How To Tell When Someone Is "involved"

[hereandthere]

Let's say you're a guy who has an infatuation on a girl. she somehow found out about it and acted on destroying the infatuation, and then justifying her actions by believing herself to be involved in it therefore has the right to defend herself.



so i ask: is it politically correct to say that she's involved in your infatuation when she's was never really participating in the infatuation itself?



my friend argued yes, that she is indeed "involved" in the infatuation, and therefore has the right to defend herself against it by making the guy to stop the infatuation, which sounds wrong to me.



my argument is a no. because technically, the infatuation only exist in his mind and nowhere else. and the girl who's being infatuated upon didn't do anything to be a part of it other than simply existing. i say it's on par with having an opinion on something, which we're all entitled to have and others don't have the right to messed with your mind by changing what you think or feel.



can someone tell me who's right and who's wrong?

[The Mutant Pixie]

I'd be inclined to agree with you. But as soon as the infatuation has a palpable impact on "her," she can react with reason. You could argue that, depending on the two parties previous closeness, the fact she is now aware of the infatuation means she cannot fail to consider it and change the way she acts.



I'm not entirely sure how she could go about "destroying" the infatuation, if she has lead him on in no way then the infatuation is one based on a fantasy, they're hard to destroy... unless your evil/clever.



Just my tupence on the mater,



Magpie

[hereandthere]

I'd be inclined to agree with you. But as soon as the infatuation has a palpable impact on "her," she can react with reason. You could argue that, depending on the two parties previous closeness, the fact she is now aware of the infatuation means she cannot fail to consider it and change the way she acts.

[/b]

your viewpoint got me to think of a new query. since she isn't "involved" in technical sense, why must she change the way she acts? it's simply just his viewpoint, his feeling, his opinion, etc... she has no physical involvement nor psychological involvement. no commitment or obligations towards the infatuation. why not move on and not dwell on it? is it necessary to discriminate a person for one's infatuation?



can anyone lend an opinion or a perspective?

[The Mutant Pixie]

Im not sure what you meant by "is it necessary to discriminate a person for one's infatuation?" But as for your initial points, I do not mean that she "must" react for consious reasons, but she is bound to react unknowingly. All new information we recieve changes us somehow. Like i said it depends on the nature of their previous relationship/friendship.



AL

[hereandthere]

but she is bound to react unknowingly. All new information we recieve changes us somehow.

[/b]

is that really true? i find myself in often situations where I just shrug things off, especially things of little to no significance. let's say the nature of the relationship is simply friendship. i know the most common situation between 2 friends is that one over-reacts upon news of the other's infatuation, which I believe to be unnecessary. in such case, then technically the friend who over-reacts would be at fault, b/c it's not rational to act upon something that doesn't technically involve her.



comments from viewers?