Originally posted by: CobraKai1972
Twitter and Gauahar Khan would like to disagree. It construes as violence if & only if your intent is to cause harm or damage to the other person.š Although Merriam-Webster doesn't use the words intent or intention in its definition for the word violence. My understanding of the word has been the use of force to hurt someone or damage something but seems like our education system has failed me. I was wrong about this my whole life.
Pratik ke intentions were not to harm Ieshaan, so it doesn't matter if his actions did end up causing any sort of damage to that young fellow.
By this definition, nothing ever is violence inside the BB house. Karan ke intentions bhi Pratik ko hurt karna nahi tha, his intent was to stop Pratik par agar woh violence tha, toh ye bhi hona chahiye.
I like Kundrra a lot but I still won't condone his behaviour. Karan was wrong then and Pratik is wrong now. Simple.
But people be like you didn't call KK out when he was wrong so you're not allowed to call Pratik out too. What a load of barnacles!
His intent could have been the purest of the land but that won't excuse the fact that his action could have caused mild damage to Ieshaan's eyes. Damage is damage, mild ho ya serious. But intention galat nahi tha toh chalta haiš¤Ŗ
I'm saying this for whoever needs to hear it, doesn't matter who initiates it, violence is violence. Selective outcry nahi chalega.
You can't riot against something when it's done against Pratik and then turn a blind eye to it when Pratik dishes it out. Mera logic is this. Baaki you can't win against the internet and anyone who doesn't agree with me is free to feel offended.š