> 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:
"It's possible that you're a fool and a liar and that you've wasted your life." and I'd answer "Yes, it is possible".
Or "It's possible that a god doesn't exist." (you'd also have to define god), and I'd answer "Yes, it's possible".
> And so we can conclusively prove ugliness by measuring (negative) external reaction to sensory stimulation. If it's true that you're ugly, it's still an insult. Whether it's a troll or not is up in the air, the insult could be in response to a troll.
Enough with the stupidity, beauty can't be measured because it is subjective. Uglyness is a subjective quality, there's nothing to "prove" like you suggested.