Were they wrong? - Page 11

If I am going on the road, and I see a guy beating up another guy, my first reaction would be what a goonda. We live in a civilized society where such acts are not permissible. India has a lot of corruption I understand that and most of the time justice is not served. But when you see fights on the road what kind of image does that give of the people who live there, outsiders think we are country brutes. I think Shruthi you are asking the wrong question, it is not what Krishna did was right, because the answer to that question is yes, because the dude is never wrong. The question you should be asking is 'Does a common man with no authority have the right to declare judgement and serve punishment by means of excessive force'. The answer is no because then we are vigilantes, and that might sound cool in super hero cartoons and films, but not in real life because such ideas breads only violence and further corruption.

Originally posted by: loveanime

If I am going on the road. And I see a guy beating up another guy, my first reaction would be what a goonda. We live in a civilized society where such acts are not permissible. India has a lot of corruption I understand that and most of the time justice is not served. But when you see fights on the road what kind of image does that give of the people who live there, outsiders think we are country brutes. I think Shruthi you are asking the wrong question, it is not what Krishna did was right, because the answer to that question is yes, because the dude is never wrong. The question you should be asking is 'Does a common man with no authority have the right to declare judgement and serve punishment by means of excessive force'. The answer is no because then we are vigilantes, and that might sound cool in super hero cartoons and films, but not in real life because such ideas breads only violence and further corruption.

Nice to see you posting after a loooooooong time co-counsel😊and oopsie! I asked a wrong question is it?😳😆well acc to many here Krishna can never be wrong but it's not the same for all since there are ppl here who know how to criticize him and appreciate him when it's needed😊

@shruti- @ pink-but it don't mean that who ever is saying in support of krishna he is supporting him bcause of arhaans' look n all

Originally posted by: pragati.tankha

@shruti- @ pink-but it don't mean that who ever is saying in support of krishna he is supporting him bcause of arhaans' look n all

i agree that she was rite but d point is that ACCORDING TO KRISHNA she wasn't pure n he felt that she betrayed him,but stilll he supported her going against all his conflicts it's not about that u shd stand 4 what is rite even ur 'RITE STEP' hurts ur partner.in real life noone will take such step.v can agreee with prats as it is a showw but in reality we personally not do such thing 4 what is rite,thats what human nature is alll about,good at times n bad at times...

plzz don't get in wrong way i'm just giving my P.O.V😊

Originally posted by: shruthiR

I appreciate your POV 😊

@red : now that is what I'd say is being double-faced coz we believe in something else but don't apply it just coz the person who is wrong happens to be your partner.Sorry if I offend anyone but I find that a bit hard to digest no matter how true it might be coz I think one should call a spade a spade and should be willing to agree if someone is wrong regardless of whether that person happens to be your partner and you should guide him instead of supporting his wrong acts otherwise he'll never learn from his mistakes.and if Krishna supported her it's coz he doesn't like it when someone else insults her that why he supported her despite the fact that he didn't believe her but at the end he found out that she was right whereas here there is no way that Pratigya will find this act of his right since he was wrong,period.

welll u may calll it double sided nature,but according 2 me human nature is all about this if someone in real life goes 2 this situation do u think that she whd behave like this,n will agrue with his partner just 2 telll him that she is saying a rite thing.i don't think it'd b a smart step as it'll create differance in theire relation.yes krishna supported her bcause he can't tolarate her insult in front of nyone but don't u think same thing applies on prats also.yes she was rite but can't she said it later on,bcause asking krishna this in front of everyone he felt like a outsider.how whd a person feel wen he'll found that his partner is not standing at his side.I'M REAPITING IT AGAIN N AGIN THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT STANDING 4 RITE,BUT IT'S ABOUT D SUPPORT.

Shruthi did you read dyehard's post, what a wonderful post by dyehard.
A copy here could answer many who are arguing needlessly and supporting something bad only because of the looks of the male lead character.

Originally posted by: loveanime

If I am going on the road, and I see a guy beating up another guy, my first reaction would be what a goonda. We live in a civilized society where such acts are not permissible. India has a lot of corruption I understand that and most of the time justice is not served. But when you see fights on the road what kind of image does that give of the people who live there, outsiders think we are country brutes. I think Shruthi you are asking the wrong question, it is not what Krishna did was right, because the answer to that question is yes, because the dude is never wrong. The question you should be asking is 'Does a common man with no authority have the right to declare judgement and serve punishment by means of excessive force'. The answer is no because then we are vigilantes, and that might sound cool in super hero cartoons and films, but not in real life because such ideas breads only violence and further corruption.

Exactly and that was what CVs tried to show, that was THE ESSENCE of the episode taken so wrongly here. Its the flaws of the lead character needed to be addressed to see him develop and his character progression towards becoming a better person.

Originally posted by: pragati.tankha

welll u may calll it double sided nature,but according 2 me human nature is all about this if someone in real life goes 2 this situation do u think that she whd behave like this,n will agrue with his partner just 2 telll him that she is saying a rite thing.i don't think it'd b a smart step as it'll create differance in theire relation.yes krishna supported her bcause he can't tolarate her insult in front of nyone but don't u think same thing applies on prats also.yes she was rite but can't she said it later on,bcause asking krishna this in front of everyone he felt like a outsider.how whd a person feel wen he'll found that his partner is not standing at his side.I'M REAPITING IT AGAIN N AGIN THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT STANDING 4 RITE,BUT IT'S ABOUT D SUPPORT.

IT'S EASY 2 SAY THAT I'LL NOT SUPPORT A WRONG THING,WHETHER HOW MUCH IT EFFECTS UR PARTNER,THAT PARTNER WHO HAS ALWAYS STTAND 4 HER SIDE.HE CHD HAVE STAND BY HIS FAMILY BUT INSTEAD OF THIS HE STNAD 4 HER.

Well that might be human nature to you but for me it's just decieveing one's self and trying to ignore their principles of what they feel is right just for the sake of a relationship.You might call it supporting your partner but I'd say it's lying to your own self.Your partner might feel happy but your self conciense will deffinitely prick you for supporting his wrong act.Yes undoubtedly he has stood by her side but that is also because she was right whereas he is wrong and that's what it comes to at the end of the day coz more than relationships it's abt what's right and what isn't.And she was trying to make him understand nicely and in a polite manner,she wasn't lecturing him or scolding him.

Originally posted by: PRAGMATIC

Shruthi did you read dyehard's post, what a wonderful post by dyehard.
A copy here could answer many who are arguing needlessly and supporting something bad only because of the looks of the male lead character.

yes I did,it was a superb post and I posted my views on it as well😊