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.
Mental illness is never an excuse for doing shitty things.
It does require us to give them treatment to avoid harming others.
It is dangerous to not broadly paint society as mentally I’ll. 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.
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.
Mental illness is never an excuse for doing shitty things.
It does require us to give them treatment to avoid harming others.
It is dangerous to not broadly paint society as mentally I’ll. 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.
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.
Agreed.
Though i’d say, provide the framework and access to treatment, but i think we mean the same thing.
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.
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.