378474r9r

This seems like a straw man. What about people in his own country that have to support themselves while being obligated to pay taxes to help support this person as well? Does the UK have no one who would enjoy a free apartment like his to themselves? I'm not against supporting those in need but in my opinion if a system has universal value then those who make it possible should get a free priority slot in it.

You're arguing execution details. I don't think the original post was saying this was literally the same thing just that it effectively is. Your argument around intent is largely a reframing that serves to sidestep the obvious disparate impact angles on the matter. "The intent isn't to stifle consumption that's just a predictable consequence of our intent" is an extremely shallow rebuttal.

If the outcomes are the same you can certainly equate the outcomes and if the intent is the same, such as to limit consumption, then you can certainly equate the intent as well. After the intent and the outcome I don't really see how the rest is anything but execution details.

"You can't compare two things just because their outcomes are the same."