You seem to be implying people murder because they desire to. There's definitely some people who do and perhaps that should qualify. But a lot of people kill who don't want to kill and sometimes intentionally do so anyways and that's what OP seems to be talking about.
Take people working at slaughterhouses, for example, who kill regularly for pay. I don't think it takes mental illness to do such a thing. People regularly drive cars, for example, despite how many people they kill, most of which are caused indirectly via things like pollution. It doesn't mean someone is mentally ill for driving a car to the store. Of course most people don't think about the impact of their actions on the lives and health of others, so its not intentional killing. But are you suggesting someone who in conscientious of the impacts of their actions is mentally ill for driving anyways? Given the outcome is the same, I don't see why thinking "I know this is killing others, but my convenience is worth their sacrifice" to drive a car wouldn't be mentally ill while using a gun to kill someone who you don't want to kill in order to defend yourself or your loved ones would be consider mentally ill.
I see a lot of this inability to understand what is right from wrong in so many young people's beliefs these days
Illness shouldn't be conflated with immorality. Nothing in OP's comment suggests they don't think murder isn't wrong.
Personally, I think illnesses in general should be based on how they affect the person with it, not others around them so I'd still disagree that a desire to murder would be indicative of illness, but that's a semantics thing that puts me at odds with the common usages, colloquially and medically. Someone carrying a bacteria but having no ill effects does not have an illness, even if they can spread it to others and those people do get ill as a result. Not sure why we treat mental illnesses differently. Socially unfit behaviors/desires should be classified differently and conflating the two leads to additional stigma for those who have illnesses. Not really relevant to this discussion though.
Even when conversion camp stuff is illegal, people still try it. Even if just DIY abuse (which is also illegal and still common). Simply not having the tech may be preferable to having the tech/knowledge, making it illegal to use it, and then people use it illegally anyways. If child abuse in general was something that could have just not been invented, not inventing it would be far superior to inventing it and then making it illegal.
Probably something along the lines of "not negative or positive, but in the middle". Basically a synonym for net zero except net zero may account for other GHGs while carbon neutral may only refer explicitly to carbon. If the process releases CO2 at some points and absorbs the same amount of CO2 elsewhere, then it would be net zero or carbon neutral. But if you release carbon that was stored for 100s of millions of years and would have continued to be stored otherwise and then just store that same amount of carbon for 1-5 years, then you aren't really offsetting and aren't really carbon neutral. Given none of the offset programs seem to have presented concrete evidence for long-term storage, they're worthless in this context. I suppose you could fund short-term storage indefinitely, but how could Apple prove that they're going to be able to fund carbon offsets for a watched purchased today in 75 years? If funding a lumber farm program that harvests trees after 15 years, I suppose you could just fund it every 15 years after an item is manufactured indefinitely? But how would a company demonstrate they're going to continue doing that in 75 years?
If we have the tech to change people's brains in such a way, what else will it gets used on? Ethically, there's differences between pedophilia and other sexual preferences but I don't know if there's any biological differences. Given conversion camps are already a problem despite not working, I can't see how they wouldn't become a bigger problem if they did actually do what they claimed...
Unless they experienced something like spontaneous failure of their braking system due to smoke, they were driving recklessly. Driving recklessly is the norm, such as driving too fast to be able to respond to hazards. Easy to believe 90% of the people in the collision were driving recklessly and a small percent probably responded appropriately, but got rear ended by people driving recklessly anyways.
What if it goes through a series of splits into equal sized spheres as it is going through the atmosphere to minimize the SA:V ratio to what is necesary?
Sorry to hear about your troubles. I can relate in some ways (age, pre-transition, not out to some important people in my life) but can't in others (no SO, only realized I was trans about 1.5years ago, most of the important people I'm not out to would be relatively supportive, NB).
Ultimately, I feel like if people important to you won't accept you for who you are, then its better to find out sooner rather than trying to live a double life. Of course I'm a hypocrite since I haven't come out to my parents, my sister, or my best friend yet (and two of them have asked me if I'm a woman because of how I was experimenting with presentation - one of which has asked 3 times at this point). So I get that it can be scary, even in much lower stakes scenarios. But I've also come out in other high stakes ways to people and found myself relatively surprised by how accepting people were.
Destroy people's homes, utilities, food, etc, then pulling out and saying "not my problem" while people die from lack of basic necessities and medical care as a result of Israel's destruction and Israel does a pikashocked face while continuing to do whatever they can to limit aid getting in still seems pretty bad. Like, better than stealing the Territory...
So you didn't even bother looking at the sources for the claim you make fun of?
Given members of the IDF have supported the idea that it was an intentional attract to get Hamas hiding in the hospital from the moment it happened, why don't you believe the IDF members and Hamas when they agree that it was an Israeli attack? I don't even believe it was an Israeli attack and this incident just further demonstrates the IDF members and Israeli officials will just make up stuff to bolster their side even when they have no actual information. There's no reason to believe either side imo.
The worst case is Israel defended themselves against a missile and the payload from the middle happened to fall on a hospital because a terrorist group was too incompetent to make sure that a hospital wasn't directly under the trajectory. I don't think someone having an incoming missile has any obligation to first check what happens to be under the missile at the time before destroying said missile, so it's still doesn't make Israel look bad imo like some people are claiming.
So random rumors spread by soldiers should be treated as truth (because its pro-team Israel ) but reporting on what the ministry of health of gaza, officials in israel, and random israel soldiers all confirm is spreading baseless lies (because it is anti-team Israel)?
No denying AJ doesn't spread propaganda. But if Israel wants to stop propganda, maybe they should start by getting rid of their officials and soldiers, who are spreading the rumors in the first place?
The warning is there to remind people that the green arrow isn't always lit when the green circle is and normal rules of yielding when turning left apply. Green arrow still gives right of way
Yeah, but you have to got through hoops to maintain a veneer of a democratic and meritocratic system. Not for those who care to pay any attention to what's going on, just good enough to keep those who rather not pay attention to that. And you don't even need a majority to believe it, or even the majority within a party: just enough that people can be convinced that at least a majority within one party believes it.
Those two things sound like the same thing.