Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #21
Not every issue has two sides. Some, however, do. Some have more.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Except you listed multiple topics. For instance I see two sides to gay marriage but not to taxes. Hence I couldn't vote.I think we all know what traditional arguments are for each of the issues listed.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.
.
Even stupid Liberals' opinions...All opinions deserve exposure.
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.Who is to decide who and what are legitimate?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.
.
That I could have voted yes toSo far, most say that both sides deserve to be heard, but not so much on whether the "other side" has legitimate points.
Interesting.
.
Even stupid Liberals' opinions...All opinions deserve exposure.
There generally ARE two sides but one is wrong.
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?
I was always told there are three sides to every story.Not every issue has two sides. Some, however, do. Some have more.
yes and then someLet'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?
Or do you believe that the other side's opinion on any or all of the above issues does not deserve exposure?
- Foreign Policy
- War
- Income Taxes
- Macroeconomics
- Business/Finance Regulation
- Gay Rights
- Civil Rights
- Abortion
And please expand on your poll response, thanks.
.
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.
Even stupid Liberals' opinions...All opinions deserve exposure.
There generally ARE two sides but one is wrong.
Yeah, that's why I was careful in the issues I listed.Sometimes facts are facts and people seem to only want to argue. Take the Flat-Earth Society, for example..
In that case your answer would be No, there are not always two sides.Except you listed multiple topics. For instance I see two sides to gay marriage but not to taxes. Hence I couldn't vote.
A lot of it depends on how much weight you put on one thing or another.Yeah, that's why I was careful in the issues I listed.Sometimes facts are facts and people seem to only want to argue. Take the Flat-Earth Society, for example..
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.
.
My point is not which side is "right" - that will be subjective.A lot of it depends on how much weight you put on one thing or another.Yeah, that's why I was careful in the issues I listed.Sometimes facts are facts and people seem to only want to argue. Take the Flat-Earth Society, for example..
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.
.
Does a person's right to service outweigh another's right to religious beliefs? Different people will answer differently.