POLL: Are there two sides to every story?

[Statistikhengst]

Not every issue has two sides. Some, however, do. Some have more.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Can't answer your poll. It depends on the arguments being put forward. Need more poll options rather than just the black & white ones you offered.

I think we all know what traditional arguments are for each of the issues listed.

.

Except you listed multiple topics. For instance I see two sides to gay marriage but not to taxes. Hence I couldn't vote.

 

[Ernie S.]

All opinions deserve exposure.

Even stupid Liberals' opinions...
There generally ARE two sides but one is wrong.

 

[Plasmaball]

no, we have been over and over and over subjects long enough to know the sides. Not everyone should be treated as equal. This is part of the problem, everyone wants a trophy for giving out their shit opinion. No sometimes your thought is just a loser and should be treated as such. We used to respect experts in the field. Now everyone is an expert.

So no say something stupid, get called on it.

Who is to decide who and what are legitimate?

.

again this is part of the problem. This was never a question before till the internet and 24 hour news. did you question when the nightly news had an expert on? No that person was an expert. Now its just find the source that confirms my bias and call it a day.

 

[Mac1958]

So far, most say that both sides deserve to be heard, but not so much on whether the "other side" has legitimate points.

Interesting.

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So far, most say that both sides deserve to be heard, but not so much on whether the "other side" has legitimate points.

Interesting.

.

That I could have voted yes to

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And just to prove I'm being unbiased I'll offer a couple examples of what I consider opinions that aren't legit or worthy of consideration.

Todd Akins position on rape/abortion
The lefts position of war on women

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

All opinions deserve exposure.

Even stupid Liberals' opinions...
There generally ARE two sides but one is wrong.

The only way to weed out the idiots is to have both sides heard. That said, weeding out the idiots is dependent upon the idiocy or lack thereof of the listener. Logic, common sense and facts have little influence over certain political stances.

(Billy names no one, but points left.)

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you believe that, for each of the following issues, there are (at least) two sides to every story that deserve consideration, legitimacy and respectful debate?

Yes, I do, which is why I try to practice that here myself.

While I might disagree I will never try to shout anyone down.

The legitimacy of the positions depends upon the veracity of the sources. If they lack credibility then that too deserves to be considered because it factors into my own decision as to which position to adopt.

Let me use the example of war.

When the prior administration decided to join with NATO and take out ALQ in Afghanistan I supported that effort because it was plausible to make a credible case that they posed a legitimate threat.

However when they subsequently decided to invade Iraq it was patently obvious that they didn't have a legitimate, or even a credible, case and were just fearmongering in order to incite an illegal war.

So in that instance I was on both sides of the issue of war and it largely depended upon the credibility of the threat that made me decide which position to take.

Others may differ in their opinions on those two cited instances but it does highlight the point in your OP that all sides of every story do deserve to be heard in a respectful debate.

Good example of liberal thinking.

Afghanistan, what possible threat did they pose to the US? Was the Taliban responsible for 9/11? Did they threaten our interests in any way?

Iraq, did they threaten our interests when they invaded Kwait and then set the oil fields on fire as they retreated? Did they threaten our security by paying money to the family of suicide bombers? Did they not attack the US in the no fly zone? And if Afghanistan was a legal war what made Iraq an illegal war?

Al Queda started in Afghanistan when St Reagan funded them during the Soviet invasion.

Al Queda brought down the twin towers on 9/11 so yes, they posed a legitimate threat.

As far as Saddam goes he never had any WMD's and the UN inspectors would have confirmed that which is why Bush jr rushed into that illegal war so they couldn't prove him wrong.

No, I won't reply to any subsequent response of yours because that will derail the thread.

My examples were purely for the purpose of supporting my positions as the OP had asked for. This followup is merely to corroborate the facts that I used with adopting my positions.

If you want to take this any further please start a separate thread. TY

Now back to the OP.

 

[hortysir]

Not every issue has two sides. Some, however, do. Some have more.

I was always told there are three sides to every story.
His side
My side
The truth

 

[Two Thumbs]

Let's look at the biggest issues that receive attention today. Do you believe that, for each of the following issues, there are (at least) two sides to every story that deserve consideration, legitimacy and respectful debate?

• Foreign Policy
• War
• Income Taxes
• Macroeconomics
  
• Business/Finance Regulation
• Gay Rights
• Civil Rights
  
• Abortion

Or do you believe that the other side's opinion on any or all of the above issues does not deserve exposure?

And please expand on your poll response, thanks.

.

yes and then some

people may support something for different reason

but what the media gives us is what they want us to think and an accusation based on edited quotes of the opposition or just repeating a lie enough that people think it's true.

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you believe that, for each of the following issues, there are (at least) two sides to every story that deserve consideration, legitimacy and respectful debate?

Yes, I do, which is why I try to practice that here myself.

While I might disagree I will never try to shout anyone down.

The legitimacy of the positions depends upon the veracity of the sources. If they lack credibility then that too deserves to be considered because it factors into my own decision as to which position to adopt.

Let me use the example of war.

When the prior administration decided to join with NATO and take out ALQ in Afghanistan I supported that effort because it was plausible to make a credible case that they posed a legitimate threat.

However when they subsequently decided to invade Iraq it was patently obvious that they didn't have a legitimate, or even a credible, case and were just fearmongering in order to incite an illegal war.

So in that instance I was on both sides of the issue of war and it largely depended upon the credibility of the threat that made me decide which position to take.

Others may differ in their opinions on those two cited instances but it does highlight the point in your OP that all sides of every story do deserve to be heard in a respectful debate.

Good example of liberal thinking.

Afghanistan, what possible threat did they pose to the US? Was the Taliban responsible for 9/11? Did they threaten our interests in any way?

Iraq, did they threaten our interests when they invaded Kwait and then set the oil fields on fire as they retreated? Did they threaten our security by paying money to the family of suicide bombers? Did they not attack the US in the no fly zone? And if Afghanistan was a legal war what made Iraq an illegal war?

Al Queda started in Afghanistan when St Reagan funded them during the Soviet invasion.

Al Queda brought down the twin towers on 9/11 so yes, they posed a legitimate threat.

As far as Saddam goes he never had any WMD's and the UN inspectors would have confirmed that which is why Bush jr rushed into that illegal war so they couldn't prove him wrong.

No, I won't reply to any subsequent response of yours because that will derail the thread.

My examples were purely for the purpose of supporting my positions as the OP had asked for. This followup is merely to corroborate the facts that I used with adopting my positions.

If you want to take this any further please start a separate thread. TY

Now back to the OP.

BULLSHIT!
NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all
By Thomas Lifson
President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated by the likes of Ron Fournier and Jon Stewart as a kind of progressive catechism. Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

If you think a blog at American Thinker is biased, here's a link to the article in the Gray Lady: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/w...d-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?&_r=1

 

[Derideo_Te]

All opinions deserve exposure.

Even stupid Liberals' opinions...
There generally ARE two sides but one is wrong.

Opinions are formed based upon whatever knowledge the opinion holder has on the topic.

If they take the time and trouble to ensure that they are fully informed on all aspects then their opinion is an informed opinion. If they don't then it is an uninformed opinion.

But even an uninformed opinion need not necessarily be right or wrong. The opinion might be right even if the opinion holder is uninformed.

 

[my2¢]

Sometimes facts are facts and people seem to only want to argue. Take the Flat-Earth Society, for example..

 

[LoneLaugher]

The question regards opinions. Not facts. Why the difficulty?

 

[Mac1958]

Sometimes facts are facts and people seem to only want to argue. Take the Flat-Earth Society, for example..

Yeah, that's why I was careful in the issues I listed.

Personally, I think both "ends" have perfectly reasonable and understandable points for each of the issues.

The question is only where the net preponderance of evidence lies, and that falls ultimately to opinion.

.

 

[Mac1958]

Except you listed multiple topics. For instance I see two sides to gay marriage but not to taxes. Hence I couldn't vote.

In that case your answer would be No, there are not always two sides.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sometimes facts are facts and people seem to only want to argue. Take the Flat-Earth Society, for example..

Yeah, that's why I was careful in the issues I listed.

Personally, I think both "ends" have perfectly reasonable and understandable points for each of the issues.

The question is only where the net preponderance of evidence lies, and that falls ultimately to opinion.

.

A lot of it depends on how much weight you put on one thing or another.
Does a person's right to service outweigh another's right to religious beliefs? Different people will answer differently.

 

[Mac1958]

Sometimes facts are facts and people seem to only want to argue. Take the Flat-Earth Society, for example..

Yeah, that's why I was careful in the issues I listed.

Personally, I think both "ends" have perfectly reasonable and understandable points for each of the issues.

The question is only where the net preponderance of evidence lies, and that falls ultimately to opinion.

.

A lot of it depends on how much weight you put on one thing or another.
Does a person's right to service outweigh another's right to religious beliefs? Different people will answer differently.

My point is not which side is "right" - that will be subjective.

My question is whether the traditional arguments are legitimate, reasonable, worthy of honest discussion.

.

 

[The Irish Ram]

While there may be 2 sides to every story, that doesn't mean that both views are viable.