Senal

Parker from Leverage , even more so in Leverage: Redemption

Same reasoning behind using DEI instead of the actual words that acronym represents.

Mental illness is never an excuse for doing shitty things.

It can be, someone having a psychotic episode ( that couldn't reasonably be prevented or mitigated ) that hurts the people around them has a legitimate excuse for the outcome.

Part of the actual definition of mental illness could broadly be interpreted as impairment or outright loss of reasoning and cognition.

It does require us to give them treatment to avoid harming others.

Agreed.

Though i'd say, provide the framework and access to treatment, but i think we mean the same thing.

It is dangerous to not broadly paint society as mentally I’ll.

That's a very subjective take, with very vague language and almost no value as a talking point without more specificity.

To be clear, i'm not expecting an essay or anything, i just can't really respond without more information about what you mean.

Look south of you. At least 30% of the US population is mentally ill, and they should all be given free treatment for this illness.

An interesting perspective, if somewhat US centric, i mostly agree.

None of which addresses my original criticism that the definition of mental illness isn't something that should be ascribed to " all 'terrorists' ", it means something relatively specific and terrorism isn't a good synonym.

Again, not what the definition of "mental illness" generally means.

Look up an actual definition or this

Can "terrorists" have mental illnesses?, sure.

Are all "terrorists" by definition mentally ill, doubtful.

Without even getting into the subjectiveness of the term "terrorist", lets take your example.

There are plenty of situations where you can end up with that point of view and not have a legitimate "mental illness", because that term means something relatively specific and isn't a good enough fit with which to broadly paint all members of a group.

Another example of why it doesn't fit is that there are plenty of people who are evil/bad/morally bankrupt (for whatever frame of reference you are using to determine such things) that shouldn't get to use mental illness as an excuse for doing shitty things.

Having never owned a one i can't say this with first-hand experience, but aren't the issues with the cybertruck more to do with core design fuck ups.

To the point they wouldn't really be considered "kinks" as much as critical design and safety flaws ?

Why would you put "by definition" in there, that changes it from a "this is my opinion" to "It are a fact, i know because of my learnings".

It's possible there is a definition somewhere that specifically references mental health i suppose , i'd be interested to see it if you have a link ?

There's a black hole sized gulf between "perhaps there is a reason for homosexuality" and "homosexuality is caused by Teflon and micro plastics"

If you aren't going to even attempt to point at something that even comes close to backing up your claim then you're going to be very disappointed with the amount of people who take you seriously.

Jubilee got that omega glow up when they switched her to dazzler, but yeah OG jubilee was meh, power wise

Im honestly not 100% on this but isn't her core power set the draining ability.

Iirc the flight,durability and super strength come from another lady who she nearly killed by accident, ended up with them permanently and that added to her general "can't touch, people die" trauma

Edit : nvm just saw the captain marvel reference, not sure how I missed that the first time

Nonsense

i agree, but i don't want to.

To admit that you’re wrong would be to admit that your view is the weaker one.

Perhaps I'm playing in to the scenario OP is describing but I'd argue that being wrong (let's assume for this example it's provably, objectively wrong) isn't necessarily weakness, sometimes it's just incorrectness.

i'm possibly drawing a pedantic line between weakness (a potentially valid, but weaker argument) vs incorrectness ( an argument that is provably, objectively incorrect ).

Perhaps i'm just describing the difference between subjective and objective arguments ... hmmm, not sure