poor guy new patient - Page 7

Originally posted by: tanvismile

bt i think one needs to control one husband ,if a husband does what he wants ,keeps on hurting his wife ,the wife does nothing bt sits n cry ,it is nt called maturity .infact it completely dumb behaiviour,now brainwashing abt someone is wrong bt gauri in first has misunderstood anandi ,watever she tell j abt A ,She believes it 2 be true ,watever it is if one has to save her mariage ,its fine,if anandi had to do it also i wud be ok with it

Originally posted by: tanvismile

gagarulez-Thanks for making it clear dat our statements r also logical n fair enough ,no one can say dat we r wrong n they r right,everyone has diff POV .Everyone POV is to be respected.

Originally posted by: ankit111

U can't force anyone to love u. The difference between G and A is tht G believe in forcing while A believe in theory IF U LOVE SOMEONE KET HIM GO, IF HE RETURN HE IS URS AND IF NOT HE WAS NEVER URS. Although we all wish tht Anandi sd punish J, put he is her weakness and she become weak whn its comes to J ( a true and pure love). But G is demanding and forcing and by her this nature she is pushing J away from herself. Both hd adopted different way in love. Now time will tell whose policy is better. But one thing is sure A behaving dignify way while G desperate. But the worst thing is both r fighting for a loser 😆 😆

Originally posted by: woman11

Of course everybody has a right to their own opinion, but can't we even have arguments and counter arguments? That's the basic structure of any debate-------somebody makes a claim, someone else opposes the claim and critiques it and so on and so forth. Here too, we are doing the same thing----if we find an argument that we do not agree with or think it is fallacious, we argue against that. What is wrong in that?
For example, some A supporters had explained A's attachment for J as helpless love. Gagarulez argued that this logic---that Anandi is entitled to pine for Jagya while Gauri is not---actually does not hold. In my reply I tried to argue against it. So what is wrong in talking about logic? Absolutely nothing. There shouldn't be any, because that's how arguments and counterarguments go in any discussion. As long as the posts refer only to the ideas stated and do not attack members personally, I think we are all entitled to debate about ideas. Replying to any post inherently involves responding to the argument or logic of the post. 😛