This is a philosophical question. Are all sides of an issue equally valid? Often, the correct answer is not the middle. In many political debates, we are presented with two extremes. This is to differentiate the two views. Some politicians will say they are "moderate" to be wishy washy or take the compromise road. My personal believe is that it depends on the issue at hand. Some are valid and may have two equally extreme positions but some do not. Sometimes, there is only a "right solution" and a wrong solution. What is your opinion? Just curious.
The reason I pose this is because many in the media presents issues in this way. That sets the tone for debates and may not be a valid starting point.
All opinions should be based on facts.
Disagreements stem from not knowing what the ACTUAL facts are… what the truth is.
How can we know?
How Can We Know????????
Truth is not always agreed upon, based on ignorance ALONE.
Kathryn, I'm not sure you understood my question. The problem is not everyone agree on the same set of facts. The immigration debate is one prime example. The issue at hand is Kate's Law being proposed in Congress. It is a very specific law in response to a problem that killed a women name Kate Steinle in San Francisco. What seems to me to be a reasonable common sense law, is presented by the media for the most part as (an attack on immigrants). How can we have an honest debate when the "facts" are muddled by a dishonest media?
I will try to answer your question this way (it comes from my personal statement of philosophy):
I believe that true or genuine knowledge is not synonymous with “fact” – since “fact” is actually quite subjective. True knowledge is that which emanates from the heart, and resonates with the soul. Common knowledge is rarely common, nor truly knowledge.
I believe that logic is a well studied branch of philosophy, and is very rigorous. However, I have found that one fervent emotion can overcome all the logic in the world. These I believe to be the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
So . . . more specifically in answer to your question - you are correct when you say that not everyone will agree on the same set of facts. Additionally, one strong emotional argument will generally cause people to forget facts altogether. I don't think that the media is "dishonest" so much as the individual journalists are swayed by their emotions. You, as the consumer of media, need to make up your own mind by viewing multiple sources. I don't know if I have helped you or not. Just something more to think about.
Thanks for your insight. So you think the media gets a pass on this and we should rely on each of us to seek out the truth. That's the problem in my opinion. The majority of people does not have the time or inclination to do that. They will read the headlines or watch late night tv show and think they are getting the "fact" when they are really getting "spin". The politicians are no help when they use the media to their advantage instead of doing their job which is watch out for the people who elected them.
Most of the time there seems to be three sides to an issue.
I vote for the Rational Human Beings who think things through.
Here is some statistics -
American public (38% Conservative, 34% Moderate, 24% liberal) according to gallup poll 2014.
The media is 90% Democrat.
Academia is 90% Democrat.
Hollywood celebrities is 90% Democrat.
And we are the "crazies" according to some Republican candidates and Congressman.
by Troy Wilkerson6 years ago
Let's start with something we can all agree on, we're alive, we have a mind but we are also physical beings and one day the physical being will cease to exist. Now class, this is not a philosophical question it's a...
by GA Anderson14 months ago
As the move towards driver-less cars plows forward, one philosophical question raises the ante.In a collision scenario where someone will die; a pedestrian or a passenger in the car, what action should the driver-less...
by peachpower4 years ago
The quote above is one of my favorites. It is a beautiful question, and one that (if you let it), will make you think.It's never too late. So, what would you do?
by Beelzedad6 years ago
This is a question for men or women as it is more of a philosophical question than one of gender.If you were Eve, would you have taken from the tree or obeyed God?
by reggieTull7 years ago
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it - does it make a sound?
by Dave Mathews5 years ago
What If, the serpent had not been able to Con Eve into tasting the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, of Good and Evil? And, What if Eve had not talked Adam into doing the same thing? What would the outcome be and how...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.