Concerning the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Trolling

[rabbit]

I'm concerned about the quote in your sig.  Just for reference:

One must ask oneself: "do I will that trolling should become a universal law?" And then when one realizes, "yes, I do will it to be such," one feels completely justified.

Examining this, I feel troubled.  Should trolling become universal law, then everyone would troll, and thus trolling would have no meaning and as such, would not be trolling at all.

[Ender]

The concept of trolling is metaphysical in nature, so it is independent of the status quo. In Kant's intelligible world, you are the only one trolling.

There is no need to worry. The future of our franchise lies quite comfortably in the vanguard of philosophy.

[topaz~]

Oh, most definitely.

[rabbit]

The concept of trolling is metaphysical in nature, so it is independent of the status quo. In Kant's intelligible world, you are the only one trolling.

There is no need to worry. The future of our franchise lies quite comfortably in the vanguard of philosophy.

My basis is on Kant's first categorical imperative: can the maxim be universalized?  If it were to happen, it would not be, thus trolling can never be universalized.

[truste1]

Well each troll would continue to attempt to outtroll and thus everyone would be trolling.

[Warrior]

Well each troll would continue to attempt to outtroll and thus everyone would be trolling.

this. it is very easy to shift from one of the two defined groups: troll or been trolled. an individual must always strive to be in the first group, thus there will always be those in the second. the system balances itself. it has for millions of years.

[Warrior]

to elaborate on my previous point, the two groups are not so much titles as they are categories based on recent actions, by no means permanent
you can be a self proclaimed troll yet still belong (for a temporary, or extended amount of time depending on your level of failure) to the second group.

a recent example is warz and his horrid blasphemies against trolls & co, was he in the first group during the time my barrage of insults mutilated his dignity? no. after the smoke cleared however, he remained a senf-proclaimed troll -- this is a personal title and not the two groups which makeup the fundamental order of our society.. (now, is this merely a byproduct of his obsession of myself and his worship of my actions? perhaps..)

[Ender]

this is getting good

[rabbit]

But if it's possible to flip between the two categories, then it is obviously not a universal law.  Anyone who believes that trolling should be universal would never allow themselves to flip to the non-troll category, and as such the flow would be one way.  Eventually, there would be no non-troll category as everyone would be in the troll category.  Now, since everybody is behaving the same, all trolling loses all meaning, and no longer exists.

[Warrior]

But if it's possible to flip between the two categories, then it is obviously not a universal law.

This is not true, the universal law that is trolling merely encapsulates these two concepts.

Anyone who believes that trolling should be universal would never allow themselves to flip to the non-troll category, and as such the flow would be one way. 

The two categories do not stop you from being a trolled, it is simply a title based on recent actions. The example I cited with warz shows this pretty well.

Eventually, there would be no non-troll category as everyone would be in the troll category.  Now, since everybody is behaving the same, all trolling loses all meaning, and no longer exists.

See above, and taking what you say as hypothetical truth -- the inherent fallibility of humanity cancels out that argument either way.