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 came across many very dumb people, therefore most people are dumb. Seems logical. I work with thousands of meat workers, therefore most people must be meat workers. Your experience is more or less selection bias.
If you were working tech support of course you're going to interact with more "tech illiterate" people. That doesn't mean the "most people" are tech illiterate, you were just dealing with a high volume of them, giving that impression.
You don't see anything wrong with your language, but shockingly, the world doesn't revolve around you. Just because you think something is fine doesn't make it true.
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.
Yeah, if you ignore the massive price difference and the fact that they need to be replaced periodically because rechargeable batteries usually only last a few years at most.
As if fruit and veg packing and processing plants are any better. As long as greedy humans are in charge people will be exploited as much as they possibly can regardless of what the industry is.
You just made it seem much more appealing.
In what context where both are available are emoticons objectively better?
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.
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.