• 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
I'd love to see your survey and conclusions, especially in light of he number of liberals here that own weapons, have served and support in the military, and the number of times democrats have bemoaned the bidet it's and loss of police officers causing rapes and murders to increase.

If we examine the "typical" liberal, he/she generally opposes the 2nd Amendment, opposes an expansion of the military (today's liberals are different from FDR and Johnson liberals), and is cautious of putting more police on the street. The "liberals" on this forum are not what you would call "typical."

PS I should retract the term "scientific study." It wasn't exactly a study from a scientific journal. See Reason Magazine, Born This Way?

Born This Way? - Reason Magazine
 
It's a good thing that "being mistaken for a rogue ninja clan" isn't in the definition of 'to stalk', then.

Now, what was your point?
Only the one you just made. :lol:
 
I wish I could change my vote. I think Thorgasm got it right. I always go by is it legal, and if it is I don't see it as a threat. This however is not true in all cases. I think following someone is aggressive even if legal.
 
I wish I could change my vote. I think Thorgasm got it right. I always go by is it legal, and if it is I don't see it as a threat. This however is not true in all cases. I think following someone is aggressive even if legal.

I totally agree
 
I wish I could change my vote. I think Thorgasm got it right. I always go by is it legal, and if it is I don't see it as a threat. This however is not true in all cases. I think following someone is aggressive even if legal.

It depends on their purpose to me.

There are MANY more reasons to follow someone that are not aggressive than there are aggressive reasons to follow someone.
 
If we examine the "typical" liberal, he/she generally opposes the 2nd Amendment, opposes an expansion of the military (today's liberals are different from FDR and Johnson liberals), and is cautious of putting more police on the street. The "liberals" on this forum are not what you would call "typical."

PS I should retract the term "scientific study." It wasn't exactly a study from a scientific journal. See Reason Magazine, Born This Way?

Born This Way? - Reason Magazine
The 'typical liberal' is no different than the 'typical conservative'. I suspect you are inferring to the radical wingnut liberal...the polar opposite of the radical wingnut conservative.
 
It depends on their purpose to me.

There are MANY more reasons to follow someone that are not aggressive than there are aggressive reasons to follow someone.

It's not about your perception. I agree it may not seem aggressive to me, but most people tend to be concerned at best and panic at worst if they know they are being followed. This makes any act of following aggressive. The opposite would be passive, and actively following someone is not a passive act even with good intentions.
 
How the person that is being followed feels imo is irrelevent. I think the intent of the person doing the following is what matters. Humans in general feel threatened by lots of things, doesn't mean that those things are always aggressive.

For example those people that do not allow their kids to get immunization shots feel threatened by those shots yet those shots are obviously meant to do nothing but good. A simple look can also make a person feel threatened...even if they misinterpret the look. My own wife thought that I was a pervert when she first met me yet we are happily married today.
 
The 'typical liberal' is no different than the 'typical conservative'. I suspect you are inferring to the radical wingnut liberal...the polar opposite of the radical wingnut conservative.

Most people don't identify "liberal" as pro-guns, pro-military, and a heightened police state. By liberal, they mean leftist or even socialist.
 
Most people don't identify "liberal" as pro-guns, pro-military, and a heightened police state. By liberal, they mean leftist or even socialist.

yes i noticed that point ,and i can say i love american liberals .))))))
 
How the person that is being followed feels imo is irrelevent. I think the intent of the person doing the following is what matters.

So if I pointed a gun at someone, in order to show them how nice of a gun it is, you wouldn't call it an aggressive action because of my intent?
 
So if I pointed a gun at someone, in order to show them how nice of a gun it is, you wouldn't call it an aggressive action because of my intent?
Nope, sure wouldn't be. I have had a gun pointed at me for just that reason and never felt threatened, in fact I watched the chamber being cleared and the breach doubble checked and looked straight down the barrel. Never felt it a threatening or aggressive action.
 
Nope, sure wouldn't be. I have had a gun pointed at me for just that reason and never felt threatened, in fact I watched the chamber being cleared and the breach doubble checked and looked straight down the barrel. Never felt it a threatening or aggressive action.

That's because you are comfortable with guns. I know this makes people uncomfortable, because I've done it. If you don't own a gun, you don't ever want one pointed in your direction. Just my 2-cents.
 
So if I pointed a gun at someone, in order to show them how nice of a gun it is, you wouldn't call it an aggressive action because of my intent?


Pointing a gun at someone is most definitely an aggressive action, and liable to get someone killed.

It can also be a negligent action, such as the time a fellow cop, showing off his new Glock 45, pointed it at me carelessly.... "Fin," says I, "point that at somebody else, why don't ya? If I get shot, I'd rather it be on purpose..."
 
That's because you are comfortable with guns. I know this makes people uncomfortable, because I've done it. If you don't own a gun, you don't ever want one pointed in your direction. Just my 2-cents.
I get that, the point gets back to intent. It wasn't aggressive of my buddy to do that, actions with intent are either neutral or aggressive dependent on motive.
 
Pointing a gun at someone is most definitely an aggressive action, and liable to get someone killed.

It can also be a negligent action, such as the time a fellow cop, showing off his new Glock 45, pointed it at me carelessly.... "Fin," says I, "point that at somebody else, why don't ya? If I get shot, I'd rather it be on purpose..."
Negligent is more proper IMO, now, if someone is threatening my life with a crowbar and I produce the .40 that would be an example to me of two aggressive actions, his brandishing to either give himself an advantage and my brandishing to convince him to move on.
 
Most people don't identify "liberal" as pro-guns, pro-military, and a heightened police state. By liberal, they mean leftist or even socialist.

The only ones I know that are anti gun anti military and anti police are extreme 'leftists'. Most 'liberals' I know have a different way of solving problems from conservatives but they aren't extremists. You are describing extremists.
 
The only ones I know that are anti gun anti military and anti police are extreme 'leftists'. Most 'liberals' I know have a different way of solving problems from conservatives but they aren't extremists. You are describing extremists.

Perhaps. But if we're trying to compare the bases of the left and right, it does us no good to compare moderate vs. moderate. What's the point? We are looking at differences, not commonalities.
 
So if I pointed a gun at someone, in order to show them how nice of a gun it is, you wouldn't call it an aggressive action because of my intent?

So long as the intent was just to show then nope. But I would call it stupid and I might be alarmed by such stupidity.
 
So if I pointed a gun at someone, in order to show them how nice of a gun it is, you wouldn't call it an aggressive action because of my intent?

I'd consider it a "dangerous" act. Not an "aggressive" one though.
 
Stalking is definitely wrong, but that is an intent situation. Following in itself is not aggressive without intent, for instance if I am on my property and follow strangers off of it my intent is to let them understand that they are not welcome and I want them to respect my boundaries, following a strange looking individual may simply be to remain aware of the situation. However if someone continues to follow another after it has been stated they are not welcome to do so is absolutely aggressive.

Stalking is the intent to remain in contact when unwelcome in the most simple definition. Following to cause mental anguish or discomfort is harassment, and of course following to commit an attack is assault so it really boils down to the end goal.

While stalking might be wrong... it is fun.
 
HAHA. Caught me off guard there.

If you aren't stalking someone you aren't living life... and ruining theirs. It is win/lose which for me is win/win.
 
Back
Top Bottom