Sherab Dorje wrote: shel wrote:
Excellent example, Sherab Dorje, white supremacists are such a rational crew.
Well I guess that makes my other example null and void too given you consider all religious people irrational (or anti-rational).
Well, it would be difficult to argue that prejudice is pro-rational. To be fair, I think we all might see what we want to see at times, when that view suits our purposes.
Wether consciously or unconsciously you did indeed choose a good example. It drives the point, such as it is, most strongly. If you had used the example of a group of wise and compassionate monks rather than white supremacists, for instance, your point would have been lost, because we would expect a troll to be impotent in such a group. Indeed, we might expect the troll to be welcomed with open hearts and minds by the wise monks.
What about this example then (since you are unwilling to actually address the point I was making and instead focused on an irrelevant detail):
a person that likes Datsuns goes to a site dedicated to Fords and starts to inform them about the "objective" qualities of a Datsun which makes them a better car than the Ford. Given the reaction that they will receive and knowing that they will receive that reaction does that make them a troll ? How can you guarantee objectivity when most forums are subject specific?
We could try it here: http://www.fordforums.com
, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'inform them about the "objective" qualities of a Datsun'. If someone were to post something like "Fords are so gay and Datsuns are awesome," that would obviously be a blatant troll. If someone were post that the Datsun 240SX gets 31.246 miles to the gallon, that would obviously not be a troll.