Should trolling be illegal?

[Jon]

What is your view?

 

[NauticalGent]

The legality should not be the question. This comes down to tolerance!

I'm the wrong guy to ask because I seem to enjoy to "Stuck On Stupid" stuff too much

 

[Jon]

I posted this specific question because of something I saw recently and I will drop the link if this topic gets traction.

An alternative title I thought of was, "Trolling or freedom of expression?"

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Trolling isn't a matter of legality, it is a matter of manners. Unfortunately, in the USA, we can't kill trolls; we can only relocate them to under-bridge apartments.

 

[NauticalGent]

My reply word be Freedom of Expression. Problem is, some folks that means freedom from consequences as well...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Uncle Gizmo... there is BEER? WHERE? But it doesn't matter anyway. With my wonky liver, I can't drink alcohol any more.

 

[Jon]

What is Trolling? We have a perception of Trolling, we perceive Trolling as bad, but really the motivation of the people that do it is attention seeking, and we all crave attention to various degrees, so in one sense we are all Trolls!

Did you just say that to get a bit of attention? Or have I just trolled?

 

[Jon]

Hey Uncle, I've just noticed. I think we have the answer in your signature!

Intolerance of others’ views (no matter how ignorant or incoherent they may be) is not simply wrong; in a World where there is no right or wrong, it is worse: it is a sign you are embarrassingly unsophisticated or, possibly, dangerous.

Are you saying that trolling is not right or wrong, and therefore should be legal? Or is JP just trolling others by calling them unsophisticated?

 

[MajP]

Yes it should be legal. However, they should be required to meet you in the rink for 3 rounds at 3 minutes each. After that if they still feel they should troll you then they are obviously better men than you.

 

[Jon]

Let me throw in the link I promised: https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-trolling-be-illegal

Just goes to show no one can agree on anything!

 

[Jon]

If you label something, it is not a truth but a snapshot of your particular perspective at that point in time. A Buddhist would argue that nothing is static, everything changes and evolves all the time. I always had a little mental construct I like to bring out of the hat sometimes. Consider sequence. A person rushes to save a child from an oncoming car, risking their life. "What a hero!! What a great guy!" Next week, he chops the head off his neighbours hampster. (I don't know why I find that funny. I'm not a psychopath! )"The brute they cry!"

Consider the switcheroo. A guy chops the head off his neighbours hampster (again I'm chuckling and I don't know why! ), "The nasty man!" Next week he risks his life to save a child. "He is still nasty. See what he did last week?"

The point being that if you do the bad thing first, you are always bad, but if you do the good thing first, you are good, then bad!

Edit: Who defines rude?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Edit: Who defines rude?

All of us define rude. Usually by example.

 

[GinaWhipp]

Hmm, yep, trolling should be made illegal as I have never seen a harmless troll.

 

[Jon]

Hmm, yep, trolling should be made illegal as I have never seen a harmless troll.

Cars harm the environment. Shall we ban those too? When I go for a walk, I crush insects. Those poor blighters! Shall I stay off the grass? I hate harming anything, even trolls.

All of us define rude. Usually by example.

Are examples of rudeness defined differently between Republicans and Democrats? i.e. is there an objective classification of what is rude or is it always subjective? And if it is subjective, who defines the standard if 50% agree, and 50% disagree?

A guy opens the door for a lady. He thinks it is chivalrous. "I am a Gentleman!", he chirps. The lady thanks him for his politeness! The same guy decides to open the door next time for a different lady. "How rude" she screams! "You are a sexist pig!"

Next time he encounters the door, he rips the bloody thing off its hinges!

 

[NauticalGent]

Jon...Socrates was executed for less. B)

 

[Jon]

He was executed for using the Socratic method. I fear the same thing might happen to me! (our posts crossed, see new one above yours)

 

[GinaWhipp]

@Jon

Well, that went sideways, for me at least. I don't put cars, politicians, etc. in the same category as trolls. Even being rude does not qualify as being a troll, you're just a *jerk* or stupid, maybe both. I can ignore them and in some cases even reason with them but trolls... they delight in causing discourse.

 

[Jon]

I don't put cars, politicians, etc. in the same category as trolls.

It depends if you exclude the "things that harm" category.

Earlier, you said:

trolling should be made illegal as I have never seen a harmless troll.

By that, it suggests to me that because trolls are harmful, they should be made illegal. Therefore, should we ban things that are harmful? Like cars? Walks in the park? The meat industry?

I can ignore them and in some cases even reason with them but trolls... they delight in causing discourse.

If you persuade the troll to continue their behaviour by rewarding it, should we be blaming you instead of the troll? If you gave crack to a crack addict, who is to blame, given that the crack addict can't help themselves?

I bet a troll would love reading this thread!

 

[GinaWhipp]

Hmm, okay...

While cars, politicians and yep, walks in the park *can* cause harm they do not set out to do so, unlike trolls who do. That said, perhaps one could persuade a troll to control themselves however, it's their nature. But maybe it does depend on my ability to persuade, however, I doubt it as they are looking for ways to twist no matter what. And I would have the same feeling for a politician or car that purposefully set out to harm me or anyone.

You know thinking more on this maybe we should commit them. Then if they actually do reform they can come out and join us. Nope, feeling better making them illegal.

 

[Jon]

Yes, I understand the argument of intent. But as a troll, let me twist no matter what. Here goes...

walks in the park *can* cause harm they do not set out to do so, unlike trolls who do.

You decide you want to take a walk in the park, knowing that you will be crushing them poor bugs. Your intent is to enjoy yourself at the expense of others, just like the troll. "I love a good walk, bit of fresh air! I intend to enjoy myself whilst harming our little critters and knowingly do so. Oh, there goes another one!" Even if you wanted to step around them but accidentally took one out, it makes no difference to the bug if you had intent or not. You crushed them. Harmed beyond all recognition. They have families you know! And you never even gave them a thought...Cruel!