• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Following someone.

Is following someone an aggressive act?


  • Total voters
    34
Why would that matter?
It might not. I wouldn't know.

And I was merely curious as to why you decided to discuss legality. This mere curiosity is indicated by the question I posed to you.

And, just in case you weren't aware of this, curiosity about a subject is not going to be assuaged by making statements, nor will making statements indicate your curiosity about a specific subject to others (especially when one is not following a conversation in any meaningful way to begin with).

Instead, a far more effective approach is to ask questions of the person that has made the statement which inspired your curiosity, as this will simultaneously indicate to others that your are curious about a specific thing and in most circumstances it will lead to answers of some sort that will satisfy said curiosity. Perhaps you can even explain what it is about the statement the person has made which inspires your curiosity (as I did by pointing out that aggressive =/= illegal).
Irrelevant, since you responded to my statement, regardless of how it was phrased, and despite the fact it was neither addressed to anyone specifically, nor appended to anyone's post/s.

The legal definition of aggression has not, as of yet, actually been provided to support the assertion that legality of an act is, in any way, a relevant issue to an assessment of it's aggression level. My contention is that it is not at all relevant because aggressive =/= illegal.

Thus, I'm curious as to why you think an analogy to legality might be relevant to the issue at hand, and therefore asked a question along these lines hoping for an answer of some worth.
Level of aggression might easily influence any outcome of legality, as per how appropriate it is deemed. For example, self defence may entail aggression.

Is there any chance that such an answer to my question will be forthcoming?
Every chance. You've no reason to believe otherwise.
 
I'm with you, but the problem is that you are making a claim that remains unsupported. where is this legal definition you speak of without citing?



To a degree this is true. What they don't define aggression by is the intent of the person committing the act of aggression.

Where your definition above is demonstrably false, however, is that sociologists do not deny the existence of passive aggression, which they would have to if they limited themselves to the definition you have described above.

Thus, since we know for a fact that at least some of the claims you are making are false, and none of them are supported by evidence, we must assume that they are all potentially false claims until supporting evidence is provided.



this is your premise, but it's not, as of yet, supported by evidence or logic. I don't accept such claims on a "because I said so" basis.




Actually, an assertive salesman would not be the same thing as an aggressive salesman at all. They are different words and they are used to signify two different things. An assertive salesman would be quite pleasant to work with, while an aggressive one would be annoying.

Ultimately, I'm asking you to just support your claims in some way. Repeating them is not supporting them. Making new claims which are false is not supporting them.

And as to the assertive definition I am using to point out that it an assertive salesman is different than an aggressive salesman:

Assertive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary




That's very different from the way that aggressive salesman is used, because that means pushy won't take no for an answer.

I'm being assertive in this post. I'm not being aggressive though.
Here is a good summation of my point: Aggression - Definition - Direct, Physical, Active, and Indirect - JRank Articles From the site;
Aggression can be direct or indirect, active or passive, and physical or verbal. Using these categories, human aggression can be grouped into eight classes of behavior:
•Punching the victim (direct, active, physical)
•Insulting the victim (direct, active, verbal)
•Performing a practical joke, setting a booby trap (direct, passive, physical)
•Spreading malicious gossip (direct, passive, verbal)
•Obstructing passage, participating in a sit-in (indirect, active, physical)
•Refusing to speak (indirect, active, verbal)
•Refusing to perform a necessary task (indirect, passive, physical)


Read more: Aggression - Definition - Direct, Physical, Active, and Indirect - JRank Articles ]Aggression - Definition - Direct, Physical, Active, and Indirect - JRank Articles

I think where we are getting lost in this is that I am not denying the existence of passive aggression, however I am making the claim that it is a tricky call to assign passive aggression because it is based upon the presumption of the intent by the person judging the actions presented. Active aggression such as punching one in the face, a threat of force, especially when backed with a weapon, is easy to assign. If someone says "I'll kill you" in an angry enough tone the intent is obvious. However if one is simply following another the intent is relatively unkown, the person being followed well could be suspicious, or may have dropped a personal belonging, may be attractive to the person following who may only have the intent of making contact to see where things might lead.

As to the aggressive versus assertive salesman, even the annoying salesman is being assertive, however because of the annoyance factor I can admit it will feel aggressive to the person being hounded. Although I fully admit if the salesman's pitch is "buy this or I'll cave your head in with a baseball bat" or if he blocks the exit in any way that would most certainly be aggression. I'll even go as far as to say if the salesman follows the person issuing the no into the parking lot for that "last chance" at a close that would certainly be an aggressive act, it's really all about context.
 
Last edited:
It might not. I wouldn't know.

Then why would you mention it as though it did matter?


Irrelevant, since you responded to my statement, regardless of how it was phrased, and despite the fact it was neither addressed to anyone specifically, nor appended to anyone's post/s.

Ah, so you were lying when you claimed that you were "merely curious as to [my] insistence on aggression without aggressive intent". By your own admission above, what you were actually interested in was a response from me of some sort, regardless of the information contained in said response.

Thus, you could not have actually been curious about my position, since curiosity is defined as a marked desire to learn. In orde rto be curious abou tmy position, said response that you desired would have to contain information that would allow you to learn.

What I'm curious about is why you would lie about being curious?

Level of aggression might easily influence any outcome of legality, as per how appropriate it is deemed.

Why would that matter?

You claimed that A is, in some way, analogous to B.

Your support for this claim is essentially A might easily influence B. But, of course, just because A might influence B does not mean A is bound by the rules governing B.

For example, average height might easily influence any outcome of a basketball game. That does not mean that height is analogous to a basketball game.

Why would you assume that a things ability to influence something else would make the two things analogous?

For example, self defence may entail aggression.

So?

Every chance. You've no reason to believe otherwise.

Actually, the lack of any answers of worth thus far is strong evidence that such a response will not be forthcoming.
 
Here is a good summation of my point: Aggression - Definition - Direct, Physical, Active, and Indirect - JRank Articles From the site;

I think where we are getting lost in this is that I am not denying the existence of passive aggression, however I am making the claim that it is a tricky call to assign passive aggression because it is based upon the presumption of the intent by the person judging the actions presented. Active aggression such as punching one in the face, a threat of force, especially when backed with a weapon, is easy to assign. If someone says "I'll kill you" in an angry enough tone the intent is obvious. However if one is simply following another the intent is relatively unkown, the person being followed well could be suspicious, or may have dropped a personal belonging, may be attractive to the person following who may only have the intent of making contact to see where things might lead.

Your own source contradicts your initial claim of "Aggression is usually in a sense the forceful violation of a person's rights. "

In fact, it provided 7 examples that had nothing to do with violating someone's rights: Insulting someone, Obstructing passage (It's my right to obstruct someone's passage in many situations and I've been paid to do this do this in the past), refusing to speak, Performing a practical joke, Spreading malicious gossip, participating in a sit in, and refusing to perform a necessary task. Some of these are actually cases where the aggressor is engaging in their own rights.

If that's a good summation of your point, then your point is self-contradictory.

And, by the way, following someone can qualify as indirect, active, physical depending on the context and circumstances. I have never said that it is universally aggressive. I think the context is extremely important in making the determination and that following someone can be an aggressive act.

As to the aggressive versus assertive salesman, even the annoying salesman is being assertive, however because of the annoyance factor I can admit it will feel aggressive to the person being hounded. Although I fully admit if the salesman's pitch is "buy this or I'll cave your head in with a baseball bat" or if he blocks the exit in any way that would most certainly be aggression. I'll even go as far as to say if the salesman follows the person issuing the no into the parking lot for that "last chance" at a close that would certainly be an aggressive act, it's really all about context.

True, an assertive salesman can be annoying, but it won't be his assertiveness that is annoying. Aggresive salesman are annoying because they are aggressive.

Also, if a salesman is hounding you, they have stopped being assertive and they have began being aggressive. It'd be the direct, Active, verbal type using your source.
 
Your own source contradicts your initial claim of "Aggression is usually in a sense the forceful violation of a person's rights. "
Not really. Force isn't necessarily just physical, coercion is a type of force, this is a more passive form with the threat of physical action, manipulation is a type of force. These are not physical actions YET they are designed specifically to force a person into a desired path. This under natural law is the very definition of violation of rights.

In fact, it provided 7 examples that had nothing to do with violating someone's rights: Insulting someone, Obstructing passage (It's my right to obstruct someone's passage in many situations and I've been paid to do this do this in the past), refusing to speak, Performing a practical joke, Spreading malicious gossip, participating in a sit in, and refusing to perform a necessary task. Some of these are actually cases where the aggressor is engaging in their own rights.
Obstructing someone is not a violation of constitutional rights, nor is insulting someone or pranking them. However the first two are a violation of natural rights, I don't know whether you subscribe to that theory or not but I do and this is my perception.
If that's a good summation of your point, then your point is self-contradictory.
I don't see it Tuck. Need further explanation.

And, by the way, following someone can qualify as indirect, active, physical depending on the context and circumstances. I have never said that it is universally aggressive. I think the context is extremely important in making the determination and that following someone can be an aggressive act.
On this we agree, I think that maybe I took it as a universal assignment on your part because a few have done so in this thread.

True, an assertive salesman can be annoying, but it won't be his assertiveness that is annoying. Aggresive salesman are annoying because they are aggressive.
Again though, aggressive salesmen take it to such an extreme that you feel compelled to buy, not annoyed into doing so.

Also, if a salesman is hounding you, they have stopped being assertive and they have began being aggressive. It'd be the direct, Active, verbal type using your source.
I agree here completely.
 
Not really. Force isn't necessarily just physical, coercion is a type of force, this is a more passive form with the threat of physical action, manipulation is a type of force. These are not physical actions YET they are designed specifically to force a person into a desired path. This under natural law is the very definition of violation of rights.

Refusing to speak doesn't force someone to do anything. Refusing to perform a task doesn't force anything. People do not have a right to have you speak. People do not have a right to have you perform tasks. Since your source cites multiple examples that would not qualify for your initial claim, it contradicts it.

Obstructing someone is not a violation of constitutional rights, nor is insulting someone or pranking them. However the first two are a violation of natural rights, I don't know whether you subscribe to that theory or not but I do and this is my perception.

So if you try to enter my home, and I obstruct your passage into my home, you believe I am violating your natural rights?

I don't see it Tuck. Need further explanation.

Perhaps your answer to the above question might clarify my point.

On this we agree, I think that maybe I took it as a universal assignment on your part because a few have done so in this thread.

Fair enough. I don't recall if I ever explicitly stated my position, to be honest, so I can see why you might have thought that.

If you look at the poll results you'll see that I did not vote. This was because there is no "other" option.

Again though, aggressive salesmen take it to such an extreme that you feel compelled to buy, not annoyed into doing so.


I can't really speak to that since I've never felt compelled to buy something because of an aggressive salesman. I have tore a few of them new assholes over their aggressive sales pitches.

I usually respond to aggression of that sort with some aggression of my own.

I agree here completely.

I think we are only really differing on whether context or intent is more important.
 
Refusing to speak doesn't force someone to do anything. Refusing to perform a task doesn't force anything. People do not have a right to have you speak. People do not have a right to have you perform tasks. Since your source cites multiple examples that would not qualify for your initial claim, it contradicts it.
I agree here for the most part. One caviotte, if one refuses to speak when information is necessary such as finding a missing person, during an investigation, or some other urgent situation it does force others to look for alternatives, if someone refuses to perform a task that is necessary and others depend on for their work it forces someone to do it or lose productivity. It doesn't 100% qualify my claim, conceded, but this all goes back to circumstance and context.



So if you try to enter my home, and I obstruct your passage into my home, you believe I am violating your natural rights?
Two aggressive actions, however you protecting your rights to property and natural expectation of safety is a justifiable aggressive action, my attempts to enter would be an unjustified aggression upon your rights. Legally though I would be the aggressor in that scenario.



Perhaps your answer to the above question might clarify my point.
Thanks for expanding. I think we are on the same page but hung up on the minutia. As for aggression it is not necessarily good or bad dependent upon whether it serves a right or is used against it. The sociological definitions on passivity are still yet undefined but legal and sociological are quite clear on direct aggression, aggressive defense is not a bad thing, aggressive attacks obviously are. Overall though for the purposes here I am still not convinced that the simple act of following is aggressive yet anything that stems from that could be.



Fair enough. I don't recall if I ever explicitly stated my position, to be honest, so I can see why you might have thought that.

If you look at the poll results you'll see that I did not vote. This was because there is no "other" option.
Other is my first instinct, however it is not a black and white answer. This is a question with thousands of variables and the context would determine a yes/no. The biggest factor being the perception of the person being followed IMO.



I can't really speak to that since I've never felt compelled to buy something because of an aggressive salesman. I have tore a few of them new assholes over their aggressive sales pitches.

I usually respond to aggression of that sort with some aggression of my own.
Completely fair. I was in a sales position last year where they told us to stay glued to the customer, I hated that tactic and got flamed for it but I would be flamed either way and I had to hear from it by management longer than a customer. Some salesmen are in a no-win situation, but some of them are asses looking for a larger commission.


I think we are only really differing on whether context or intent is more important.]
I think so. Which is fine with me since perception is a large part of how we as people form decisions and opinions. I don't know that either is more important in the long run BUT context is important in a court of law as well as intent, if someone is following me the only thing I care about is intent.
 
Last edited:
Then why would you mention it as though it did matter?
I didn't. You asked what's the point of discussing legality. I said I hadn't followed the thread, as if to explain how I couldn't be aware of it's relevance. I commented regardless.

Ah, so you were lying when you claimed that you were "merely curious as to [my] insistence on aggression without aggressive intent". By your own admission above, what you were actually interested in was a response from me of some sort, regardless of the information contained in said response.

Thus, you could not have actually been curious about my position, since curiosity is defined as a marked desire to learn. In orde rto be curious abou tmy position, said response that you desired would have to contain information that would allow you to learn.

What I'm curious about is why you would lie about being curious?
No lie. I said I was curious. You needn't take that as a demand for clarification. Nor are you obligated. Thus, why (as already mentioned) it wasn't phrased as a question. One might be curious, whilst content to either deduce such things for oneself, or to accept that such curiosity might go unsated.

What I'm curious about is why you would assume that you alone are capable of such things. And why you measure such comments in terms only of yourself. Are you such an egotist?

Why would that matter?

You claimed that A is, in some way, analogous to B.

Your support for this claim is essentially A might easily influence B. But, of course, just because A might influence B does not mean A is bound by the rules governing B.

For example, average height might easily influence any outcome of a basketball game. That does not mean that height is analogous to a basketball game.

Why would you assume that a things ability to influence something else would make the two things analogous?
Notwithstanding context? It may not. However, level of aggression would certainly influence the legality thereof.

So self defence may entail legalities.

Actually, the lack of any answers of worth thus far is strong evidence that such a response will not be forthcoming.
Oh, 'of worth'? :lol:

Pray, forgive my mortality. But thus far, you're hardly justifying my effort.
 
I didn't. You asked what's the point of discussing legality. I said I hadn't followed the thread, as if to explain how I couldn't be aware of it's relevance. I commented regardless.

Ah, so the problem is that you make comments from a position of ignorance.

Whats the point of doing that?


No lie. I said I was curious.

False, you said you were merely curious. teh presence of that word makes your comment a lie, since you have since given another thing that you were interested in besides that which you claimed to be curious about.

You needn't take that as a demand for clarification.

Where did you get the asinine idea that I may have taken it as a demand?

Nor are you obligated.

And why would you assume it was even possible for me to believe that I was obligated?


Thus, why (as already mentioned) it wasn't phrased as a question.

Are you under the misguided impression that a question is a demand and that others are obligated to answer your questions?

One might be curious, whilst content to either deduce such things for oneself, or to accept that such curiosity might go unsated.

Only an idiot would entertain the foolish notion that they are capable of deducing another person's position on a matter without reading what they have already written and without asking said person about their position (perhaps to reca that which they have already said and what said person is willfully remaining ignorant of).

You've admitted to willfully remaining ignorant of what had previously been stated in the thread, now you are saying that you were also remaining willfully ignorant of my position on things despite the fact that you were curious about that position in order to deduce (presumably with magic) what my position is. I suppose if that' show you roll, so be it.

What I'm curious about is why you would assume that you alone are capable of such things.

Because I am the only person who has ever existed with the ability to satiate another person's curiosity about my positions on a subject. That's not arrogance, that's just having a firm grasp on reality.

Are you under the arrogant delusion that you, on your own, are better qualified at explaining my positions than I am?

And why you measure such comments in terms only of yourself.

Did you forget what it was that you said you were curious about?

Are you such an egotist?

Of course not. When people say that they are curious about my positions, I take them at their word. Are you telling me that you were also lying when you indicated that your curiosity was about my position?


Notwithstanding context? It may not. However, level of aggression would certainly influence the legality thereof.

Why do you seem to think that even has the remotest of chances of actually being relevant?


So self defence may entail legalities.

Again, why do you seem to think that even has the remotest of chances of actually being relevant?


Oh, 'of worth'? :lol:

Pray, forgive my mortality. But thus far, you're hardly justifying my effort.

When have you put forth effort? If you recall, you have already proudly proclaimed the lack of effort by pointing out the fact that you have chosen to remain ignorant in multiple ways.

It takes no effort at all to remain ignorant.
 
Ah, so the problem is that you make comments from a position of ignorance. Whats the point of doing that?
Ah, so you make some grand pretence of ongoing discourse, without reference to prior comments. Whats the point of doing that?

False, you said you were merely curious. teh presence of that word makes your comment a lie, since you have since given another thing that you were interested in besides that which you claimed to be curious about. Where did you get the asinine idea that I may have taken it as a demand? And why would you assume it was even possible for me to believe that I was obligated? Are you under the misguided impression that a question is a demand and that others are obligated to answer your questions? Only an idiot would entertain the foolish notion that they are capable of deducing another person's position on a matter without reading what they have already written and without asking said person about their position (perhaps to reca that which they have already said and what said person is willfully remaining ignorant of). You've admitted to willfully remaining ignorant of what had previously been stated in the thread, now you are saying that you were also remaining willfully ignorant of my position on things despite the fact that you were curious about that position in order to deduce (presumably with magic) what my position is. I suppose if that' show you roll, so be it.Because I am the only person who has ever existed with the ability to satiate another person's curiosity about my positions on a subject. That's not arrogance, that's just having a firm grasp on reality. Are you under the arrogant delusion that you, on your own, are better qualified at explaining my positions than I am? Did you forget what it was that you said you were curious about? Of course not. When people say that they are curious about my positions, I take them at their word. Are you telling me that you were also lying when you indicated that your curiosity was about my position?
Only an idiot attempts to deflect from impending admission, via piecemeal dissection of a paragraph, in the blind hope that suggestion of impropriety alone might suffice to undermine context. I have observed that you employ this device with regularity; as luck would have it, it is remarkably simple to defuse. The dishonesty here is evidently your own. But pray, continue. Others among your audience may succumb to it (and indeed, have done so). In the meantime, you might condescend to explain just how you arrive at the belief that, wherever relevance is defined, lies only in your personal assent.

Why do you seem to think that even has the remotest of chances of actually being relevant?

Again, why do you seem to think that even has the remotest of chances of actually being relevant?
Why do you believe otherwise? Perhaps I could help you, if you more clearly outline precisely where you are struggling.

When have you put forth effort? If you recall, you have already proudly proclaimed the lack of effort by pointing out the fact that you have chosen to remain ignorant in multiple ways.

It takes no effort at all to remain ignorant.
I wouldn't know. To this point, you are the one attempting to evade direct treatment of the points I've made, despite having elected to first engage, and then flee from, them.

You make of half-heartedness an art form. Or would, were your interlocutor so easily hoodwinked.

He is not. Now run (some more).
 
Ah, so you make some grand pretence of ongoing discourse, without reference to prior comments. Whats the point of doing that?

Where'd you get that silly idea? You're the one who has decided to remain ignorant of the prior comments. I'm certainly not hiding them from you.


Only an idiot attempts to deflect from impending admission, via piecemeal dissection of a paragraph, in the blind hope that suggestion of impropriety alone might suffice to undermine context. I have observed that you employ this device with regularity; as luck would have it, it is remarkably simple to defuse. The dishonesty here is evidently your own. But pray, continue. Others among your audience may succumb to it (and indeed, have done so).

Please elaborate on your observations. As I am sure you are aware, calling something an observation doens't necesarily make it real, nor are your observations actual evidence of what you claim.

In the meantime, you might condescend to explain just how you arrive at the belief that, wherever relevance is defined, lies only in your personal assent.



Where did you get the absurd idea that I felt it was my personal assent that makes it relevant? Logic dictates whether something is relevant or not.

Why do you believe otherwise? Perhaps I could help you, if you more clearly outline precisely where you are struggling.

Logic. Did you have difficulty understanding the logical syllogism that I outlined previously?


I wouldn't know. To this point, you are the one attempting to evade direct treatment of the points I've made, despite having elected to first engage, and then flee from, them.

You surely cannot be so deluded as to believe that you have actually made any points for me to engage or flee. That would be an absurd belief.

By your own admission you have done nothing but make statements from a position of ignorance. Thus, you have already admitted that you are not competent to make any points in the discussion.

You make of half-heartedness an art form. Or would, were your interlocutor so easily hoodwinked.

He is not. Now run (some more).

You misunderstand. I want you to continue pretending to have a clue despite your repeated admissions of ignorance. I enjoy it. It's a pastime of mine. I do not intend to change your behaviors or opinions. I don't want you to be "hoodwinked". I already know you have no interest in an actual discussion on the issue. Anyone who thinks that they can step into a discussion completely ignorant of that discussion and make a valid point about that discussion is far too enamored with the odor of their own flatulence to be swayed by the arguments of those who actually know what they are discussing.
 
Where'd you get that silly idea? You're the one who has decided to remain ignorant of the prior comments. I'm certainly not hiding them from you.





Please elaborate on your observations. As I am sure you are aware, calling something an observation doens't necesarily make it real, nor are your observations actual evidence of what you claim.





Where did you get the absurd idea that I felt it was my personal assent that makes it relevant? Logic dictates whether something is relevant or not.



Logic. Did you have difficulty understanding the logical syllogism that I outlined previously?




You surely cannot be so deluded as to believe that you have actually made any points for me to engage or flee. That would be an absurd belief.

By your own admission you have done nothing but make statements from a position of ignorance. Thus, you have already admitted that you are not competent to make any points in the discussion.



You misunderstand. I want you to continue pretending to have a clue despite your repeated admissions of ignorance. I enjoy it. It's a pastime of mine. I do not intend to change your behaviors or opinions. I don't want you to be "hoodwinked". I already know you have no interest in an actual discussion on the issue. Anyone who thinks that they can step into a discussion completely ignorant of that discussion and make a valid point about that discussion is far too enamored with the odor of their own flatulence to be swayed by the arguments of those who actually know what they are discussing.


You still at this tucker ? Lemme give ya a high 5 for fortitude...:)
 
Where'd you get that silly idea? You're the one who has decided to remain ignorant of the prior comments. I'm certainly not hiding them from you.
I haven't followed the thread.

Why would that matter?

Yeah, now say 'So?'. lulz

Please elaborate on your observations. As I am sure you are aware, calling something an observation doens't necesarily make it real, nor are your observations actual evidence of what you claim. Where did you get the absurd idea that I felt it was my personal assent that makes it relevant? Logic dictates whether something is relevant or not.
Oh, so now they are observations? :lol: And here, you had previously insisted that my original post was phrased as a question, despite my insistence to the contrary. So which is it? Or do you once more demonstrate your belief that veracity is found only where you alone will it? Because if that's the case, I submit to you that you debate only with yourself. And I'll not rephrase my comments until such time as they appear in some format, you find most commodious with your penchant for repetition.

It seems now all too clear that your device is reliant upon not only the mother of all hoodwinks, but a healthy dose of amnesia to boot.

Logic. Did you have difficulty understanding the logical syllogism that I outlined previously?
Both aggression and self defence may impact upon legality to so pronounced a degree, as to be ultimately decisive of either freedom or incarceration. That you fail to either comprehend or (more likely) make admission of this, points only to a failing on your side. Being that I am all too aware of such remedial concepts as these, you stand in my shade.

You surely cannot be so deluded as to believe that you have actually made any points for me to engage or flee. That would be an absurd belief. By your own admission you have done nothing but make statements from a position of ignorance. Thus, you have already admitted that you are not competent to make any points in the discussion. You misunderstand. I want you to continue pretending to have a clue despite your repeated admissions of ignorance. I enjoy it. It's a pastime of mine. I do not intend to change your behaviors or opinions. I don't want you to be "hoodwinked". I already know you have no interest in an actual discussion on the issue. Anyone who thinks that they can step into a discussion completely ignorant of that discussion and make a valid point about that discussion is far too enamored with the odor of their own flatulence to be swayed by the arguments of those who actually know what they are discussing.
And projection finally. How very expected. Your capacity for recall being commensurate with your facility for perspicacity, you now plummet headlong towards a nadir you could not have foreseen.

You've been riding high on the obsequious pandering of your fan base here for so long, what once may have passed for your native wit has become posturing only, and without recourse to content. In political circles, it's more likely to be hubris. Since you're a regular guy on the internet, it's only vanity. In a sense, I envy you that. Would that we could all remake ourselves by the light of such groundless adoration.
 
You still at this tucker ? Lemme give ya a high 5 for fortitude...:)
If only a 0.5 for content.

This is part of his problem. A choir of sycophants does not a god make.
 
'Celebration of mediocrity'?

lol That guy said a mouthful.
 
Yeah, now say 'So?'. lulz

Ah, so you didn't comprehend that question's meaning and you think that quoting it somehow excuses your lack of comrehension.

See, when I asked "why would that matter", it was in relation to you using your ignorance of the discussion as a way to avoid answering the previous question I had asked (one you so honestly chose to ignore in your quoting, I might add).

One does not need to have followed the thread in order to provide an answer that question. However one would need to follow the thread to make a point, however. See the difference?


Oh, so now they are observations?

did you forget what you said again? Look into the section I quoted, and note the presence of a word. That word is "observations". I'm not talking about the statement you made initially, I'm talking about the observations you claim to have made of me.

Given the fact that you aren't observant enough to take note of the words you yourself choose to use, I have serious doubts as to your competence at observation in general, though.

And here, you had previously insisted that my original post was phrased as a question, despite my insistence to the contrary.

Actually, I pointed out the flaw in you not phrasing your post as a question. Seriously, check out the post. I never once claimed that you asked a question, I pointed out the stupidity of not asking a question when the issue you sought to address was your curiosity. Reading comprehension: not just for Quakers anymore.

So which is it?

It is what is has always been. Your inability to comprehend what it is has no bearing on what it is.

Or do you once more demonstrate your belief that veracity is found only where you alone will it?

You're the one who claimed that I called your initial statement a question when I repeatedly pointed out the stupidity of making statements from a foundation of ignorance. Do you feel that such glaring errors in reading comprehension make you qualified to determine veracity?

Because if that's the case, I submit to you that you debate only with yourself.

You think this is a debate? :lol:

And I'll not rephrase my comments until such time as they appear in some format, you find most commodious with your penchant for repetition.

And for that you receive a Kewpie doll.

It seems now all too clear that your device is reliant upon not only the mother of all hoodwinks, but a healthy dose of amnesia to boot.

If by amnesia you mean an actual recollection of events that is not distorted by an inability to comprehend what one reads, then yes, I have amnesia. However if you intend amnesia to mean "amnesia", then unfortunately you are incorrect, a state I'm sure you are used to but have desperately avoided acknowledging.

Both aggression and self defence may impact upon legality to so pronounced a degree, as to be ultimately decisive of either freedom or incarceration.

Again, so?

That you fail to either comprehend or (more likely) make admission of this, points only to a failing on your side.

I already acknowledged that A has the potential to influence B in my logical syllogism, silly. If you were capable of understanding what you read, you'd know this. But due to the fact that you can't comprehend what you read, for whatever reason (I'm guessing willful ignorance) you are under the delusion that I did not acknowledge this.

However, the sad truth that you seek to ignore is that the claim that aggression potentially influences legality has exactly **** all relevancy to anything that I have been debating in this thread.

See, I keep asking you "so?" because it's a quick and easy way of saying "That's nice and all, but what the **** does that have to do with anything I have argued in this thread?"

Being that I am all too aware of such remedial concepts as these, you stand in my shade.

I guess I should bow to your supremacy at the remedial, then. :lol:


And projection finally. How very expected. Your capacity for recall being commensurate with your facility for perspicacity, you now plummet headlong towards a nadir you could not have foreseen.

You've been riding high on the obsequious pandering of your fan base here for so long, what once may have passed for your native wit has become posturing only, and without recourse to content. In political circles, it's more likely to be hubris. Since you're a regular guy on the internet, it's only vanity. In a sense, I envy you that. Would that we could all remake ourselves by the light of such groundless adoration.

Perhaps you were perturbed by my pedantic pontificating posts, but pretending it's posturing is positively pointless.

Now were you actually trying to use so many P words, or did gum get stuck to the pages of your thesaurus leaving you no choice but to go with P words?

Sorry, I needed to throw a bone to my adoring fans.
 
If only a 0.5 for content.

A flash of wit so brilliant that lesser men stand in awe, struck blind as though they had gazed into the depths of sun.

This is part of his problem. A choir of sycophants does not a god make.

I know, it's a curse. Sometimes I wonder if Jesus felt this way when he preached the sermon from the mount.
 
Ah, so you didn't comprehend that question's meaning and you think that quoting it somehow excuses your lack of comrehension.

See, when I asked "why would that matter", it was in relation to you using your ignorance of the discussion as a way to avoid answering the previous question I had asked (one you so honestly chose to ignore in your quoting, I might add).

One does not need to have followed the thread in order to provide an answer that question. However one would need to follow the thread to make a point, however. See the difference?
Then you're in the habit of answering without making a point? No? Me neither.

Again, I gave no answer. And I did make a point. Namely, that legality pertaining to aggression requires intention.

did you forget what you said again? Look into the section I quoted, and note the presence of a word. That word is "observations". I'm not talking about the statement you made initially, I'm talking about the observations you claim to have made of me. Given the fact that you aren't observant enough to take note of the words you yourself choose to use, I have serious doubts as to your competence at observation in general, though. Actually, I pointed out the flaw in you not phrasing your post as a question. Seriously, check out the post. I never once claimed that you asked a question, I pointed out the stupidity of not asking a question when the issue you sought to address was your curiosity. Reading comprehension: not just for Quakers anymore. It is what is has always been. Your inability to comprehend what it is has no bearing on what it is. You're the one who claimed that I called your initial statement a question when I repeatedly pointed out the stupidity of making statements from a foundation of ignorance. Do you feel that such glaring errors in reading comprehension make you qualified to determine veracity? You think this is a debate? :lol: And for that you receive a Kewpie doll. If by amnesia you mean an actual recollection of events that is not distorted by an inability to comprehend what one reads, then yes, I have amnesia. However if you intend amnesia to mean "amnesia", then unfortunately you are incorrect, a state I'm sure you are used to but have desperately avoided acknowledging.
More evasion. I made an observation as per the necessity of the inclusion of intent in legality. You both dismissed it as irrelevant (error) and sought to waylay it's absolute relevance, via describing my post as being phrased as a question (error).
Again, so? I already acknowledged that A has the potential to influence B in my logical syllogism, silly. If you were capable of understanding what you read, you'd know this. But due to the fact that you can't comprehend what you read, for whatever reason (I'm guessing willful ignorance) you are under the delusion that I did not acknowledge this. However, the sad truth that you seek to ignore is that the claim that aggression potentially influences legality has exactly **** all relevancy to anything that I have been debating in this thread. See, I keep asking you "so?" because it's a quick and easy way of saying "That's nice and all, but what the **** does that have to do with anything I have argued in this thread?" I guess I should bow to your supremacy at the remedial, then. :lol:
You don't have to bow to me, brah. Unlike yourself, the substance of my comments is independent of any requirement for toadying. And my point was that since this is remedial, you shouldn't be struggling so much. And if aggression and intent are relevant, you couldn't have acknowledged them, since you asked what's the point of discussing legality.

Perhaps you were perturbed by my pedantic pontificating posts, but pretending it's posturing is positively pointless.

Now were you actually trying to use so many P words, or did gum get stuck to the pages of your thesaurus leaving you no choice but to go with P words?

Sorry, I needed to throw a bone to my adoring fans.
More that, in pondering what was possibly practical in your position, as poised precariously on a precipice of perplexity, your perception was impeded by a preponderance of pretentious parley. A pale parody of profundity. Whilst pitiful, your performance plays only to the paucity of popular appeal; the pandering of pusillanimous posters.

Sorry, dude. That goddam gum, ya know. It gets everywhere. :lol:
 
A flash of wit so brilliant that lesser men stand in awe, struck blind as though they had gazed into the depths of sun.
They just come to me, I swear. It's a gift.

I know, it's a curse. Sometimes I wonder if Jesus felt this way when he preached the sermon from the mount.
Likely not, since he had something to say.
 
Then you're in the habit of answering without making a point? No? Me neither.

We can't generalize what I do over to you because I'm not in the habit of making declarative statements from a position of ignorance either, but we already know that you are. Since there is already a history of you engaging in pointless behaviors, it's actually a safe assumption that you are in the habit of answering questions in a pointless fashion.


Namely, that legality pertaining to aggression requires intention.

And we come full circle. What delusional belief do you have that gives you the false impression that the above is a point, or, in other words, what makes you think that that is relevant to the discussion that was being had?


More evasion. I made an observation as per the necessity of the inclusion of intent in legality. You both dismissed it as irrelevant (error) and sought to waylay it's absolute relevance, via describing my post as being phrased as a question (error).

Ah, so you did forget what you said. Do you have some sort of memory disorder?

You don't have to bow to me, brah. Unlike yourself, the substance of my comments is independent of any requirement for toadying.

Don't' be so modest. The substance of your comments is independent from reality, logic, and common sense as well.

And my point was that since this is remedial, you shouldn't be struggling so much. And if aggression and intent are relevant, you couldn't have acknowledged them, since you asked what's the point of discussing legality.

I stand in your shade, oh great master of the remedial. :lol:

More that, in pondering what was possibly practical in your position, as poised precariously on a precipice of perplexity, your perception was impeded by a preponderance of pretentious parley. A pale parody of profundity. Whilst pitiful, your performance plays only to the paucity of popular appeal; the pandering of pusillanimous posters.

Sorry, dude. That goddam gum, ya know. It gets everywhere. :lol:

 
Legally you can follow someone all you want as long as you don't make contact with them or threaten them.
 
We can't generalize what I do over to you because I'm not in the habit of making declarative statements from a position of ignorance either, but we already know that you are. Since there is already a history of you engaging in pointless behaviors, it's actually a safe assumption that you are in the habit of answering questions in a pointless fashion. And we come full circle. What delusional belief do you have that gives you the false impression that the above is a point, or, in other words, what makes you think that that is relevant to the discussion that was being had?
Couldn't be ignorant or irrelevant, since it's a fact. Legality requires the mens rea. You can Google it, if you like.

Ah, so you did forget what you said. Do you have some sort of memory disorder?
Didn't I just mention amnesia, with reference to your own approach? Don't get me wrong, the imitation is flattering, but it's a bit weak. All I've done is maintain my original position. If that's a source of some frustration to you, that's your problem.

Don't' be so modest. The substance of your comments is independent from reality, logic, and common sense as well. I stand in your shade, oh great master of the remedial. :lol:
*takes a bow*

Learn from me.



lulz
 
Couldn't be ignorant or irrelevant, since it's a fact. Legality requires the mens rea. You can Google it, if you like.

Why do you think that matters?

Do you think all facts are relvent to all discussions? Did you know Aardvarks are the last species of the order Tubulidentata? That's a fact, and by your logic, it's also relevant.
 
Last edited:
yes, following someone in your car and on foot, is an intimidating act.

doing it with a gun? that's outright assault with a deadly weapon.

only people with the authority to do so, should follow anyone while armed with a firearm.
 
yes, following someone in your car and on foot, is an intimidating act.

It can be intimidating, but not always. The circumstances do matter.

doing it with a gun? that's outright assault with a deadly weapon.

That's just absurd.

only people with the authority to do so, should follow anyone while armed with a firearm.

I disagree with this. The carrying of a firearm should not prevent someone from being able to do what Caine described earlier (following people where there is a reasonable expectation of being followed by a stranger)
 
Back
Top Bottom