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 30 of 35 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 349

Thread: Following someone.

  1. #291
    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
    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?

    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.


    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #292
    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
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #293
    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 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? 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.
    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.

  4. #294
    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
    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.

  5. #295
    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
    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.

    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #296
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: Following someone.

    Legally you can follow someone all you want as long as you don't make contact with them or threaten them.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  7. #297
    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
    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.
    *takes a bow*

    Learn from me.



    lulz

  8. #298
    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
    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 by Tucker Case; 05-14-12 at 11:25 AM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #299
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Following someone.

    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.

  10. #300
    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 Thunder View Post
    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)
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 30 of 35 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... 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
  •