[simiones]

I think it's fair to say that, however you look at it, the quote is using "hard times" and "good times" from the perspective of the in-group, not any out-group. So, whatever destruction Alexander visited on those he conquered is kind of irrelevant to this quote - the only thing that would matter for checking whether the quote applies is whether Alexander improved the lot of his own people. That is, was he a strong man who was created by the hard times of his youth/parents' generation, and did he create good times for his own people?

Per the quote, the people Alexander conquered should themselves be considered weak men who will leave hard times for their children (being conquered/looted by Alexander, who they couldn't win against because of their weakness); but whose children, or grandchildren, will be stronger than them and create good times anew.

[watwut]

> I think it's fair to say that, however you look at it, the quote is using "hard times" and "good times" from the perspective of the in-group, not any out-group.

That is not inherent in that quote at all. Quote is very general and also is used generally to imply superiority of strong man. Putin and his army does qualify even from our perspective.

Also, if you say it is only from in-group perspective and create such quote, then we are looking at genocide approving philosophy. In that case, arguing by fundamental immorality of both quote and underlying filosophy becomes requirement. Because if it is used approvingly,it will make us more likely to commit genocide or other similarly bad act.

Also, whether he created good times should be judged by whether people in in-group had good times. Large conquered territory is not the same thing.