Idiotic Jasmine throwing water is not a threat??? - Page 2

Originally posted by: Deviant_Pixel

It’s a puzzle to me besides nepotism what Salman will bash him on. Ladki comment, maybe but he himself has in the past defended contestants on these remarks or swept under the rug. Physical aggression again I doubt he will when last week, hell last few seasons he’s never brought it up. I think Rahul had to take the bag and Jasmine was supported by Rubina so he pulled harder, this was the task itself why would he let her win just because she’s a woman.

I think bashing will be on nepotism. Lekin last season when people’s fathers were brought in 100 times by everyone he didn’t say anything 🤔

I don't think Salman will even bring the "physical aggression" topic because BB is expected to ignore it anyway.

Nepotism and ladki comment will be brought up this week. Actually Rahul will be thrashed every week , he has the habit of making loose comments , it's not just about what he says but the WAY he says it makes it worse. So every week he will be targeted one way or the other.

Also I can visualise the upcoming Gulati in him. He's already the villain of the house , he will be cornered by the other members within the next few days.

Yep - she has the audacity to question others’ upbringing, when losing a task reduces her to violence and that tamasha she did yesterday. But her violence is all well and good - because - woman power and aadmi pe toh aise bhi thoo hain na as far as Jasmine is concerned. Pathetic.

The paani phenkna and all the ghatiya aadmi and what not gaalis needs to be addressed, or else jasmine would keep doing this in future.

Really wish sid hota iss season toh mast wapis paani pheke maarta iske mooh par

Originally posted by: Aegon

Threat is negotiation...Throwing water is violence

Kon sa duniya hai ye?

Ofcourse this is the correct Duniya 😆

Threat is a part of diplomacy bcoz it reminds you of consequences of what you chose to do.

While throwing anything at anyone’s body, is outright violence. There there can’t be any other language for that. It’s beyond any diplomatic norms to hurl objects at each other.

Clear 😊

Originally posted by: Equine

Rotlu Jas is crying today that Rahul is threatening her. Even if he did, isn’t that part of the task? BB rules say that they need to negotiate. In that sense, threat is also a part of negotiation. If Jas is threatened , then that means she’s a weak candidate.

But, what did she do? Throwing water on Rahul, outside of task. What rights does she have to do this? Everyone should be talking abt this. If anything, Salman should reprimand her for crossing her limits. Just bcoz she’s a girl, doesn’t give her the right to throw things at other contestants.

No, throwing water at Rahul is NOT a Threat; it’s outright VIOLENCE 😆

Originally posted by: SoPunk

Ofcourse this is the correct Duniya 😆

Threat is a part of diplomacy bcoz it reminds you of consequences of what you chose to do.

While throwing anything at anyone’s body, is outright violence. There there can’t be any other language for that. It’s beyond any diplomatic norms to hurl objects at each other.

Clear 😊

Threatening is a crime

Negotiation is not

Do you not understand the basic difference?

I don't understand how you people are blatantly supporting and justifying crimes here

One can say Rahul didn't threaten but to say that threatening is Negotiation and right

Repulsive

Violence is a crime

And I guess people don't play holi in your duniya so won't comment on that

Not that Jasmin was playing holi but anyone with one brain will tell you that the water didn't have potential to cause injury as force wasn't enough, warm water would have been a different matter

Originally posted by: Aegon

Threatening is a crime

Negotiation is not

Do you not understand the basic difference?

I think you don’t understand the difference between a threat with criminal intent & a threat of consequences of you decision.

a threat that is likely to end up in a crime; like threatening to kill or criminally harm; is a crime. Where one party is acting or interacting without any legal or logical reason.

While it was not a choice of Rahul to snatch the bag, it was his duty by the rule of the game; Rahul used a cautionary threat; that gave her the option to chose her course; doesn’t constitute a crime. In a game where both parties are bound to play; a caution to make her aware of impending danger, doesn’t at all constitute a threat.

A football player doesn’t get criminally charged for tackling & breaking your leg. BUT the sane act in a supermarket will put you in jail. So you need to understand what’s a crime and what’s not a crime.

Similarly in diplomacy, threat of doing or not doing something, is not a crime, but throwing a water bottle to the other guy is violence & crime.

How many more ways you want me to tell? If you didn’t yet understand when it’s a crime and when it’s NOT?

What jasemin did was outside the game, so that constitutes a crime.

Originally posted by: SoPunk

I think you don’t understand the difference between a threat with criminal intent & a threat of consequences of you decision.

a threat that is likely to end up in a crime; like threatening to kill or criminally harm; is a crime. Where one party is acting or interacting without any legal or logical reason.

While it was not a choice of Rahul to snatch the bag, it was his duty by the rule of the game; Rahul used a cautionary threat; that gave her the option to chose her course; doesn’t constitute a crime. In a game where both parties are bound to play; a caution to make her aware of impending danger, doesn’t at all constitute a threat.

A football player doesn’t get criminally charged for tackling & breaking your leg. BUT the sane act in a supermarket will put you in jail. So you need to understand what’s a crime and what’s not a crime.

Similarly in diplomacy, threat of doing or not doing something, is not a crime, but throwing a water bottle to the other guy is violence & crime.

How many more ways you want me to tell? If you didn’t yet understand when it’s a crime and when it’s NOT?

What jasemin did was outside the game, so that constitutes a crime.

Caution or Threat...what are you defending?

@italic

If it doesn't at all constitute a threat then why are you being advocate for "Threat is Negotiation"?

Threat is a part of diplomacy bcoz it reminds you of consequences of what you chose to do.

Your words...

There's no threat of injury without criminal intent, please use a dictionary if its not too much trouble and don't mix up words

Threat which involves injury is a crime

Remember Someone was arrested from BB house when a housemate was injured during a task?

He didn't get to injure people because Bigg Boss is not soccer

And please oh please

There are people and committee which deals with illegal actions in game, and no football player will caution members of other team to leave the ball or he'll break their leg.

Again, In which game have you see this happening and do they get away with this?

Bowlers will caution batsmen against hitting 6s because there's a chance of their ball hitting them in the face Aise to there won't be any game if people are allowed to threaten players

Originally posted by: Aegon

Caution or Threat...what are you defending?

@italic

If it doesn't at all constitute a threat then why are you being advocate for "Threat is Negotiation"?

Threat is a part of diplomacy bcoz it reminds you of consequences of what you chose to do.

Your words...

There's no threat of injury without criminal intent, please use a dictionary if its not too much trouble and don't mix up words

Threat which involves injury is a crime

Remember Someone was arrested from BB house when a housemate was injured during a task?

He didn't get to injure people because Bigg Boss is not soccer

Caution & threat is like glass half full or half empty.
You have heard what Rahul said, You tell me; it was a threat or caution?

In diplomatic terms it’s a caution, as I said in the previous post that it wasn’t a choice for him to snatch the bag; he was duty bound to do that. So in this particular situation everything is caution.

the same act on the street or supermarket would be a threat.

so I’m only defending the act in this scenario; I don’t care what language you like to use. It’s not a crime to use threats of danger in diplomacy or in legal premises; like in a game. Every threat is a word of caution. While the same act in a wrong setting could constitute a crime.

I’m sure you know what i said; if we are talking about BB and this task; where he was tasked to snatch a bag; if he threatened of resulting injury, that’s a caution and choice was on Jasmine to decide what she wants to do. But jasmine clearly committed a crime by abusing & using violence after the game. That’s the point of this discussion. We shouldn’t forget the context.

Originally posted by: SoPunk

Caution & threat is like glass half full or half empty.
You have heard what Rahul said, You tell me; it was a threat or caution?

In diplomatic terms it’s a caution, as I said in the previous post that it wasn’t a choice for him to snatch the bag; he was duty bound to do that. So in this particular situation everything is caution.

the same act on the street or supermarket would be a threat.

so I’m only defending the act in this scenario; I don’t care what language you like to use. It’s not a crime to use threats of danger in diplomacy or in legal premises; like in a game. Every threat is a word of caution. While the same act in a wrong setting could constitute a crime.

I’m sure you know what i said; if we are talking about BB and this task; where he was tasked to snatch a bag; if he threatened of resulting injury, that’s a caution and choice was on Jasmine to decide what she wants to do. But jasmine clearly committed a crime by abusing & using violence after the game. That’s the point of this discussion. We shouldn’t forget the context.

Precisely

TM said threat is Negotiation, My point was against it

The discussion wasn't about whether Rahul was cautioning her or threatening her, TM said he was threatening her, you cant mix these two as threat is a crime and definitely doesn't come under Negotiation.

It is a crime to threaten bodily injury in every field be it in the game or outside the game, don’t defend the indefensible.

Threat and caution are not used interchangeably in diplomacy. Don't say things for sake of supporting someone

We'll back out of a treaty is not as same as we'll bomb you, most nations don't follow the diplomacy of North Korea

Please try threatening someone of bodily injury in court and we'll see how it plays out in legal premises

I was replying to TM, not giving my opinion on whether Rahul threatened her or cautioned her, two completely different topics

Language and words are important and we have to go by the standard definition of it as your dictionary isn't available yet