↪Thanatos Sand The argument against single payer is that government just skims off the c top, as it consumes more and more of the economy.

And that argument is wrong and has never even been well-argued, much less proven.

7 of the 12 richest counties in the U.S. circle Washington D.C. as government gets fatter and fatter off if the hard labor of the working class.

That's completely irrelevant to Single Payer health care, and most of the people who will benefit from Single Payer are the working class.

People are pretty tired of being slaves for the Bureaucracy. It's really quite out of control.

Sorry, having the government pay for one's health care does not constitute being slaves for the Bureaucracy. It constitutes benefiting from it.

Why aren't you complaining about all our wars and military actions the US Govt takes? They make us slaves to the Bureaucracy.

Not according to WHO. Cancer can be quite predictable: e.g. cigarette smoking, excess drinking, environmental hazards, obesity, food toxins, etc.

Sorry, you're reading it wrong, many cancers are not preventable. And people who don't know about food toxins or environmental hazards can't prevent their cancers either. So, they are not to "blame" for those cancers, but you would still rather see them, and the other cancer sufferers dead, then have their government pay for their care. Again, your lack of compassion, and moralizing judgements of cancer sufferers, is disgusting.

We do know that taking prescription opioids is definitely a no-no, but physicians keep prescribing and killing. Go figure.

And this in no way is an argument against Single Payer. Go figure.

↪Thanatos Sand People need to learn to lead healthier lives and how to take care of themselves. Other countries pay half as much per capita with better results. U.S. is absolutely in last place when it comes to life expectancy in developed countries and last year, for the first time in decades, life expectancy actually went down.

That's very interesting, but I said congenital conditions and unexpected diseases like Cancer. And even if that is the case, the 20% sure need care too, and many of the 80 % had no idea they were contributing. But you would rather moralize and have people, including children, die of their congenital and/or chronic diseases then have the government pay for their care as they do our military wars and coups.

Congratulations, you've just proven yourself to be as lacking in compassion as Donald Trump.

Thanks, man...glad to help.

↪Thanatos Sand People need to learn to lead healthier lives and how to take care of themselves. Other countries pay half as much per capita with better results. U.S. is absolutely in last place when it comes to life expectancy in developed countries and last year, for the first time in decades, life expectancy actually went down.

And that has nothing to do with the many congenital conditions and unexpected diseases, cancers, or physical ailments from accidents that can cost hundreds of thousands to pay for. You're blaming the victim here, and that's not impressive. Those people suffering from those conditions, and even ones from their own contribution, need medical care for those conditions. And as a First World country, it is our governments position and responsibility to do that.

We spent trillions on the war in Iraq and continue to spend billions on war; we can pay to keep our citizens, including our children, from dying. And this benefits the rest of our country as well, as we don't lose important workers in our society.

Single payer, such as Social Security and Medicare had been around for some time. However , for good reason, citizens feel that all of this is becoming its own private industry where government keeps growing for its own benefit.

No, not for good reason, since most citizens need health care and cant afford it, so they are not going to begrudge the US government paying for it. The fact over 60% of Americans support Single Payer backs that up.

2) To pay for this largesse, Obamacare forced everyone to buy insurance called the government mandate. A substantial portion of the population considers this gross government overreach.

A substantial portion of the population, Democrat and Republican, consider this not enough government involvement and that we need Single Payer to make sure all Americans are covered, as all citizens in a First World country should be.

Politics is simply the authoritative allocation of resources​.

No, it's not, and that's not even close to any official definition of the word.

Economics is supposedly the non-authoritative allocation of resources, but some people will probably tell you that it is another form of politics.

No, it's not, economics is both "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services" or "economic theory, principles and/or practices."

Either way it is about resources and their allocation, not the moral lives of people.

No, either way it is about much more than that, as I have shown.

The best way to deal with resources, not a good life, is what politics is concerned with.

No, politics is very often about a "good life" and working to ensure a good life for the most people possible.

"Politics is who gets what, when, and how" -- Harold Lasswell.

That's just what Harold said, and he's only one person, and he's wrong.

With this said, given that the basis for a political philosophy lies in establishing moral claims about how individuals should behave, and given that we have no utterly precise system of morality to establish ethical truths reliably, there is no way to determine a correct political philosophy. ]

The goal shouldn't be to determine a correct philosophy, but the best one for the moment...and one will never suffice for all issues or needs.

Feel free to actually address what I said, even though you're not very good at that.

The only lady is you. I, the man, didn't protest at all.

There are several contributors here who represent an attitude that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC, are the root of all evil in US politics, and possibly the world . They will sometimes grudgingly acknowledge that Trump is an embarrassment and a buffoon, on account of him being impossible to defend, but such an acknowledgement is always followed by an immediate...'but the real villain is...' It's not a hard pattern to spot.

I haven't seen one contributor who has said this, but you are free to actually back up your outlandish claim. You have yet to do so. So, the pattern seems to be only in your head.

Meanwhile, today's Post-Truth news is the infamous Boy Scout speech. Notwithstanding the fact that the head of the Scouts sent a written apology to the entire membership for the egregious and self-aggrandizing stump speech that Trump gave at what was supposed to be a ceremonial occasion (including having the assembled scouts boo the previous President), Trump now claims that it was 'the greatest ever speech' given to the Scouts.

This is ridiculous. People have been telling lies like this for centuries, and similar lies for millennia before that. So, we don't live in a "Post-truth" world since we never lived in a "Truth" world where truth was dominant.

This is in line with the 'biggest ever inauguration crowd' delusion, which has lead to a completely unnecessary enquiry into fraudulent voting in the USA, purely in service of Trump's narcissism.

And it's also in line with Obama's "We/The NSA aren't monitoring your phones," and Dubya's lies that Saddam had WMD's before he sent thousands of Americans to die, and Bill Clinton's lies that he "never had sexual relations with that woman." So the inauguration lie, or even all of Trump's lies, does not indicate a shift in the zeitgeist.

*.

You think so? I think one can do evil without awareness, but would that cease to be evil just because they don't perceive it as evil? What if someone has good intentions, but through their actions and ignorance actually cause a lot of evil? Are they not responsible? :s
— Agustino

Natural events cause evil, and animals cause evil. We can say those natural events are responsible, but not morally responsible, for the evil they cause.

No, they don't, they cause harm, which is substantially different from causing evil, defined as: "morally reprehensible." This denotes human activity, since objects and non-human animals cannot be "morally reprehensible" and cannot subscribe to a system of morals; only humans can.

Well, for one thing, the fact that Skepticism (the metaphysics that I propose) explains it.

Michael still doesn't understand he can't attach the "metaphysics" that he supposes to the already-defined word skepticism. Language doesn't work that way

Also, he is mis-using brute-fact, which actually means: "something that cannot be explained."

Man, your reading and reasoning skills are really poor. I brought Hillary's crimes up as a relevant comparison (and it is), not as a source of exculpation. I'm not surprised you missed that.
— Thanatos Sand

What you actually said was "And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.".

So you think it relevant because... people are hypocrites?

I've told you many times in previous posts why it's relevant. You just stick your head in the sand and repeat the same already answered questions.

And you also said "it's a vulgar platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you tried to do to me above". But I fail to see how Clinton's crimes contradict my claims regarding Trump Jr. having committed a crime.

I never said anything about contradiction, so your poor reading on this thread shows again. At this point, you're just chanting your same erroneous statements and already-answered questions again and again like a mantra, after you've already been shown to be wrong.

So, I will no longer encourage that by reading or responding to any of your posts. Adios.

I never said it did, so you now are more absurd and have even more face to save.
— Thanatos Sand

If you're not claiming that Hillary's crimes determine whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then your accusations against Hillary are irrelevant to my argument with Agustini over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime.

Man, your reading and reasoning skills have been really poor. I brought Hillary's crimes up as a relevant comparison (and it is), not as a source of exculpation. I'm not surprised you missed that.

↪Thanatos Sand Why are you replying to me? :s

Mistake.

If you can't see how Clintons' crimes have great bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime, then you have serious reasoning (and other) issues.
— Thanatos Sand

You're absurd, and your attempts to save face are comical. You were in the wrong. Accept it and move on.

The fact that's the best you got shows the only absurd one who needs to save face is you. And I've shown you're in the wrong, so you really should accept it and move on.

Trump and Hillary are tied together by the contexts of Washington politics and, more specifically, the 2016 election.

Whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime in meeting with that lawyer doesn't depend on whether or not Hillary committed a similar or different crime. This is a ridiculous claim.

I never said it did, so you now are even more absurd and have even more face to save.

They absolutely are relevant and I've shown how. Again, you just say they're not without showing how.
— Thanatos Sand

If I'm arguing that John murdered someone and Agustino is arguing that he didn't, and you respond by saying that Jane murdered someone, then your response is irrelevant to my discussion with Agustino.

That's a terrible and inapt comparison, since John and Jane are only tied together by the similar act, Trump and Hillary are tied together by the contexts of Washington politics and, more specifically, the 2016 election. So, my examples and response are still relevant.

If you can't see how Clinton's crimes have no bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then you have serious reasoning issues.

If you can't see how Clintons' crimes have great bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime, then you have serious reasoning (and other) issues.

And I don't care if you care; I care, and I showed why Clinton's crimes are relevant.
— Thanatos Sand

Relevant to my argument with Agustino over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime? No, they're not relevant. So if you want to bring up Clinton's crimes, it makes no sense to do so in response to me.

They absolutely are relevant and I've shown how. Again, you just say they're not without showing how they're not. Considering they are relevant, I'm not surprised.

"You did not prove your point, since I showed you why even the non-election examples are relevant to the discussion."

You brought up non-election issues in response to my claims regarding an election law. So, yes, they're irrelevant.

No, as I showed above and before, they are very relevant, particularly the ones that brought up election issues. And now you're just repeating yourself, and repeating incorrect statements.

Firstly, no educated person should use the banal term "whataboutism;" it's a banal platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you did to me above. And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.
— Thanatos Sand

I don't care if Clinton or anyone else also committed a crime. I'm arguing that there's a case that Trump Jr. did.

And I don't care if you care; I care, and I showed why Clinton's crimes are relevant.

If only some of them involved elections then some of them didn't, proving my point that some of your examples are wrong as they have nothing to do with the law I'm talking about.

You did not prove your point, since I showed you why even the non-election examples are relevant to the discussion. And being irrelevant does not make something wrong. So, even if my correct points were irrelevant, and they're not, that wouldn't make them wrong, and they're not.

↪Thanatos Sand OK? I'm arguing that there's a case for Trump Jr. having committed a crime in meeting with the Russian lawyer. I'm not claiming that nobody else has ever committed a crime. So I don't see the relevance of your whataboutism.

Firstly, no educated person should use the banal term "whataboutism;" it's a vulgar platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you tried to do to me above. And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.

Besides, some of your examples seem completely wrong anyway. The law I'm referring to is in relation to elections.

They can seem wrong to you all you like, but that doesn't make them wrong, you haven't shown them to be wrong, and they're not wrong. And some of my examples involved elections, and the others were relevant to the topic of collusion.

Sure, but the law always needs to be interpreted in application. The spirit of the law isn't to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals, but rather to prevent a foreign national influencing or controlling a candidate. I do believe you perceive this.
— Agustino

It doesn't intend to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals. It intends to prevent receiving money or other things of value from foreign nationals. A no strings attached donation is illegal.

Then the Clinton Foundation was definitely breaking the law,and definitely its ethical fibre, since they took money from foreign nationals as awful as Saudi Arabia, and that both facilitated a 1 million dollar birthday present from Qatar to Bill, they refused to disclose and 20 mil in campaign contributions to HIllary's campaign and a 900,000 a year job for Chelsea. That doesn't even include a 30 mil sale of uranium to Putin.

The truth conditions of a statement of thought/belief do not include the speaker's belief, but the existential conditions do.

Who said that and where?

The burden of proof for accusing another of lying isn't determined by me. I'm just wondering if you know what it is?

Again, a simple yes or no question...

And it certainly isn't determined by me. So, I'm wondering if you know what it is? A simple yes or no question.

And feel free to make an argument and actually have a conversation. You're clearly scared to do so.

Fearful to commit? It's a simple yes or no question. I'm asking you what you think/believe. That's part of having a conversation... and an integral one, at that.

Since you're the one who refuses to make an argument in this discussion, the one fearful to commit here is you..

And no, demanding someone answer a specific yes or no question, particularly one they refuse to answer themselves, is not an integral part of having a conversation. It's a way to try to control the discourse, not continue it.

Look, if you want to have a conversation, then converse and make a point, and I will respond to that point. I'm not here to answer your list of questions. I assume you wouldn't want to be so either.

What does talking about the "ethical" and the "strict real/metaphysical" level add to the understanding of what telling the truth consists of?

I explained that very clearly in my post #572. Go read it again.

I find no value in naming levels although I may...

That's your personal view. There is definitely value in them and I've shown some in post #572

I'm not going to waste my time guessing what you think. So, go ahead and tell me what you think it is.

There's another aspect to consider here...

It has not always been the case that publicly elected officials say things that are known to be false, despite that being pointed out. Continue the narrative...

If enough people say "X", and they say "X" enough, then some people will start believing "X"...

You're giving politicians too much credit. They purposefully and knowingly lie all the time. They lie about:

1. What favors they owe their major donors
2. Why they voted for bills, particularly when they vote to help their donors.
3. They lie about why they're worth tens of millions on a 6 figure salary.
4. They lie in their campaign promises.
5. They lie about why we're going to war
6. They lie about why they voted for war
7. They lie when they say "things need to take time."
8. They lie about their foundations and their donations from horrid countries like Saudi Arabia
9. They lie about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones.
10. They lie when they say why they didn't prosecute the Banks for the 08 crash.
11. The list goes on and on.

Telling the truth...

On your view, what is the criterion which when satisfied counts as telling the truth?

I would say there is the ethical level, which is telling the truth is when one tells what one believes to be true. So, even if Dave stole the cookie, but Mark thinks Jack did, Mark saying Jack stole it is "telling the truth" on an ethical level.

In the strict real/metaphysical level. Telling the truth would have to be actually telling the truth, saying Dave stole the cookie. I think while we would like everyone to be able to do the latter, I think a functional definition of "telling the truth" would be the former. In other words, I wouldn't call Mark in that situation a "liar."

It doesn't follow from the fact that many and/or most politicians misrepresent their own thought/belief that truth doesn't matter or that we live in a 'non-truth world'. If everyone lied, truth would still be operative in this world. Without truth there can be no such thing as a lie.

Ok, I agree with this. A more apt description would be a "Rare-Truth" world.

If one doesn't understand that, they do not understand the role that truth plays in all thought/belief. A collective misunderstanding results in a nation of people not knowing the difference between lying, making a true statement, and/or stating a falsehood. In a nation that has a majority of it's people who place absolute trust - unshakable certainty - in the truthfulness of demonstrable falsehoods, you'll find an inherently compromised collective mindset.

Such is the "Rare-Truth" world we have always inhabited.

Those people wouldn't know a post-truth world if they lived in one.

Which is good, since there never has been a "post-Truth" world since we never even had a "mostly-Truth" world.

It is quite simply not the case that every politician throughout American history has been the same with regard to lying, and the reasons for doing so. There were(and still are) people who realize the crucial role that trust and truth play in the success and sustainability of a nation like the US. Some of those people were once in government, some of those people still are, and the effects/affects of their input helped craft legislation that once assured the success of the majority. If that were not the case, anti-trust laws would not have ever existed.

This is true, and a Bernie Sanders, a politician of integrity and true compassion for all Americans shows this. But most politicians on both sides of the aisle have been lying, deceitful scum or lying deceitful semi-scum and I include Nixon, the Bushes, Reagan and Trump in the former and Obama and the Clintons in the latter.

Yet a lot in our "post-truth" times comes also from disinformation and the new ways that propaganda has developed from the old ways of the 19th and 20th Centuries when there were Limited number of media outlets and ways to get information.

There has always been deceitful dishonest government propaganda and controlling of information, and our recent president and this recent period hasn't made that worse. As I've said earlier, we actually have independent media like Intercept, Counterpunch, WikiLeaks and citizens with cell phones we never had before.

First thing is to get people to be distrustful of what you earlier could trust, basically argument of "mainstream media being fake news". Then have them believe the "alternate media", which has the "real facts" hidden otherwise from the masses.

People should be distrustful of mainstream media which has disseminated fake news. They are owned by corporate conglomerated well invested in corporate interests. This is why they spread lies about WMDs and backed the awful Iraq war for almost its entirety. Its' why they spread lies about Bernie Sanders' followers throwing chairs at conventions. Its why they spread incessant anti-Assad propaganda to back a bloody Syria war that has seen the rise of ISIS and Al-Qaeda at CIA training. It's why they didn't cover the story of the DNC rigging the Democratic primary because Time Warner and Jeffrey Bezos backed Hillary Clinton. Mainstream media threw away our trust long ago.

And the alternate media is the one who broke these stories. WikiLeaks reported US Army war crimes during the civil war. And it was with the help of Glenn Greenwald of the alternate media, Intercept, who helped the whistleblower Snowden. WikiLeaks also broke the story of the DNC corruptly colluding with the Clinton campaign to rig the Democratic election, and even give Hillary the debate questions beforehand. What a shock, mainstream media had completely ignored this. So, yes, mainstream media has hidden many of the real facts from the masses and its shameful.

The 'Russia Collusion' story - it has now been documented that Trump Jnr and other senior campaign officials met with Russian agents in the hope that they would obtain material damaging to Trump's adversary. This is what 'collusion' means, and it is now beyond doubt that this occurred.

Actually, this was intention to collude since no information was exchanged. In fact, the only info we know that harmed Clinton was the info that showed how the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders for Clinton. That is what collusion means, not Donny Jr's pathetic failed attempt.

Nevertheless, up until the actual email trail was leaked a couple of weeks ago, both Trumps denied that such a meeting ever took place; in other words, they lied about it. Now that it is impossible to lie about it, they're trying to downplay it, saying that the meeting was 'only' about the issue of adoption of Russian infants. Another lie! Covering up lies with lies. But what is really disturbing, is that the fact of these lies, and the initial fact of actual collusion, are no source of shame for Trump, apparently. According to today's reports:

Again, lying is not collusion, nor is lying about a meeting where no actual collusion took place. There are many things disturbing about Donald Trump; this one is low on the list.

But then, this was quoted in the context of Trump interfering with Jnr's prepared statement about the 'Russia meeting'. So more confusion - even though there's nothing to hide, Trump acts like he is trying to hide something. I suppose there is no telling the truth to those who deceive themselves.

Looking like one is hiding something is not the same as hiding something, and looking like someone is hiding something does not mean what Trump is hiding is colluding to fix the election, something intelligent services, and everybody else, have failed to provide evidence of.

There are so many big issues that Trump clearly doesn't grasp. And he doesn't have any idea that these are things he doesn't know. It's like when he promises to 'fix the healthcare system', and then the GOP tries (and fails) to pass a bill which will in effect abolish healthcare for tens of millions of people. Trump himself doesn't understand what they're trying to do, or what his position on it is. He simply waves his arms around, and says 'Obamacare is a disaster', without any understanding of what it means. Even his assistants acknowledge that he doesn't understand healthcare.

I agree with most of this, but Obamacare was a disaster. It left 24 million uninsured, was too expensive, and was left far too much in the hands of the Insurance companies. Obama had the vote for Single Payer, but he gave into the insurance companies. That being said, Obamacare was still better than what Trump and the GOP propose, which is pretty much nothing.

That's where 'post truth' originated. And still, 80% of 'republicans' think Trump is doing great. They, like him, can't distinguish fact from fiction, or truth from wishful thinking.

No, Post-Truth falsely originated, since our government and politicians have always lied to us for their benefit. Trump may be more banal and unwieldly at it. But Bush, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon et al were all liars, as have been most of our congressmen and national media. To think otherwise is naivete.

Thanatos was habitually insisting that I didn't show a conclusion that I set out to demonstrate.

This is not trolling; it is called disagreeing with you, and you didn't show that conclusion you set out to demonstrate...and saying that is not "trolling" either. We are allowed to criticize or disagree with peoples opinions or modes of expressing them.

But, when invited him to specify a particular statement or conclusion in my posts that contains that error or fallacy, he said, "No, you just didn't show it." But, if I claimed to show something, then there'd be a fallacy or false statement somewhere on the way to that conclusion, in my posts.

This is not trolling either. It's called a disagreement in both content and modes of expression.

The answer, of course, is that, if someone says, "You didn't show it", and says that the burden isn't on him to show what's wrong with where you claimed to show it, then there's no way to answer that vague charge.

This is too unclear for me to say what it is, but it is also not trolling, and is not an accurate depiction of what occurred.

That's a common, definitive, troll-tactic. Repetition without any verification or justification.

Even if that were true, the only one doing such repetition was you, so you just identified yourself as a troll. I, myself, saw your repetition as just struggle.

As someone else pointed out, there are only two possibilities:

1. Thanatos is a typical, incredibly-sloppy &/or dishonest troll.

2. Thanatos is sincere and honest, but he's quite delusional....delusional to a degree that's problematic to the decorum, order and integrity of the forum.

Either way, he's a detriment and a liability to the forum..

Now all of this above is trolling and untrue. The only incredibly dishonest, sloppy, and delusional one has been you, and detrimental to the order and integrity of the forum...and that is when your posts are even semi-coherent, which is rare. You are just resorting to immature personal attacks here, which is even worse then your misrepresenting me as you did above.

So, if you are so obsessed with cleaning up trolling in the forum, I suggest you clean up your own. It has certainly been a detriment and liability to this thread.

Certainly the "rights revolutions" have been embedded in the education system to a large extent, but unfortunately progress in rights has not been matched by progress in economic emancipation and social equality.

I have no idea what you are talking about since the only "rights" I know that are taught in school are the Bill of Rights, which are a key part of our constitution. Do you not want those taught?

The education system has tended to deliver "success" to some but "failure" to others.

All systems do that; that is not a problem of having a public educations system funded by the government.

The result is large scale disaffection amongst whole halves of populations, as witnessed by the election of Trump in the US, Brexit and other nationalist leaning movements in Europe.

No, these are not a result of having public education systems, and you haven't shown how they are.

The rights revolutions are actually under a degree of threat because at half the population have been overlooked while the other half has prospered. — Jake Tarragon

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

It's cute how John thinks that talking about someone right below their post on a thread actually constitutes "ignoring them."...:)

Chucking money at education is the old progressive way. Surely it's time to rethink education lock stock and barrel?

First of all, there is no "old" progressive way, since Millennials are the most progressive generation we have, and they--to their credit--greatly embrace traditional, Humanist, progressive values. Secondly, providing a decent education for all of one's children is what an Enlightened First World country does, to the benefit of those receiving the education and the rest of the nation's citizens. So, providing that education is not "chucking money." Wasting it on wars and military actions like our current ones in Syria are.

So, the only way to re-think education is to better make sure enough money is provided for public education, all the way throughout college, and that the educational system is run well with excellent teachers and administrators.

Sorry, my not responding to you the way you wanted me to respond isn't trolling. Your calling it such shows a real arrogance in your expectations of others.

However what I re-posted of yours in my last post was pure personal-attack trolling. So, you're showing great hypocrisy as well, Troll Ossipoff.

You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that. — John
Thanatos Sand is both of those things. I'd bet that even the most skeptical of the Greek Skeptics would unequivocally assert that. — Michael Ossipoff

No, the ones who are both of those things are you and John, as proven by trolling statements like the one below:

Thanatos thinks that there's something lacking or incorrect in what I said in that discussion, but he can't quite say what it is.

So he's huffing, puffing, hissing, and making other angry-noises.

This is pure trolling on your part and you do it a lot.

The forum guidelines say that trolls will be banned. Thanatos Sand is the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll.

And the post of yours I just re-posted shows the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll is you, and no consensus is needed for that.