From the original comment:

I’m fine saying that people like Dutroux, Breivick or Abdeslam shall not be out before a very long-time. However, they’re not the average criminal.

Obviously they aren’t for complete prison abolishment.

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.

You just made it seem much more appealing.

In what context where both are available are emoticons objectively better?

They’re objectively not.

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.

Oops, got my wires crossed with who I was talking about. But my point still stands.

You can have any opinion that you want, I haven’t said that you couldn’t. I was disagreeing with your opinion and expressing my own, you wombat. That’s how discussion works.

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?

I don’t know. I don’t think that’s something to be left for an email.

30 minutes is not nearly long enough to get to anything convoluted.

What the fuck

Nah, screw that. I’m here for pointless petty arguments.

For someone who calls Christians hate-mongering, you’re pretty hateful yourself.

How expensive? Because accounting for inflation, $66 in 1994 is worth about $136 in 2023.

What you’re describing is still toxic masculinity and has absolutely nothing to do with toxic femininity. Men that have been hurt by their previous partners or ridiculed for being emotional, is toxic masculinity. This is because men are discouraged from expressing their emotions or seeking support, reinforcing the harmful stereotype that vulnerability is a sign of weakness. Men get hurt by women doing this because of the toxic view many men and women carry about masculinity and male gender roles.

Toxic femininity on the other hand, is a societal expectation placed on women to conform to traditional gender roles and stereotypes, like being passive, nurturing, and submissive.

Yes. And the reason for that is toxic masculinity. That’s the point they were making. They were explaining the why, not the what.