My take on the argument "There's always two sides to every story"!

grahamg

grahamg

Old codger
Location
South of Manchester, UK
On various discussion forums I often hear the refrain: "There's always two sides to every story"!

Now I will agree that two people witnessing the same event may well give different "versions" of whatever it was, and both do so honestly, no problem there.

However, when you say in response to hearing someone's "side" (perhaps involving something that gone wrong involving let's say two people, where only they were present, and one or other is responsible, or more responsible for the failure), I do have a problem with that argument very often.

Firstly its a discussion killer on a forum, if the other party is never going to give their version, where does it take you??

Secondly, no matter how you cut it, when saying youd like to hear the other side, you are shedding doubt on whatever is being said, or even the honesty of the person you're questioning.

If it were always true that "you must listen to the other side before making your mind up", "there's always two versions etc", then where does that leave the person trying to tell the truth?

There you go, "I have a problem with someone spouting they must hear both sides" (or "issues", I've got plenty of those!)! :)

Sometimes there are not two sides, there's one side speaking the truth, and the other side assuming their lies will get them further than the "fool" trying to tell the truth! :(
 

I believe in the existence of objective truth. However, humans get in the way. It's very hard for humans to be objective. We all view things through a filter of prejudice, preconceived notions, cultural assumptions, you name it. This is true for people on the left as well as the right.
 
grahamg said:
On various discussion forums I often hear the refrain: "There's always two sides to every story"!

Now I will agree that two people witnessing the same event may well give different "versions" of whatever it was, and both do so honestly, no problem there.

However, when you say in response to hearing someone's "side" (perhaps involving something that gone wrong involving let's say two people, where only they were present, and one or other is responsible, or more responsible for the failure), I do have a problem with that argument very often.

Firstly its a discussion killer on a forum, if the other party is never going to give their version, where does it take you??

Secondly, no matter how you cut it, when saying youd like to hear the other side, you are shedding doubt on whatever is being said, or even the honesty of the person you're questioning.

If it were always true that "you must listen to the other side before making your mind up", "there's always two versions etc", then where does that leave the person trying to tell the truth?

There you go, "I have a problem with someone spouting they must hear both sides" (or "issues", I've got plenty of those!)! :)

Sometimes there are not two sides, there's one side speaking the truth, and the other side assuming their lies will get them further than the "fool" trying to tell the truth! :(
Click to expand...
If there's one thing I've learned over the course of my lifetime, you quickly learn who slings mud and nonsense, and who has integrity in their word, and that's good enough for me.

So long as the person I'm getting information from is a straight-shooter, I'm not at all interested in hearing the other side of the story.

I've been like that my entire life and to date it's been good to me.
 
I was just tryin to entertain you. Didn't expect you to believe me!
hahahaha!

I quite often take an opposite side to things, mainly for my own better understanding. There are at least six sides; all with different values.
and,because one has silenced me, doesn't mean I agree with them or that they are correct.
Sometimes, I won't argue because I know the other person doesn't have the capacity or evolutionary growth to comprehend what I'm trying to convey or, I can't think of the right words to make it clear to them. So, I stay silent and shake my head.
 
I remember early in my first journalism class, someone burst into the class, brandished a weapon, knocked a student out of his seat, shouted some things and ran out.

When everything calmed down, the professor handed out a pre-printed page and asked everyone to answer questions about the event, i.e. what color hair did the assailant have, how tall was he, what kind of weapon did he have, what door did he leave by, what was he wearing, etc. The next day, the answers were compiled.

I was wrong on his hair color, what he was wearing. I SWEAR I was right, but apparently I wasn't. Was I lying in that case? I would have stood in court and sworn he had brown hair and was wearing a blue shirt. I was wrong. In that case, there were about 30 sides to the story.
 
Gaer said:
I was just tryin to entertain you. Didn't expect you to believe me!
hahahaha!

I quite often take an opposite side to things, mainly for my own better understanding. There are at least six sides; all with different values.
and,because one has silenced me, doesn't mean I agree with them or that they are correct.
Sometimes, I won't argue because I know the other person doesn't have the capacity or evolutionary growth to comprehend what I'm trying to convey or, I can't think of the right words to make it clear to them. So, I stay silent and shake my head.
Click to expand...
Give me two ticks, I know what this means, I think! :)
 
timoc said:
Give me two ticks, I know what this means, I think! :)
Click to expand...
Could you give me a clue, because I'm going to try to assure you the forum member you've responded to had absolutely nothing to do with my reasons for starting this thread, (but if you think she's just joking, I'm finally there with you!)?
 
jujube said:
I remember early in my first journalism class, someone burst into the class, brandished a weapon, knocked a student out of his seat, shouted some things and ran out.
When everything calmed down, the professor handed out a pre-printed page and asked everyone to answer questions about the event, i.e. what color hair did the assailant have, how tall was he, what kind of weapon did he have, what door did he leave by, what was he wearing, etc. The next day, the answers were compiled.
I was wrong on his hair color, what he was wearing. I SWEAR I was right, but apparently I wasn't. Was I lying in that case? I would have stood in court and sworn he had brown hair and was wearing a blue shirt. I was wrong. In that case, there were about 30 sides to the story.
Click to expand...
I've seen the same exercise played out, and used in a tv show, with the same results you've witnessed.

However a former neighbour of mine witnessed some burglars leaving a property, (can't remember the exact details ironically!), and he gave a quick description to the police immediately, and he was accurate enough so that the police successfully apprehended the men.
The neighbour had served in WWII in the army fighting in Europe, and I wonder whether his military training helped give him the skill to give succinct information very quickly to those in authority, and he said it was the "impression" of the men, and their coat colour accurately remembered, that he thought assisted the police most.

I do know in my professional life, one of my bosses had military experience, and tried to train us to think very logically before we spoke or wrote anything down, with three points to focus upon, ("Where", "What", "Condition").
 
Aunt Bea said:
“There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each differently.”
- Robert Evans, The Kid Stays in the Picture
Click to expand...
Do you think there might be some things where the rule doesn't apply, (though as stated in OP, I'll accept honest "versions" being given of the same event being witnessed)?
If you were told by a boyfriend that they "loved you", do you think you could misremember those words being used, in those circumstances, or do you think you'd go to your grave knowing it was truly said, (unless some illness of the mind overtook you)?
 
if i hear "one side" from the actual person involved, i would tend to want to hear the other side.

if i read "one side" on any social media forum... i have a tiny part of my brain that immediately doubts it.
 
timoc said:
Give me two ticks, I know what this means, I think! :)
Click to expand...
Tick-tick-tock, the clock struck Tim-oc
When the clock struck one, down she come
On top of Tim-oc's block
When the clock struck two, poor little Tim-oc didn't know what to do
As luck would have it, poor little Tim-oc grabbed it
A quick call for a favour to his good friend and fellow neighbour
With clock hands fixed, a broken clock nixed
Hickory, Dickory, Dock
 
Often, one side will omit certain facts. Like Person A calls Person B a racial epithet and they're branded a "racist."

Well, Person B may have antagonized Person A and Person A just used the quickest retort at his or her disposal just to retaliate. I suspect that may be occurring in some of these claims of Asian hate actions. I've had problems with Chinese people in the past, and with Mexicans, and with other ethnicities including my own. Does that make me a "racist" if I call them a derogatory name that reflects their ethnicity?

That's what happened to Michael Richards–a.k.a. known as Kramer on Seinfeld. He was doing his standup routine and a group of Black people were making a lot of noise, interrupting his act, and they wouldn't stop. He got fed up and called one of them the "N" word. If you didn't know the other side of the story, you'd think Richards was a racist a-hole while in reality, he was antagonized into calling the man a derogatory name.
 
Irwin said:
That's what happened to Michael Richards–a.k.a. known as Kramer on Seinfeld. He was doing his standup routine and a group of Black people were making a lot of noise, interrupting his act, and they wouldn't stop. He got fed up and called one of them the "N" word. If you didn't know the other side of the story, you'd think Richards was a racist a-hole while in reality, he was antagonized into calling the man a derogatory name.
Click to expand...
It was shocking when 'kramer' reacted that way. Comedians get heckled, it's part of the job. Michael may be a jerk, or he may be a racist at heart, I don't know. I do know he lost the game.
 
grahamg said:
Do you think there might be some things where the rule doesn't apply, (though as stated in OP, I'll accept honest "versions" being given of the same event being witnessed)?
If you were told by a boyfriend that they "loved you", do you think you could misremember those words being used, in those circumstances, or do you think you'd go to your grave knowing it was truly said, (unless some illness of the mind overtook you)?
Click to expand...
I believe that there will always be times when it comes down to my word vs someone else’s word where one of us is lying. I also believe that it would be extremely rare for that to happen between two honest people. I do believe that it happens quite often when people are discussing more complicated things than a simple phrase.
 
saltydog said:
Neither is wrong, but they are different. And therein lies the rub.
Click to expand...
There is another "rub" that comes to mind, and it is just how convincing some people can be when telling their "side" of a story, even when lying, or especially when lying perhaps, when most people listening to both sides, (if they knew of the deliberate lying), would undoubtedly say one is wrong.

Even without actually lying, some people are adept at misleading others, or "leading them up the garden path", (I'm thinking here of a professional I heard speak at a meeting twenty years ago, on a topic I often try to focus upon here, but the topic is unimportant in this discussion).

A man or woman who has the skills in presentation, skills many professionals justifiably need to carry out their work, is not anything near an "equal battle" in terms of persuasiveness with the average man or woman in the street, so "hearing both sides" of a story isn't a panacea in my view, (though maybe admittedly better than only ever hearing one side before making critical judgements).
 
Irwin said:
Often, one side will omit certain facts. Like Person A calls Person B a racial epithet and they're branded a "racist."

Well, Person B may have antagonized Person A and Person A just used the quickest retort at his or her disposal just to retaliate. I suspect that may be occurring in some of these claims of Asian hate actions. I've had problems with Chinese people in the past, and with Mexicans, and with other ethnicities including my own. Does that make me a "racist" if I call them a derogatory name that reflects their ethnicity?

That's what happened to Michael Richards–a.k.a. known as Kramer on Seinfeld. He was doing his standup routine and a group of Black people were making a lot of noise, interrupting his act, and they wouldn't stop. He got fed up and called one of them the "N" word. If you didn't know the other side of the story, you'd think Richards was a racist a-hole while in reality, he was antagonized into calling the man a derogatory name.
Click to expand...
I think in the current climate, it's become so common to call someone a racist that the word has lost its meaning. It is now used as a way to dismiss someone because you don't wish to discuss a problem with them.
 
Irwin said:
Often, one side will omit certain facts. Like Person A calls Person B a racial epithet and they're branded a "racist."

Well, Person B may have antagonized Person A and Person A just used the quickest retort at his or her disposal just to retaliate. I suspect that may be occurring in some of these claims of Asian hate actions. I've had problems with Chinese people in the past, and with Mexicans, and with other ethnicities including my own. Does that make me a "racist" if I call them a derogatory name that reflects their ethnicity?

That's what happened to Michael Richards–a.k.a. known as Kramer on Seinfeld. He was doing his standup routine and a group of Black people were making a lot of noise, interrupting his act, and they wouldn't stop. He got fed up and called one of them the "N" word. If you didn't know the other side of the story, you'd think Richards was a racist a-hole while in reality, he was antagonized into calling the man a derogatory name.
Click to expand...

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there must have been a wee bit of racisim there, or the "N-word" wouldn't pop out of someone's mouth, no matter how antagonized they were. "Idiot," "a**hole," or something in that line, but the "N-word," no. Not unless there's some racism. For most of us, that epithet is so off limits that it wouldn't just pop out.
 
Rosemarie said:
I think in the current climate, it's become so common to call someone a racist that the word has lost its meaning. It is now used as a way to dismiss someone because you don't wish to discuss a problem with them.
Click to expand...
That sounds like my catholic school in the 1950's. Ask any sort of religious question that defies a logical answer and you get a called: "A little heathen." Inevitably the retort was accompanied by a slap per syllable. Problem pupil? Problem solved.
 
.
There are always three sides to the story…your’s, mine and the fly on the wall :ROFLMAO:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top