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 29 of 35 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 349

Thread: Following someone.

  1. #281
    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
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #282
    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
    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 by LaMidRighter; 04-28-12 at 12:16 AM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #283
    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
    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?
    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'?

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

  4. #284
    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 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'?

    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #285
    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
    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).

  6. #286
    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
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #287
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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...

  8. #288
    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
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by NoC_T View Post
    I haven't followed the thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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? 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.

  9. #289
    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 lpast View Post
    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.

  10. #290
    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.

    'Celebration of mediocrity'?

    lol That guy said a mouthful.

Page 29 of 35 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... 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
  •