There are plenty of threads here that touch upon Democracy. Often the fear of the chaos that it has become-some Anons attack the ideas of Communism without knowing what they are or heap scorn upon the Parliaments and Senates of democratic nations for their infractions. Sometimes Anon has rightfully called out injustices on the part of stolid China and less flexible nations, and other times our members succumb to-though it may be a curse to say it-unchecked nationalism or pride.
But do you know what you are fighting for? Or against? We must, at a glace even, admit that the model of the modern republic is Chaotic... unjust even. But do you want anything more? Does your nation deserve anything less than anything more? Why?
No.
Who votes on all the bills being passed, is it the people or is it their elected congressmen.
In a democracy the people vote on all laws. In a republic the elected or chosen officials do.
We are a republic, your tinfoil hat rant on other ethnicities doesn't change reality.
I am not playing the "tinfoil" hat here. America is not a Republic, at least not anymore. It is supposed to be one.
You definition of democracy is wrong as well. What we have in the US now is mob rule, where 51% of the people vote someone in, the other 49% is totally fucked. Obama bearly got 52% of the vote and they called it a "landslide victory"?
This country needs to go back to being a republic and more political parties need to be formed. We need to start having coalition governments instead of this two party horseshit we have now. I am not neither a republican or democrat, so I am not represented in government.
> What we have in the US now is mob rule, where 51% of the people vote someone in, the other 49% is totally fucked.
What the hell man, do want to have the runner-up be junior vice president or some shit like that?
> This country needs to go back to being a republic and more political parties need to be formed.
where 38% of the people vote someone in, the other 62% is totally fucked?
Hell.. I'm not even American and I know most of the power is focused in the senate.
> What we have in the US now is mob rule, where 51% of the people vote someone in, the other 49% is totally fucked.
Electoral. College.
>>23
Oh yeah? Then why isn't the word "democracy" written anywhere within the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Because the Founders wanted to avoid using any form of that word like the plague and for good reason. Just because it has some democratic functions doesn't mean it should be regarded as such.
IHBT
You're a troll, so I won't respond seriously to you. I will say that you are a big fatty fat fat who should look up what an indirect democracy is, unless you don't care and just wanted to disturb everyone's groove around here, in which case you should go butter yourself up and roll down a grassy hill on camera and post the video on the internet for everyone to watch.
>>25
What is your problem? I stated that the word "democracy" is not mentioned at all in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head where it's mentioned by a Founding Father is in Federalist paper #10 where it is not looked upon very favorably.
Since you couldn't come up with a rebuttal, you decided instead to go off on a childish tangent, further solidifying my point that the American form of government is a republic, not a democracy. So stop spouting this bullshit that it is.
Once again, IHBT.
To be honnest , it's just a bull of shit ^^ !! and it didn't even exist hahahaaaaaaa
Does the thread come from corrupt goverment? Is there unstable neibhour at large? Do you think terrorists are the gravest danger?
All in all, what does your country have to fear?
>>25
In the US, political pressure groups thrive on confrontation. No one likes compromise.
UK here. Graft and corruption of the news media are my biggest worries. Thank the cruel, uncaring universe for Private Eye magazine, that's all I care to say here. Will soon get my subscription.
As a citizen of 'X' I am familiar with 'Y' and the point at which it intersects (The government assures me it's 0, has always been 0 and will always be zero), but since I've learned of the existence of 'Z' I'm frightened and don't know what to believe anymore.
Russia.
their CQB skills would kill a Lion.
Would someone just post something already?
I am a citizen of /b/ and I fear lions. In fact, whenever I see a lion, I get in the car.
Perhaps I should hire one of these Russians of whom >>29 speaks.
Greetings, There is no point to what country i'm from, because after the lisbon treaty i now fear a world under one government
>>32
I agree, and I do not even live in a European country.
I'm from the internet. Well, not really, but i moved there from New Zealand. I'm mostly afraid of cold weather and bumping into drunk people around the university.
I'm from the US and afraid of corporate sponsorship of political campaigns.
I'm currently reading "Red Hot Lies", which was recommended to me by a couple of environmental scientists (former alarmists themselves). The case against the "Global Warming Industry" is almost too built up to be real it seems, and if it is it's sickening.
I'm not sure if everything I'm getting from the guy is totally true, but alot of it is or at least seems to be true.
From what I've read, I'm a little disappointed in the alarmists (Gore, etc) tactics.
However, I've been blessed with a sense of caution when it comes to trusting "authorities", so I'm not allying myself with anyone, including this author.
Regardless, I'm now seriously considering the facts about Global warming.
Before, I knew pretty much nothing about it, other than the message I was constantly getting hammered with by news media, etc: "it's the consensus! therefore it must be true" so I formerly just assumed it to be the case that global warming was real and would be catastrophic if we didn't immediately cut down on toilet paper and air conditioning.
I have a hard time arguing with anything that NASA and MIT considers to be an undeniable truth.
I wasn't trolling at all. MIT and NASA both believe global warming to be real, I really don't see how that's a troll.
The whole point of this thread is to hash out different view points and challenge what so called scientific authorities say, so I don't think what you've contributed is really on point with my intention (but maybe I didn't clarify that as much as I thought I did).
So, you coming in here and saying "well the authorities say such and such, so it's hard to argue with that" seems like a troll to me.
BTW, just so there's no confusion, I'm talking specifically about man made global warming.
>>5
Point taken. By the way, it's not really "the authorities", it's "Geniuses". But I'll stop now.
there is a thread in science about global warming I'm poster 27, 30, 32, and 34 I don't feel like just copying and pasting so you can read my opinions there if you want.
Computer models evolve in the direction that maximizes funding.
Or, to take my tongue out of my cheek and quote someone brighter than I:
Public funding of science in matters that influence public policy is a very serious matter.
Global warming has already been debunked.
Weather stations positions in/around cities record higher temperatures than ones that are not. Surveys did not include weather station recordings that were outside of cities, invalidating results.
Hackers found documents saying global warming is a scam.
Climategate scammer admitted that there was an increase in temperature within the last 20 years, however the increase was statistically insignificant (less than a 0.1% increase).
Several other surveys across the world show global cooling rather than warming.
>>9
All of those models and all of that public funding go to waste if the scientists skew results. Sadly, the general public does not know better.
I am a Japanese and living in CA.
I wonder how Americans think about illegal immigrants.
tits or gtfo
bitches
>>2 well, maybe it's because the US is too selfish to grant citizenship to the people who deserve it a whole lot more than most of the lazy bums who were born with the right to citizenship. So what about the rest of them, who are actually trying hard to get citizenship? you can't just judge all of them like that. stfu.
>>3 wtf. racist faggot.
I personally have no problem with "LEGAL IMMIGRANTS", However, I do have a problem with illegal immigrants. I have this problem because they have broken the law. There are billions of people from third world countries all over the world, that does not mean you can invade countries without going through the legal process. Immigrants from other countries other than MEXICO,go through the proper process, why can't Mexicans? I am tired hearing that Mexicans are hard workers and Americans are lazy bull crap! The truth of the matter is Mexicans want Money!!!! Yes, the will be at work everyday because it is a guarenteed paycheck to funnel back to their home countries! There quality of work is poor, their customer service is poor, they have no respect for Americans, American Laws , or the American Flag. They march on American soil waving Mexican flags demanding American rights. If you want sympathy try waving an American flag. How can you hang a Mexican flag on top of an American Flag on the same flag pole, in America, plain disrespect. Sorry to all you blinded folks, this is their plan to come her and have as many babies as they can, remember power comes in numbers,and take their "so called land " back. That is why they will not assimalate. They will not learn to speak the language, they rather work under the table and make tax free dollars, go to any emergency room they are flood with illegal immigrants, whose footing the bill? You and I the taxpayer, That goes for schools, social services and other services. If Illegals want to be in the US, contribute to society and stop using our society. I am not afraid of being a multicultural country, people this is a planned takeover we are just to politically correct to see it!!!! Like a hispanic co-worker told me a few years back, spanish will be the official language in the very near future.T o the big corporations money isn't everything, what about patriotism!!! Don't let greed ruin America.
Disregard that, I smoke rocks.
What does multiculturalism have anything to do with a country being 3rd world?
On another related note, haven't you heard of world trade?
>What does multiculturalism have anything to do with a country being 3rd world?
They're not at that level yet. Give it another three or four decades.
>On another related note, haven't you heard of world trade?
Indeed I have. And it's quite a failure.
If we live in a world that is governed by religion and corrupt governments, whose power was attained through systemic victimization of more peaceful cultures, how can anyone expect those who struggle today to respect "our" laws?( foriegners who live in countries that are more repressive, countries that use their citizens like slave labour, so westerners can have more "stuff)
We live within a Win/Lose paradigmn that promotes instability, and people will migrate where they will have a better life, better opportunities. Just like the european settlers came to the N.A. Continent. But what happened? The Chruch and Monarchy brutalized and used the native residents for their own gain, then set about on the usual genocidal path.
Expecting lawful behaviour within a system that is unjust, feuled by favourtism, greed and arrogance, is totally illogical.
I think Taiwan is independent country already.
So there is no need to declare independence.
If Taiwan declare independence from China formaly,China
will attack it and destroy peace of East Asia.
When it happens,Can USA support Taiwan??
i say screw taiwan.
China sorta sucks ass, but they're also hueg, and good money, taiwan is some little island that keeps making trouble, fuckem.
I think some people (inside and outside Taiwan) want Taiwan to be independent, but most of them know being with China will make them better off in the long run. Both sides have been making progress towards that goal. They'll probably get the same deal Hong Kong has.
The real danger to China is Christianity. That needs to be stomped out at every time it rears its ugly head if China plans to succeed as a major power in the 21st century.
Taiwan isn't very important globally. Once big in manufacturing now dwarfed by China and other emerging economies.
Notable countries that support Taiwan with influence are the USA, Japan, China and other less notable such as Indonesia, Australia and the rest of South-East Asia. The rest of the world not really affected.
I predict the stalemate between the PRC and the ROC to continue but get more complicated.
Japan would like the ROC and the PRC to be separate because of islands claimed by both China and Japan. Japan will then be confronted with the PRC directly.
The USA benefits from the ROC as cheap labor, as a strategic military/naval area and trade and commerce.
Currently the PRC cannot attack Taiwan unless with ICBMs or aircraft because the navy is inferior to Japan and the USA greatly.
The PRC only still brings the ROC up because of a the 50+ year policy of uniting all of China, ending the civil war.
I support the independence of Formosa.
I support the autonomy of Taiwan, not its independence.
I support the Formosa Punch and the Tahitian Treat.
DYNOMITE!
I support the independence of Taiwan.
But Ma Ying-jeou loves China and hates Japan (´･ω･`)
I support Japan reconquering Taiwan. It's a sort of compromise
I support independence in general
Taiwan is already de facto independent. So... why is this poll even here.
What do you think, 4-ch, of this controversial open source license?
Its proponents point to how it keeps free/open-source software free by preventing modified versions from being closed-source, say it reflects the attitude of "I'll share, but only if you share, too", and claim that it is responsible for lots of the open source software we have today.
Within the open source community, the GPL has also been criticized for a number of reasons, from the opinion that there's ambiguities in it and it's best not to keep open-source code locked behind uncertainty, to specific criticisms against parts of the license deemed not helpful to freedom, to dismissals of the whole idea as hypocritical. However, the GPL remains the by far most popular open source license.
...so let's discuss it!
GPL's good, the only problem is that many people tend to forget about licensing when they find source code. I've seen many a program that blatantly rip off open source projects without so much as mentioning their names, much less following proper protocol.
Whenever this topic arises I feel apathy. There are plenty of OSS licences to choose from; this is much ado about nothing.
The largest problem with the GPLv2 in my opinion is that it mixes up the legal with philosophy too much. Perhaps they should have cut it into two parts: the actual legalese, and a separate document that explains what it all means.
I like the LGPL and MIT licences a fair bit.
I usually prefer the BSD license, or, if it's a very simple program, to just release my code into the public domain.
For one major project that I undertook with a friend, we used the Eclipse Public License.
I understand the aims of the GPL, and I like the idea, but for my own code, well, I really don't care what you do with it, I'd rather it's just out there and as easily accessible as possible. I really don't care about "credit", I'd be satisfied simply to know that somebody else was getting some use out of my code, and if I don't know, it's not like I'm especially disappointed.
I think there is room for discussion though, given that the GPL is the most popular license, and also there's the GPLv3 controversies...
Why not just always use public domain?
>>9
Because then someone can take your code and patent it.
I can't tell if you're serious or not, >>10.
The GPL is here to force companies into sharing their modifications of source code. That's the theory.
In practice, companies don't modify GPL code, they just want to copy-paste it, but they can't because it's GPL, so they either: hide it, or get another piece of code.
With BSD, that wouldn't happen.
I have an accomplice who, whilst is a great guy, has permanently red eyes, greasy hair, dirty fingernails and stinky pits.
He is skinny and lean, good with computers and always, ALWAYS tired. His work at college is of an average standard - he will not fail, but he won't pass with flying colours, either.
He plays WoW.
On hearing of the upcoming release of Wrath of the Lich King, it was all he spoke about and thought about until it's release. He was not in class on the day it was released, and by the time we next saw him, he looked as if he'd just run a marathon of some kind. He proceeded to proudly tell us that he'd just gained Level 76, about a day or two after WOTLK's release...
This was met with shock and disgust from some of my peers, but others merely heralded him as some sort of icon.
I personally don't know what to say. I love videogames. I know why they have such appeal. But I wouldn't sacrifice things like hygiene or relationships for it... that's kind of pushing it.
It's getting to the point where people are commenting on how bad he looks and sometimes smells. I've tried telling him he should maybe come out with us on weekends but he doesn't listen. And every evening he BOOKS IT like a motherfucker home to go and play WoW.
Anybody else witness to something like this? What do you think about it?
My best friend recently broke his WoW addiction. Doing great in college, quite intelligent, et cetera. He was in a state worse than that - in addition to the horrible hygiene he also gained upwards up 50 lbs. Given that he's still retained his poor health, he also gained something else. Apparently he has become quite fascinated with physics. Around two weeks after quitting his obsessive gaming he told me how amazing he found the world to be, how complex, all that jazz, and now he wants to study physics. Needless to say, and being a physics major myself, I was pretty happy to hear this.
So - yes, I have witnessed it. And it should be obvious that gaming addiction often immerses a person to the point where an external frame of reference is highly likely to be ignored, which leads to more productive thought processes being tunneled to accommodate for the mechanics of said game.
I'm currently letting my life slip into economic despair while playing WoW. That doesn't mean that WoW is blame directly, but that I'm the sort of person who would use it that way.
What's interesting about the game mechanics as compared to other games is that it really only takes an hour or two on a max level character to understand the game, maybe a day or two to do instances and pvp stuff. Everything after that is just the bullshit scaling of your characters items, nothing has actually changed other than your character's power.
Think I might quit now (again).
>>4
Sell your account on ebay and use the money to go out / do something else. How much are you spending monthly on WoW?
#5's idea is good. at least sell it and get rid of everything then move on to something else. I played an mmorpg for 6 years and i miss it sometimes but having many more offline friends now has made me happier in a sense.
Well the problem is I'm agoraphobic, so online activities are the only hobbies I can stick with. I also have a skin disease so I can't have a girlfriend(or friends really).
>>5
Just 15$ a month.
I guess if I sold it I would consider getting some camping gear, because that's something I could do alone and without being seen by people.
I've played WOW for a short period of time, It was only short because I found it boring and had a small appeal to most of the other MMORPG games that I have played.
I find the quality of the game low, I guess this is what drives me away from it mostly.
Also the aspect of paying for the game.
Frankly I found it boring and couldn't even begin to immerse myself for more than an hour at a time.
> I also have a skin disease so I can't have a girlfriend(or friends really).
You're not the only one with said skin disease... if it's that bad join a support group for said skin disease and you have instant friends who can relate... maybe some in your area
>>7 I know how you feel. Not entirely but partially. I also have some sort of skin disease or dry skin, really dry skin. Girls hated me and guys despise me. However it just made me more resolve in getting better so i started in trying a lot of stuff to keep my skin hydrate or dead skin to peel off. Finally i succeeded and no my days are getting better.
And about the game.... i just use it as a conversation topic with my friend.
It has been known that the day on which Opposite Day falls is by declaration of the speaker, and in fact can happen multiple times in a year but only within a local community-sphere, wherein the outside world is unnaffected. Rules of logic dictate that Opposite Day begins immediately after it's declaration, and is not retroactive, or else the statement becomes null and void.
Further, it's agreed my most experts on the subject that Opposite Day is only related to verbal statements, not actions, written communications, or any rules or statements made before or after Opposite Day ends. In this nature, we have all learned from the example of Jerry Johnston, who upon declaring Opposite Day ignored all posted speed limits by going much too slow or much too fast or just stopping in the highway's fast lane. His tragic end, after speeding up when he saw the police sirens, also teaches us law enforcement does not participate in Opposite Day so when they say 'freeze' it always means just that.
Is this our consensus, or do we differ on opinion?
Are there localized rules in different jurisdictions?
What makes opposite day special than any set of rules to follow in a day? Since there's arbitrary rules to choose from, such things are bound to clash with the law system. There really isn't anything else about it. I don't see the point of opposite day.
To start off let me say that I am an atheist, But not to long ago consented myself a deist. Now I have never beloved that A god or gods have any say in what goes on in our life. Just created the universe and let it be. But living in the bible belt of Texas I know for a fact that I am one of the only ones in my tri-county area to thank like this,
To start off let me say that I am an atheist, But not to long ago consented myself a deist. Now I have never beloved that A god or gods have any say in what goes on in our life. Just created the universe and let it be. But living in the bible belt of Texas I know for a fact that I am one of the only ones in my tri-county area to thank like this,
Now to my question, Do you personally believe in miracles? And if so how do you know from an objective stand point that they were miracles? Ex, A man has cancer, it seems without doubt he’s going to die still his family prays for him, and somehow he makes a full recovery. The family being a very religious one claims god is to thank. But a deist/atheist point of view is “well he would have gotten better in time with or without prayer.” We Need much more irrefutable proof of a miracle, its like I always said,
God seems to help those with curable sickness but will never grow back an amputees leg.
God seems to help those with curable sickness but will never grow back an amputees leg.
... no idea why the last line repeats. oh well
> Now I have never beloved that A god or gods have any say in what goes on in our life. Just created the universe and let it be.
So in the question "who created our universe?", you'd answer God, but the answer "God" wouldn't be for any other question.
> But living in the bible belt of Texas I know for a fact that I am one of the only ones in my tri-county area to thank like this,
You can't possibly know this for a fact. Why do you state that you know it for a fact? This is assumed a posteriori knowledge, which you don't possess.
> Now to my question, Do you personally believe in miracles? And if so how do you know from an objective stand point that they were miracles?
Why should I believe anything? What do you define as a miracle?
>What do you define as a miracle?
In my mind a miracle is something that defies all laws of a physical world, and is caused by the direct intervention of a higher power namely a god or gods.
>My question to you is, why do you believe? Why not simply contemplate of the possibilities of Gods
this is a very good point and i agree. To me it seems logical from both a scientific and a philosophical to say with out doubt that there is/isn't a god or gods. but i still call myself an atheist mainly for time saving reasons, but if we were to get deep into my beliefs and dissect them, then i would consider myself a agnostic fundamentalist
>You can't possibly know this for a fact. Why do you state that you know it for a fact? This is assumed a posteriori knowledge, which you don't possess.
this was merely an attempt at humor through sarcasm and hyperbole (a failed attempt now i see)
Well, I don't believe in miracles, but I'm not saying that one may not occur, or hasn't occured (or is not occuring...)
I'm not believing because I see no benefit in believing in miracles. For my current goals and philosophy I think believing in miracles is not helpful.
However, it's known that psychology plays a big part in diceases and viruses, especially to therapies with heavy drugs. If such an individual is convinced to believe in miracles, that may give him hope (which, logically, is false), but which may improve his psychology, and as a result, his condition.
stuff happens... end of story.
the universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.
with that in mind, if it happens, that means it can happen and therefore it's not a miracle, but an event. miracles are impossible.
> the universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.
How do you know?
Miracle can be defined as something which is usual, unespected and never seen before. There is always possiblity of something unusual to happen. we judge what is a miracle and what is not by common sense, that is, we call it miracle when we couldn't excpect it to happen before.
I can not deny miracles, but I dont beleave who talks about miracles.
Most people would agree a troll is someone who exists in an internet community solely to cause trouble and make people angry.
Sometimes it's obvious. If a thread in /anime/ is titled "Gook Cartoons are for Little Girls and Social Deviants", it's pretty clear this is a troll, because this board was intended for fans of the genre and they shouldn't have to defend what they enjoy in such a place.
In a board like /politics/ however, we can't ever really call anyone a troll. Most posts have the potential to make someone angry or seem ignorant thanks to the natural human instinct to filter out information that contradicts our world view.
When it comes to religion, every post will be a troll. Any discussion is impossible when dealing with something so tied into self-identity. Walking up to someone and saying "there is no god" or "you will go to hell when you die" is no different than saying "you're a fool and a liar, you've wasted your life in a fantasy world, and your grandfathers corpse is being eaten my maggots" or "you're a disgusting evil person and deserve to suffer while I watch and laugh and eat popcorn". All statements are as true and valid for someone as the color of the ocean but are still deeply offensive and sure to tear people apart and drive some to see red and then black and wake up next to a bloody hatchet. But deleting anyone of them is censorship.
Often playing the devil's advocate in debates, I know for sure that there is a thin line between a devil's advocate and a troll. I think it is marked by a certain dash of sadism, which makes people act this way not for argument's sake but just to piss people off. Also, a common topic amongst trolls, as >>6 noted, is the observation of human nature - it's almost a social study tool.
In fact, trolls sometimes are like these kids that set fire to ant nests just to watch how the little creatures will react. A kind of pathetic and malicious curiosity - but still, curiosity.
This might be of your interest...
A newborn Social Sciences & Humanities imageboard.
http://www.imageboard4free.com/board/science/ssh/
Trolls are important to maintain the status quota of the internet.
>>1
You confuse trolling with telling the truth. You are not trolling when you tell the truth. At most you're babbling - "you suck you're ugly 1 + 1 = 2", two insults <<babbling>>, and one truth.
That makes no sense.
The fact that you're ugly is conclusively proven through several mathematical formula and a double blind testing of the shock-and-withdrawal reaction your malformed face has on young children.
The fact that you suck is demonstrated by this picture of you sucking, taken by a private eye i hired.
Point being, truth is often subjective and in many cases true opinion can not easily be separated from flame baiting without culling honest debaters and pardoning talented trolls.
> That makes no sense.
Why is it nonsensical?
> The fact that you're ugly is conclusively proven through several mathematical formula and a double blind testing of the shock-and-withdrawal reaction your malformed face has on young children.
For which definition of "beauty" does this prove that I'm ugly?
> Point being, truth is often subjective and in many cases true opinion can not easily be separated from flame baiting without culling honest debaters and pardoning talented trolls.
Flaming is something pointless, and trolls take advantage of that. Stop flaming, or in the general case, stop caring about who says what, but only for this which answers "what", and trolls will suddenly disappear.
> Why is it nonsensical?
That truth and trolls are mutually exclusive, or that truth has anything to do with trolling besides the dishonesty of intention. The entire post makes no sense to me, because I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "You confuse trolling with telling the truth".
> For which definition of "beauty" does this prove that I'm ugly?
>Main Entry:
> beau·ty
>Pronunciation:
> \ˈbyü-tē\
>Etymology:
> Middle English beaute, bealte, from Anglo-French, from bel, beau beautiful, from Latin bellus pretty;
> That truth and trolls are mutually exclusive, or that truth has anything to do with trolling besides the dishonesty of intention. The entire post makes no sense to me, because I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "You confuse trolling with telling the truth".
You could had simply said that you don't understand me, and ask me to rephrase, which I will do now:
When I said that you confuse trolling with telling the truth, I mean the act of trolling with the act of telling the truth. As such, you'd wrongly blame someone who tells the truth as a troll. That is because your definition of trolling is more than it should be.
> Walking up to someone and saying "there is no god" or "you will go to hell when you die" is no different than saying "you're a fool and a liar, you've wasted your life in a fantasy world, and your grandfathers corpse is being eaten my maggots"
Actually, you're right, it is the same in the sense that both are unjustified opinions. In the first case, I will ask you "What evidence do you have that supports your case?". In the second case, I'd question "How do you know?". Ie, in both cases I'd ask for evidence, which you probably are unable to provide. You could had said this instead:
>>15
I think understand a little better where you're coming from, but I still don't seewhere truth or falsehood comes into play. I'd say it's irrlevent because I'd say...
> ....a troll is someone who exists in an internet community solely to cause trouble and make people angry.
In which case anything goes if it helps the troll cause a flamewar or fragment a tightly knit community.
I wouldn't call anyone a troll because to know for a fact someone is a troll you'd have to know their intentions... so unless they've announced themselves beforehand
> Uglyness is a subjective quality, there's nothing to "prove" like you suggested.
I stand by my belief that the physical appeal of a person can be relatively measured through the reactions of his or her cultural peers.
>>7, Socrates was a gadfly because he constantly asked "why?" in countless variations. The man played devil's advocate, and he was hurtfull because he questioned everything a person stood for (which if you haven't noticed is a little taboo itself). He provoked arguments because logical dialectic is a pursuit of knowledge.
Anyhow, trolls reflect hurtfull things, but they are nothing like a calm question. They are neccessary to make us question, but still, a true troll never will. Question, that is. At least, not to those they are bugging.