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

I think it sometimes depends on how much they have internalised their perspective on a topic as a core part of their personality.

If they perceive a disagreement with their perspective as a direct attack on their person, that can lead to subjectively bad outcomes.

There is also the possibility that what you see as a small point is a critical point to them.

Which law? in which place? at what time ?

Where it's hosted? where it's being accessed? the intermediate locations ?

Which license, is the license enforceable in this context? who decides if it is? what if there are conflicting decisions from different applications of law, who arbitrates?

Do you mean piracy in the maritime sense? or do you mean copyright infringement? perhaps trademark infringement? or intellectual property theft? based on which law in which geographic region ?

This isn't even hyperbole, the things you are talking about have nuance and context, pretending they don't is a failure of imagination or intentional trolling.

The law is the law in the very specific contexts in which it applies and is heavily open to interpretation and bias, which is (in theory) why trials and lawsuits exist.

Not an adherent of the six I's i see

Or has Situs Inversus

So I gave you two examples that match your criteria and you still can't figure it out. Got it.

...or ..perhaps you did figure it out ..and have moved the goalposts again.. dammit , can't believe I fell for that, congratulations.

I mean, I gave you a whole narrative about moving goalposts, if you can't get it from that im not sure im qualified to help you.

Hmm , actually, there is this I suppose but that's a lot more words than the previous reply so ... It could go either way.

That's some quality engineering at work there, are you using some of them in-post hidden motors like the sketchy cyclists ?

I can't even see any wheels.

I thought for sure them goalposts were fixed in to the ground, but no, they just zipped on by at a rate of speed.

Like the "Roman Salute" out of context, or actually out of context ?