Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

Thinking about proportions however, we have to try and find out why Islam is over-represented globally in violence carried out in its name compared to every other religion.

You’re assuming a fact, you need to prove this (which you have never managed) before you can start using it as the basis of an argument.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that on the one hand you think this is truthfully reflective of Islam, and on the other hand you think it's not truthfully reflective of Christianity. This was the point I was making.

Think of the proportions during the dark ages.

I think the actions of religions immediately after they are founded are most reflective of what they represent. However, we also have to look at whether the actions of followers in later years are justified by the actions and words of their founders and by scripture.

You've flailed around for months attempting, and failing, to do so.

Funnily enough, I think nothing will ever be definitive enough to satisfy you.

If you want to start to quantify it you may look at incidents of religious violence within countries, amount of religiously inspired terrorist groups, how many conflicts have a religious component, the GPI (global peace index) of countries associated with a religion, the amount of terrorist attacks in countries and so on, and so on.

IMO, only when one is unaware of their biases. Violence happens in so many places, on so many different scales, all around the world, every single day. How can you even begin to think that you can know with any certainty how many of those people are acting because of their faith?

For a start you can look at attacks perpetrated by groups who actually say they are acting on behalf of a religion....

You’re assuming a fact, you need to prove this (which you have never managed) before you can start using it as the basis of an argument.

This....seems a bit off.

Are you saying there is no proof Islam is over-represented compared to other religions with regards to violence?

 

[Scaff]

This....seems a bit off.

Are you saying there is no proof Islam is over-represented compared to other religions with regards to violence?

I’m saying it’s a claim you have made and, to date, been unable to prove.

 

[UKMikey]

Funnily enough, I think nothing will ever be definitive enough to satisfy you.

Cry me a river.

If you want to start to quantify it you may look at incidents of religious violence within countries, amount of religiously inspired terrorist groups, how many conflicts have a religious component, the GPI (global peace index) of countries associated with a religion, the amount of terrorist attacks in countries and so on, and so on.

For a start you can look at attacks perpetrated by groups who actually say they are acting on behalf of a religion....

This sounds like you're picking the criteria and asking us to do the research for you.

Are you saying there is no proof Islam is over-represented compared to other religions with regards to violence?

Are you asking @Scaff to prove a negative? Surely the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion in the first place.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I’m saying it’s a claim you have made and, to date, been unable to prove.

Cry me a river.

This sounds like you're picking the criteria and asking us to do the research for you.


Are you asking @Scaff to prove a negative? Surely the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion in the first place.

Can you show that the largest religion in the world has a similar (or greater) amount of fatal attacks than Islam?

 

[UKMikey]

Can you show that the largest religion in the world has a similar (or greater) amount of fatal attacks than Islam?

"Fatal attacks"... and yet another criterion is introduced.

I don't think I have to show a thing. Show us how Islam is an inherently violent religion.

 

[Scaff]

Can you show that the largest religion in the world has a similar (or greater) amount of fatal attacks than Islam?

Not my claim, that burden of proof is yours.

 

[polysmut]

If you want to start to quantify it you may look at incidents of religious violence within countries, amount of religiously inspired terrorist groups, how many conflicts have a religious component, the GPI (global peace index) of countries associated with a religion, the amount of terrorist attacks in countries and so on, and so on.

If you could get data on religious groups and violent incidents more specifically than by country, that would be better. It might be very inaccurate to assume association with a particular religion just based on location. Especially when talking about atypical people on the fringes of society, which violent extremists are by definition.

 

[Imari]

Can you show that the largest religion in the world has a similar (or greater) amount of fatal attacks than Islam?

You don't quite get how this works, do you?

If you're going to make a statement, like "Islam is more violent than other religions", you should have formed that statement from some objective information and sound reasoning. You can then provide that when other people question the validity of that statement, as is not unreasonable in normal discourse.

What you don't get to do is claim that you're right unless the other person can prove the opposite of what you're claiming. It's your statement, you back it up. If you can't, or if you can't without people shooting your logic full of holes, then perhaps your statement wasn't as well founded as you thought it was.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You don't quite get how this works, do you?

If you're going to make a statement, like "Islam is more violent than other religions", you should have formed that statement from some objective information and sound reasoning. You can then provide that when other people question the validity of that statement, as is not unreasonable in normal discourse.

What you don't get to do is claim that you're right unless the other person can prove the opposite of what you're claiming. It's your statement, you back it up. If you can't, or if you can't without people shooting your logic full of holes, then perhaps your statement wasn't as well founded as you thought it was.

Erm....

But there are fatal attacks in the name of Islam happening at a daily rate around the world and I don't see a similar or higher rate of attacks by the world's largest religion.

Do you require proof that these attacks are happening??

 

[UKMikey]

around the world

Theocracy is the problem here, not Islam.

https://www.voanews.com/middle-east/most-terrorism-victims-are-muslim-majority-countries

 

[Imari]

Erm....

But there are fatal attacks in the name of Islam happening at a daily rate around the world and I don't see a similar or higher rate of attacks by the world's largest religion.

Do you require proof that these attacks are happening??

The first hurdle that you're failing to clear is defining exactly how one measures a violent religion. Clearly, reasonable people could come up with wildly different measures of what constitutes a violent religion. So it's important to explain explicitly what you mean when it comes to a vague phrase like "violent religion" and not assume that other people are able to read your mind.

One could make a useful definition out of what you've just posted like so - a violent religion is measured by the number of fatal attacks that occur that are explicitly attributed to that religion by the attackers. I think there would be room to debate the usefulness of that definition, but it's not even worth starting that debate until you provide numbers of the actual attacks happening to confirm that your claim is accurate.

So yes. Start by providing your information and definitions. Both are required. Then people can at least see exactly what it is that you're talking about, and the discussion can move to the interpretation of the data instead of wondering what your measures are and whether the data even exists. You don't have to use the definition I've provided above, but if you're using your own then it needs to be clearly spelled out exactly what numerical measure you're going to use to make relative judgements between the religions.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Just a thought experiment here @HenrySwanson

If you see a muslim person on the street, do you apply your prejudice them? By that I mean, do you automatically assume that person is more dangerous than if they were not muslim?

 

[Danoff]

Great discussion on islam and whether it is worse than other religions here (I timecoded it to the moment they start talking about it). Hitchens articulates quite nicely that all religion shares at least he potential for great harm, though the group seems to agree that Islam represents the greatest danger to humanity currently (or currently back when this was filmed).

 

[HenrySwanson]

View attachment 965216

Theocracy is the problem here, not Islam.

https://www.voanews.com/middle-east/most-terrorism-victims-are-muslim-majority-countries

Wait what? No-one is arguing who the victims are....and your post doesn't show that it's theocracy rather than Islam that's the problem

The first hurdle that you're failing to clear is defining exactly how one measures a violent religion. Clearly, reasonable people could come up with wildly different measures of what constitutes a violent religion. So it's important to explain explicitly what you mean when it comes to a vague phrase like "violent religion" and not assume that other people are able to read your mind.

I think I gave a good starting point in the reply to @huskeR32(found here)

One could make a useful definition out of what you've just posted like so - a violent religion is measured by the number of fatal attacks that occur that are explicitly attributed to that religion by the attackers. I think there would be room to debate the usefulness of that definition, but it's not even worth starting that debate until you provide numbers of the actual attacks happening to confirm that your claim is accurate.

So yes. Start by providing your information and definitions. Both are required. Then people can at least see exactly what it is that you're talking about, and the discussion can move to the interpretation of the data instead of wondering what your measures are and whether the data even exists. You don't have to use the definition I've provided above, but if you're using your own then it needs to be clearly spelled out exactly what numerical measure you're going to use to make relative judgements between the religions.

So in terms of fatal attacks this week we've seen:

The beheading in France
Taliban killings in Afghanistan
A Boko Haram killing/abduction in Cameroon
A massacre in Burkina Faso killing 20
A jihadist attack in Mali
A terrorist attack killing 6 in Pakistan

among others carried out by Islamists. Can you show a proprotionate amount committed in the name of the world's largest religion?

 

[Imari]

I think I gave a good starting point in the reply to @huskeR32(found here)

Good edit. If you're going to refer someone to one of your posts and don't just want to copy it, definitely at least link.

So in terms of fatal attacks this week we've seen:

The beheading in France
Taliban killings in Afghanistan
A Boko Haram killing/abduction in Cameroon
A massacre in Burkina Faso killing 20
A jihadist attack in Mali
A terrorist attack killing 6 in Pakistan

among others carried out by Islamists.

Great. I suppose that's almost a measure, now you just have to go and get actual numbers out of those links because I'm sure not going to do your work for you.

So now that you have a measure for Islamic violence, you need something to compare it against if you want to use that to justify your claim that Islam is the most violent religion (here measured by fatalities claimed in their name). You need to provide this, because if you didn't already have this information to hand then your claim has clearly been made based on little more than emotion.

It would seem reasonable to ignore relatively small religions and focus on the handful of larger ones. Given how the larger religions tend to be fragmented, you might want to be clear about how you're grouping them together.

After that you might want to think about expanding your case over a longer time frame, because the easy argument to make is that one can probably cherry pick a week to show that any individual religion is the worst at that particular time. What you want to show is that Islam is consistently the worst over some significant period.

Can you show a proprotionate amount committed in the name of the world's largest religion?

Stop.
This.

I am not claiming anything about Christianity or any other religion. I am trying to walk you through how to present your argument in such a way that it is robust and will stand up to people like Scaff and UKMikey questioning it. You keep trying to avoid doing so by demanding information of other people who are only questioning your own claims.

Lay out your data and quit screwing around.

 

[UKMikey]

Wait what? No-one is arguing who the victims are....and your post doesn't show that it's theocracy rather than Islam that's the problem

Most Islamic violence is confined to the same geographical area in countries which are theocracies. Violence outside those areas are outliers otherwise they'd be happening more commonly. It's hard to rule out geopolitical power struggles as the cause of all of these killings and put the blame solely on Islam.

Your data doesn't show that it's Islam and not Wahhabist theocracy that's the problem.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Just a thought experiment here @HenrySwanson

If you see a muslim person on the street, do you apply your prejudice them? By that I mean, do you automatically assume that person is more dangerous than if they were not muslim?

If they're in Muslim attire I'm more likely to assume they're less dangerous than if they were a group dressed in casual gear.

Question to you:

Do you think as the world becomes more Islamic we will see a greater, lesser or equal amount of religious violence than we currently see today?

Good edit. If you're going to refer someone to one of your posts and don't just want to copy it, definitely at least link.

Great. I suppose that's almost a measure, now you just have to go and get actual numbers out of those links because I'm sure not going to do your work for you.

So now that you have a measure for Islamic violence, you need something to compare it against if you want to use that to justify your claim that Islam is the most violent religion (here measured by fatalities claimed in their name). You need to provide this, because if you didn't already have this information to hand then your claim has clearly been made based on little more than emotion.

It would seem reasonable to ignore relatively small religions and focus on the handful of larger ones. Given how the larger religions tend to be fragmented, you might want to be clear about how you're grouping them together.

After that you might want to think about expanding your case over a longer time frame, because the easy argument to make is that one can probably cherry pick a week to show that any individual religion is the worst at that particular time. What you want to show is that Islam is consistently the worst over some significant period.

Stop.
This.

I am not claiming anything about Christianity or any other religion. I am trying to walk you through how to present your argument in such a way that it is robust and will stand up to people like Scaff and UKMikey questioning it. You keep trying to avoid doing so by demanding information of other people who are only questioning your own claims.

Lay out your data and quit screwing around.

Hold on a second.

It's up to you to disprove the assertion that attacks by Islamists are proportionate with other religions. I am claiming that they are disproportionate - you (and others) are claiming that they aren't....Show me the proof.

Just to help you along, the LRA, one of the biggest Christian terrorist groups had around 17 civilian deaths recorded in the last year.

That was beaten in just one day by Islamist groups in the past week. Even going back to their total death toll of 100'000 this is matched by the Taliban alone when talking about overall death tolls (not discounting the fact that the LRA are described as a heterodox Christian group).

Most Islamic violence is confined to the same geographical area in countries which are theocracies. Violence outside those areas are outliers otherwise they'd be happening more commonly. It's hard to rule out geopolitical power struggles as the cause of all of these killings and put the blame solely on Islam.

Your data doesn't show that it's Islam and not Wahhabist theocracy that's the problem.

Could be Wahhabist theocracy to blame sure.

But blaming it solely on theocracy as you did?

Looking at wiki there is this, listing Vatican City and Iran as theocracies.

Typing it into google you get this which lists the following as theocracies:

• Vatican City
• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Sudan
• Iran
• Mauritania
• Afghanistan

Looking at the recent terrorist attacks that have a religious background as shown in my post we see that 5 of the 6 occurred in countries not listed as a theocracy in either of those lists.

So I have to ask, what is your point?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If they're in Muslim attire I'm more likely to assume they're less dangerous than if they were a group dressed in casual gear.

Question to you:

Do you think as the world becomes more Islamic we will see a greater, lesser or equal amount of religious violence than we currently see today?

To your first point...what? You do realize that for many, many millions of Muslims "Muslim attire" is no different that what anyone else wears. I think you have a very specific, and wrong, image in your head of what a Muslim person is. Maybe you should go out and meet some?

I think you are vastly discounting the political and economic instability as primary drivers of "religious violence" where it occurs. When you take everything away from people, all they are left with is either nationalism or religion...and violence. Show me some examples where wealthy/successful Muslims commit violence for unequivocally religious reasons.

 

[huskeR32]

I think I gave a good starting point in the reply to @huskeR32(found here)

Not really. My point was that measuring the thing you've attempted to measure is extremely difficult to do. Your response was essentially just a reiteration of what you've been saying all along, without much in the way of addressing the challenges I'd pointed out.

Simply looking "at attacks perpetrated by groups who actually say they are acting on behalf of a religion", as you put it, is loaded with potential biases. What are your sources to make sure you're catching all acts of religious violence around the world? What attempts are you making to verify if stated religious goals aren't just a smoke screen for a group pursuing political power in an unstable region? Are you counting acts perpetrated or victims to determine which religion commits the most violence? Whichever you're using, why that one and not the other?

Can you show a proprotionate amount committed in the name of the world's largest religion?

Why do you keep referring to it like this? Why not just say "Christianity"? What has size got to do with your point? It honestly comes off as a sign that you are indeed biased on this whole thing.

Do you think as the world becomes more Islamic we will see a greater, lesser or equal amount of religious violence than we currently see today?

Similar vibes here. This makes it seem quite likely that the driving force behind your crusade here is the fearmongering about Muslims "invading" Europe.

The obvious answer to your query is that, yes, as more people join a movement, there is likely to be an increase in the absolute number of violent acts committed by its members. That's pretty basic reasoning, and surely applies equally to Christianity, which is also growing in adherents.

Hold on a second.

It's up to you to disprove the assertion that attacks by Islamists are proportionate with other religions. I am claiming that they are disproportionate - you (and others) are claiming that they aren't....Show me the proof.

No. No, no, no.

Declining to accept your inadequately substantiated claims DOES NOT constitute a positive claim to the contrary.

 

[HenrySwanson]

To your first point...what? You do realize that for many, many millions of Muslims "Muslim attire" is no different that what anyone else wears. I think you have a very specific, and wrong, image in your head of what a Muslim person is. Maybe you should go out and meet some?

As in, Islamic clothing, whether male or female

And if you read what I said, I believe I made it clear I would find those dressing in such clothing to likely pose less of a threat....

I think you are vastly discounting the political and economic instability as primary drivers of "religious violence" where it occurs. When you take everything away from people, all they are left with is either nationalism or religion...and violence. Show me some examples where wealthy/successful Muslims commit violence for unequivocally religious reasons.

You didn't answer my question about what you think will happen with regards to religious violence and the world becoming more Islamic

* Sorry I should clarify after reading huskers post - do you think with the world becoming more Islamic in comparison to more Christian/Buddhist/Sikh etc, would there be more instances of religious violence

No. No, no, no.

Declining to accept your inadequately substantiated claims DOES NOT constitute a positive claim to the contrary.

Hmmmm.

I've shown you:

- the larger number of Islamic terrorist groups compared to other religions
- that every conflict that had a religious component from a few years ago has Islam as one of the religions
- that more terrorist attacks are committed by people in the name of Islam compared to other religions
- a rudimentary look at GPI and countries by religious belief

and you are still insisting it is up to me to provide evidence that other religions are matching this record of violence?

No, I'm afraid not. You have to prove that all those points above are proportionate with the other religions of the world.

Great discussion on islam and whether it is worse than other religions here (I timecoded it to the moment they start talking about it). Hitchens articulates quite nicely that all religion shares at least he potential for great harm, though the group seems to agree that Islam represents the greatest danger to humanity currently (or currently back when this was filmed).

This is really good

 

[FoRiZon]

Honestly, I agree, also woth the comments. This is speaking with similar experiences.

 

[huskeR32]

and you are still insisting it is up to me to provide evidence that other religions are matching this record of violence?

No, it's being suggested to you that you haven't managed to change any minds yet, and if you want to do so, you should find more or better evidence of your claim.

No, I'm afraid not. You have to prove that all those points above are proportionate with the other religions of the world.

Jesus Harold Christ. No, I don't have to do that, because I haven't made any such claim.

One more time - finding your argument unconvincing does not mean that I automatically hold the opposite view. In fact, it doesn't suggest that I hold any particular view at all, just that you've failed to persuade me of yours.

I don't know why you're finding this so hard to wrap your head around.

I've stated two things in this thread:

1. I don't think that your claim is evidently true. It might be, but so far you haven't brought enough evidence to convince me.
2. I have significant doubts that anybody could prove what you're trying to prove.

That's it. End of list. And since neither of those are positive claims of anything, there's nothing for me to prove.

Now, instead of going around this circle with me like you already have with others, perhaps you could address @Imari's excellent posts where he's told you what kinds of things you'd need to do to substantiate your claim? Or perhaps you could address @UKMikey's questions about how one can confidently untangle religion from geopolitical instability in many of the regions pertinent to your claim?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

As in, Islamic clothing, whether male or female

And if you read what I said, I believe I made it clear I would find those dressing in such clothing to likely pose less of a threat....

I understand what "Islamic clothing" refers to. My post was indicating my incredulity at your response. Follow up? Why?

To your second point my response is generally no. Islam is not some disease that turns people into killers...Iran, even with it's authoritarian regime, can barely keep it's people adhering to things like women covering their hair and people not drinking alcohol...even with the severe penalties for both.

How many times have middle or upper class people of Islamic faith committed acts of extremism that were unequivocally religious in nature?

How much do you think extremism carried out in the name of Islam is directly the result of poverty, wealth inequality, or lack of resources?

 

[polysmut]

Looking at the recent terrorist attacks that have a religious background as shown in my post we see that 5 of the 6 occurred in countries not listed as a theocracy in either of those lists.

You haven't quote or linked to the post you mention so I don't know this. Are you describing a collection of 6 terrorist attacks that have a religious background? What's the reason those 6 were grouped together to be used as examples?

 

[UKMikey]

Looking at the recent terrorist attacks that have a religious background as shown in my post we see that 5 of the 6 occurred in countries not listed as a theocracy in either of those lists.

So I have to ask, what is your point?

As I said there may be outliers that occur outside the geographical area in which government and religion are intertwined but I've shown that the majority of violence occurs within that area to other Muslims. Your cherrypicked examples may ignore this, but fail to disprove it since you're not addressing the data as a whole. The exception doesn't disprove the rule.

Now it's my turn to ask... what's your endgame in trying (and failing) to convince us that Islam, and Islam alone, is responsible for turning people into violent killers? Are you trying to justify anti-Muslim immigration policy? Muslim internment camps? Forced deconversion? What's your point behind all this? And are you suggesting some kind of final solution?

 

[Imari]

Hold on a second.

It's up to you to disprove the assertion that attacks by Islamists are proportionate with other religions. I am claiming that they are disproportionate - you (and others) are claiming that they aren't....Show me the proof.

No it's not, because that's not what I'm claiming. Christ on a :censored:ing bike, if you can't understand the very fundamental idea that questioning the validity of someone's claim does not mean that one is making a counter-claim then there's absolutely no point having a conversation with you at all.

Point out where in this thread I claimed to you what you're attributing to me. Quote it. Go right ahead. I can't see anything in the last year and it seems unlikely that I would have said it like that, but you seem pretty sure so by all means please quote me the post so that I can correct myself.

For all I know you could be right, but you seem completely incapable of proving it. So much so that you're unwilling to even try and do so in anything approaching a rigorous manner. Your idea of "proof" is "here is a bunch of news articles about Islamic violence, so someone else has to prove that Islam isn't the most violent or else I'm right by default".

It's ignorant, irrational, emotionally driven hatred as you try to find some justification to feel the way that you want to feel about the scary brown people. You're not interested in the truth, you already know what the truth is and you just want someone to tell you you're right without all the hassle of having to assemble "facts" and "logic".

You could probably do with spending some time in the Post A Pic Of Your Real Car thread. If someone asks for a photo of a members car with a can of beans, it's not an assertion that they don't have that car. It's an admission that said car is rare/expensive/unobtainable and that the claim of owning it requires a picture with more credibility, a photo that nobody would take except for that specific thread.

Generally this is taken in good humour, as taking a photo of your car with beans is amusing. The people who take offense are generally the ones who don't own the car - either they stole the photo off the internet, something that's getting harder these days with reverse image search, or it belongs to a friend/uncle/boss and they don't have easy access to it to stick some beans in the engine bay.

I'd say show us your beans, but at this point you've basically admitted that you did not come up with this idea that "Islam is the most violent religion" based on any sort of data. If you had, you would have just said so instead of dancing all around the point. At best you're still fishing around trying to find some facts that you can use to justify an opinion that you already had.

You're a fraud trying to dress up opinion as fact, and it's a little disappointing. It was an interesting claim, it could have been correct, and it would have been enlightening to discuss the rationale behind such a claim with someone who had an educated and factual position to share.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Now it's my turn to ask... what's your endgame in trying (and failing) to convince us that Islam, and Islam alone, is responsible for turning people into violent killers? Are you trying to justify anti-Muslim immigration policy? Muslim internment camps? Forced deconversion? What's your point behind all this? And are you suggesting some kind of final solution?

I tried asking this before. I didn't get a satisfying answer. I mean these are the only viable end goals of such sweeping generalization of an entire religion. The religion is flawed, therefore all of the people in the religion are flawed, therefore all of the people in the religion must be fixed. Which is completely ludicrous. I know scores of Muslims...probably 50 or more. Not a single one of them (aside from one Palestinian guy who is barely religious) has ever exhibited signs of violence or criminality at all. @HenrySwanson Are they responsible for what some extremists are doing out of ignorance, despair, and desperation thousands of miles from where they live? If they are not, then what are we doing here?

 

[Imari]

How much do you think extremism carried out in the name of Islam is directly the result of poverty, wealth inequality, or lack of resources?

Or straight up anger at the World Police coming in murdering people to install a puppet regime that will sell off natural resources and buy obsolete weapons.

There's a lot of countries and populaces that have legitimate grievances about how they've been treated post-WWII, and when violence was the tool used against them it's hard to feel that it's unjust if they respond in kind. I'm sure it's merely coincidence that many of them are Muslim.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No, it's being suggested to you that you haven't managed to change any minds yet, and if you want to do so, you should find more or better evidence of your claim.

So I just have to ask, what do you want.

Re-iterating what I've shown in previous posts:

I've shown you:

- the larger number of Islamic terrorist groups compared to other religions
- that every conflict that had a religious component from a few years ago has Islam as one of the religions
- that more terrorist attacks are committed by people in the name of Islam compared to other religions
- a rudimentary look at GPI and countries by religious belief

What do you need, to be shown that Islamic violence is disproportionate to violence in the name of other religions?

I've got to say, this is the only board I've posted on that refuses to accept this.

It's ignorant, irrational, emotionally driven hatred as you try to find some justification to feel the way that you want to feel about the scary brown people. You're not interested in the truth, you already know what the truth is and you just want someone to tell you you're right without all the hassle of having to assemble "facts" and "logic".

The statement was that Islam is over-represented in terms of violence today compared to other religions. Does the above satisfy your criteria to accept this truth?

I understand what "Islamic clothing" refers to. My post was indicating my incredulity at your response. Follow up? Why?

What part? Where was my response inappropriate?

You asked if I see a "Muslim person" on the street do I assume they're more dangerous. I answer saying that I find those in Islamic clothes less dangerous than some random and you've answered with....what?

Honestly, I agree, also woth the comments. This is speaking with similar experiences.

Have you tried the Depression and Anxiety thread? 👍