• 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
Tucker Case said:
That's a situation where one expects others to follow them, since everyone is presumed to be headed in the same direction in a parking garage. If you followed them to their car, however, it could have been aggressive.



Same situation as above. People expect others to be following them in those situations since everyone is already known to be headed the same direction.

Context is far more important than intent. You can ignore it, but that won't make you right.
Click to expand...

You realize context and intent are the same ****ing thing in the manner that you are addressing it right?
 
Caine said:
You realize context and intent are the same ****ing thing in the manner that you are addressing it right?
Click to expand...

Not even close. The intent is determined by the follower. The context is determined by the situation that the person being followed is in. Two totally different things. By a tremendously wide margin.

The context is so important that a person who intends to do harm to the followed person is not actually acting aggressively by following them in the contexts that you describe (where the followed party has an expectation of others going in the same direction as they are).
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Using the non-legal definition of the word, of course. Legally, they would not be considered stalkers.
Click to expand...
On somewhat rare occasion behaviors that are sociologically unacceptable do get legalized.

Usually there is money involved when that happens.
 
Tucker Case said:
Not really. You just admitted that the person's intent is only a factor when it's already known to you. When it isn't known beforehand, it becomes an aggressive act by default. If you pulled out a gun and shot a stranger who pointed a gun at you with the intent of showing you how nice the gun is (but failed to let you know this beforehand), you'd be able to claim self-defense and few would disagree with your actions, even though they didn't have any intent to shoot you.
Click to expand...
This is true. However under known circumstances the act of aiming the gun isn't IMO aggressive, a stranger would be an idiot to pull on me without giving me a heads up.
 
Tucker Case said:
Not even close. The intent is determined by the follower. The context is determined by the situation that the person being followed is in. Two totally different things. By a tremendously wide margin.

The context is so important that a person who intends to do harm to the followed person is not actually acting aggressively by following them in the contexts that you describe (where the followed party has an expectation of others going in the same direction as they are).
Click to expand...

Aggression is not determined by the fears of others, but by the actions and intents of the "perpetrator".
 
VanceMack said:
Sure...if by conceding you mean that we agree that you are referring only to extremists when you say 'liberals' then we should definitely move on. Im sure the liberals here that support gun ownership, police, and have actually served in the military will be comfortable with your description.
Click to expand...

As I said, when comparing ideologies, it doesn't do us much good to use members of a party who hold moderate, centrist viewpoints. If we compare communists with capitalists, will it do us much good to throw in a large number of those in the middle? I'm not pushing an extremist viewpoint. I'm only trying to objectively examine differences between two very different ideologies, not two individuals with moderate belief systems.

In essence, some of these "liberals" may not even consider themselves "liberals" but rather "centrist" or "moderate." Think of the blue dog democrats, conservative democrats, or moderate republicans.

If you're referring to Redress, then please stop. Redress self-identifies as "very liberal." When someone is "very" anything, it usually means extreme, consistent, or far from the center. Yet Redress is more of a moderate/centrist democrat.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This is true. However under known circumstances the act of aiming the gun isn't IMO aggressive, a stranger would be an idiot to pull on me without giving me a heads up.
Click to expand...

In known circumstances, sure. But that speaks to context rather than intent.
 
Caine said:
Aggression is not determined by the fears of others, but by the actions and intents of the "perpetrator".
Click to expand...

Please take note of the distinct lack of fear being taken into consideration in my posts. Once you take note of it, then you may be able to present a real rebuttal.
 
Tucker Case said:
In known circumstances, sure. But that speaks to context rather than intent.
Click to expand...
Aggression is usually in a sense the forceful violation of a person's rights. It's typically use of force or coercion to illicit something. This gets back to both points, following someone to "keep an eye on the area" may or may not be aggressive in that maybe someone is on my property and they need to be forced off, a kid walking in a neighborhood late at night may illicit a response of some sort, but to follow in order to run that kid off would be aggressive, to keep an eye out is not necessarily. Just like language, there is a difference between a joking "don't make me kick your ass" and a more serious "dude, I'm going to kick your ass". All of this leads us back to the intent of the action, my buddy showing me his gun......not aggressive, a person I don't know pointing a gun with a requisite demand like; "Give me your wallet" or "Leave my daughter alone" or the ever popular "Get the **** away from me!" are all aggressive and the intent is similar in that an outcome is illicited, however the differences are in motivation and legal standing.
 
I do not think the act of "following" is in and of itself an aggressive act. The intent does play a part, but how can anyone ever know the intent of someone else?

Just following someone does not constitute "stalking" nor make the follower an "aggressor", some other action must take place for it to be an act of aggression. There are lots of reasons you might follow someone and many reasons you may THINK you are being followed. Our society trends to focus on the negative and we always hear about the incidents where people are hurt in some way. Why don't we hear about how people help each other? Maybe a young man follows an elderly lady to make sure she makes it home OK, maybe someone is followed because they appear suspicious, etc... If you think you are being followed cross the street, keep an eye on the windows so you can see reflections, call someone. There are many things you can do, but you can't keep safe from a bullet coming your way.

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I was a bit surprised to find out that in the 6 months concealed carry has been legal in Wisconsin the state has issued 100,000 permits. Out of those 100,000 people how many hold stereotypes? How many are already scared? Does having the gun on them make them feel more protected or more scared? I think that in addition safety training, people obtaining weapons should have to undergo some type of sensitivity training.

I'm way OT now. Anyway... if someone was following me and I was alone I would probably get on my phone with someone and then turn and ask why they were following me. And then I would probably feel like an idiot because they were not following me, just going the same way or they thought but was cute.
 
taxigirl said:
I do not think the act of "following" is in and of itself an aggressive act. The intent does play a part, but how can anyone ever know the intent of someone else?
Click to expand...
Totally agree, and yep, the intent part is tricky.

Just following someone does not constitute "stalking" nor make the follower an "aggressor", some other action must take place for it to be an act of aggression. There are lots of reasons you might follow someone and many reasons you may THINK you are being followed. Our society trends to focus on the negative and we always hear about the incidents where people are hurt in some way. Why don't we hear about how people help each other? Maybe a young man follows an elderly lady to make sure she makes it home OK, maybe someone is followed because they appear suspicious, etc... If you think you are being followed cross the street, keep an eye on the windows so you can see reflections, call someone. There are many things you can do, but you can't keep safe from a bullet coming your way.
Click to expand...
Also agree with this completely. Much of the problem is when someone does not maintain situational awareness. And also true that it's very hard to dodge the bullet with your name on it.

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I was a bit surprised to find out that in the 6 months concealed carry has been legal in Wisconsin the state has issued 100,000 permits. Out of those 100,000 people how many hold stereotypes? How many are already scared? Does having the gun on them make them feel more protected or more scared? I think that in addition safety training, people obtaining weapons should have to undergo some type of sensitivity training.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe in leaving that up to the locality. The thing is people need to take their weapons seriously if they choose to carry. It is a responsibility to carry any weapon so one must learn; The laws pertaining to use, safety, and how to assess level of appropriate engagement and force used.

I'm way OT now. Anyway... if someone was following me and I was alone I would probably get on my phone with someone and then turn and ask why they were following me. And then I would probably feel like an idiot because they were not following me, just going the same way or they thought but was cute.
Click to expand...
Usual outcome. LOL.
 
Caine said:
Just because you are suspicious of a person does not mean they are committing a crime.

Legal/Non-Criminal.

Illegal/Crime.
Click to expand...

With out any resin why he is shadowing you ? What do you think on him ?
 
henrypanda said:
With out any resin why he is shadowing you ? What do you think on him ?
Click to expand...
There are so many innocent reasons a person could follow another. Attraction, found personal belonging, trying to stop another person who may actually be a threat from acting, suspicion, thought they recognized you, etc.
 
LaMidRighter said:
There are so many innocent reasons a person could follow another. Attraction, found personal belonging, trying to stop another person who may actually be a threat from acting, suspicion, thought they recognized you, etc.
Click to expand...

This is a Legal or Non Legal work ?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Aggression is usually in a sense the forceful violation of a person's rights. It's typically use of force or coercion to illicit something.
Click to expand...

Where'd you get that idea? An aggressive salesman isn't violating rights or using force. If I take an aggressive stance on an issue, it doesn't mean I am violating rights or using force.

Something can be aggressive even if the intention to be aggressive is not there.
 
Tucker Case said:
Where'd you get that idea? An aggressive salesman isn't violating rights or using force.
Click to expand...
It depends on context. I am using aggression as it was initially and currently legally defined because of the nature of this thread. There are levels of aggression obviously such as simple aggression like "not taking no for an answer" or.....
If I take an aggressive stance on an issue, it doesn't mean I am violating rights or using force.
Click to expand...
Aggressively defending your position, i.e., not giving ground, this is the simplest form.

Something can be aggressive even if the intention to be aggressive is not there.
Click to expand...
Eh, that boils down to perception. For the purposes of this thread I would say we need to look at absolute aggression, that is the intent to use force or coercion.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I am using aggression as it was initially and currently legally defined because of the nature of this thread.
Click to expand...

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?

For the purposes of this thread I would say we need to look at absolute aggression, that is the intent to use force or coercion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
We might draw an analogy with legality, whereby a crime constitutes both an act and an intention.

The actus reus and mens rea, respectively.
 
Ikari said:
In and of itself, no. However, there are circumstances (I would say the Paparazzi would sometimes fall into this catagory) in which it is.
Click to expand...

This is what the poll misses, and why simple yest or no answers are seldom helpful.
 
NoC_T said:
We might draw an analogy with legality, whereby a crime constitutes both an act and an intention.

The actus reus and mens rea, respectively.
Click to expand...

What's the point of discussing legality in this thread? Aggressive =/= illegal.
 
Tucker Case said:
What's the point of discussing legality in this thread? Aggressive =/= illegal.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NoC_T said:
I haven't followed the thread.
Click to expand...

Why would that matter?


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

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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom