View Poll Results: Is following someone an aggressive act?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    27 61.36%
  • No.

    17 38.64%
Page 28 of 35 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 349

Thread: Following someone.

  1. #271
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoC_T View Post
    We might draw an analogy with legality, whereby a crime constitutes both an act and an intention.

    The actus reus and mens rea, respectively.
    What's the point of discussing legality in this thread? Aggressive =/= illegal.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #272
    Imposition of miscellany
    NoC_T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,193

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What's the point of discussing legality in this thread? Aggressive =/= illegal.
    I haven't followed the thread. I was merely curious as to your insistence on aggression without aggressive intent. And I'd previously noticed some comment/s as to the legal definition?

  3. #273
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The only legal definition of aggression that I am aware of is related to international law and is used in the context of war. Where are you finding the legal definition you are using which talks about that talks about rights being violated and how would it apply to the context of this thread?



    Why would you say that? To me it just sounds like you are trying to narrow the definition in a specific away so that your position is supported by it. I see no logically valid reason to limit things in such an obviously biased manner, though.
    Tuck, stay with me man. For legal purposes aggression is the use of force against another, this is what sets up the grounds for a self-defense counterargument to the prosecution, the aggressor has no merit to use this defense in court. Sociologists define aggression as behaviors that are forceful, violent, or attacking as do criminologists, without the intent to cause harm or any further actions you cannot call the simple act of following aggressive. You used further the "aggressive salesman" example, this is actually properly defined as an assertive salesman BUT the words have been interchanged over the years.

    This is why I am saying with a thread like this, which is concerning something that is a safety and security issue we need to use the most narrow definition of aggression, which is the absolute definition. It's not to "win an argument" or "support a position" it's to keep the conversation clean. Everyone is throwing out opinions where I am trying to keep on point. If anything the ambiguous definition shows the most potential for allowing bias as it turns the topic into comparing subjectives.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #274
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoC_T View Post
    I haven't followed the thread.
    Why would that matter?


    I was merely curious as to your insistence on aggression without aggressive intent.
    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).


    And I'd previously noticed some comment/s as to the legal definition?
    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.

    Is there any chance that such an answer to my question will be forthcoming?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #275
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Tuck, stay with me man. For legal purposes aggression is the use of force against another, this is what sets up the grounds for a self-defense counterargument to the prosecution, the aggressor has no merit to use this defense in court.
    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?

    Sociologists define aggression as behaviors that are forceful, violent, or attacking as do criminologists,
    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.

    without the intent to cause harm or any further actions you cannot call the simple act of following aggressive.
    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.


    You used further the "aggressive salesman" example, this is actually properly defined as an assertive salesman BUT the words have been interchanged over the years.
    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


    : disposed to or characterized by bold or confident statements and behavior
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #276
    Imposition of miscellany
    NoC_T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,193

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.

  7. #277
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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 by LaMidRighter; 04-27-12 at 03:53 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #278
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoC_T View Post
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #279
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #280
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 28 of 35 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •