisoning people for committing a crime in pursuit of basic survival is pretty fucking shitty.

Not even close.

Resources like gold would be more accessible, y’know because it already been mined and made into things. If society collapses what few survivors there are could recycle shit like metals. The actual issue is fossil fuels. Getting to a point where you can use renewable power would be difficult with using fossil fuels for power first.

Yes, and? I don’t believe these are replacing any existing infrastructure, but are for places that have no infrastructure for the internet. They could drastically improve things in those areas, and if those place became a warzone sometime in the future they’d probably be pretty fucked with or without proper land based infrastructure.

You’re missing the point entirely. The person I was originally responding too was saying that evan though awful things were done to people it’s fine, or justifiable because “millions” benefited from them. If you don’t understand how something like that at its base level can be applicable to modern times, that’s a you issue.

It’s not the specific actions taken or the setting/environment, but the attitude of the ends justifying the means if there’s a net positive.

I bet you think you’re taking some sort high road to the effect of “oh I just state the facts, I’m not telling anyone what to think,” while conveniently ignoring the part where the way that you report these facts, or which ones you leave out can very much influence the conclusions people reach.

You stated that Alexander killed many people, but also his actions benefitted millions of people. These two things put together in the way that you did will lead an uninformed person to he conclusion that it’s fine that he killed people because it benefited many others. And maybe that could be true in some contexts, but you completely failed to mention the fact that he didn’t just kill a bunch of people, he executed defeated peoples and sold a whole bunch of people into slavery, which would naturally influence the conclusions a person could come to.

Yes, and? Have you not gotten to the part in your schooling where you look at history to see what can be learnt from it?

So the ends justify the means? Inflicting untold suffering on one group of people is fine if it benefits another one?

Screenshot? What are you, a goldfish?