"Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong"

[mjr]

Is that lyric in the Buffalo Springfield song "For What It's Worth" a good statement? Is it valid? Is it correct today?

Consider, if you will, most "hot button" controversial topics (abortion, LGBT rights, gun control, etc).

Both "sides" think they're right, and the other side is wrong. Both "sides" also like to think they have a moral or ethical "high ground".

So, who's right, and who actually has the high ground?

To be fair, there are things that both "sides" believe are axiomatically wrong (murder, for instance).

What say you?

[s_stabeler]

Well, first, the debate on abortion generally surrounds at what point the foetus can be considered to actually be alive, as opposed to a particularly large tumor. it's similar with gun control- excepting the true lunatic fringes, most people, I think, accept there should be some restrictions on gun ownership, where disagreement occurs is where the line is drawn.

[mjr]

Well, first, the debate on abortion generally surrounds at what point the foetus can be considered to actually be alive, as opposed to a particularly large tumor.

Valid, but again, there are two somewhat opposed arguments here as to when:

A: "at conception"
B: "viability outside the mother"

Again, the question is, who's "right"? One set of people believes A, another believes B. Is A right? Is B right? Are neither right?

accept there should be some restrictions on gun ownership, where disagreement occurs is where the line is drawn.

Again, valid. But again, who is "right" on where that line should be drawn? Group A might believe it should be drawn at X spot, and Group B might believe it should be drawn at Y spot.

Unless the ultimate answer is that there is no right answer (which I don't think a lot of people believe), in which case the arguments would simply result in stalemates either way.

[Canarr]

It depends. For both abortion and gun control, IMO, there is no right or wrong. As stated, it's mostly about where to draw the line between the extreme positions. Neither party is right, and neither is wrong (well, maybe except for the extremists at either end).

With LGBT rights, it's different - here, it's about people wanting to have the same rights that other people enjoy, and some of said other people wanting to deny them that. And in my book, if your position boils down to denying other human beings the same rights you have, that puts you clearly in the wrong.

[mjr]

As stated, it's mostly about where to draw the line between the extreme positions.

Valid, but again, the same argument could be made regarding that line between the extreme positions. And no matter where one group wants the line drawn, they're going to tell the other group they're wrong.

With LGBT rights, it's different - here, it's about people wanting to have the same rights that other people enjoy, and some of said other people wanting to deny them that. And in my book, if your position boils down to denying other human beings the same rights you have, that puts you clearly in the wrong.

I understand the point you're making, and I will counter with this: We, in general, can't decide (in many cases) what our rights actually are, and we argue about it.

We can't agree on interpretations of the Constitution (and, in some cases, what's in it and what's not), either. And so we argue the right/wrong thing.

Two good examples are the 1st and 2nd Amendments. As far as the 1st Amendment, people (in my opinion) seem to forget the "Congress shall pass no law..." part of it. And people can't agree whether or not "freedom of religion" is actually codified in the Constitution.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, there are constant arguments about what "a well regulated militia", "the people", and "shall not be infringed" means.

Those are also two examples of what I mean. Who is right in those cases?

[TheHuckster]

Again, the question isn't who's right or who's wrong. It's what kind of compromise can we agree on? And this is true for virtually every political position, including tax rates and labor laws. It's just that positions on abortion are usually far more polarizing and stubborn. For pro-lifers, there is no compromise after conception. If there was, they'd automatically become pro-choice.

Abortion is a contentious issue because, like it or not, it's something both sides feel very strongly about, whether it's to end a life or give the fetus's host the freedom to choose. There isn't much middle ground to consider here. Either you support abortion or you don't. There might be some discussion about where the line is on whether to ban late-term or partial-birth abortions, or which week of gestation to consider the line, but that debate is among those who are already pro-choice.

Gun control, I think, is a bit different. There are many positions people hold on the issue, but it's all clouded by the extremists, and that's the other thing to look at: The media loves concentrating on the extremists. They'll interview some pro-gun fringe group president who is lobbying for every citizen 5 years or older to be required to carry guns in public, or some other group who thinks caulking guns should be licensed to construction workers only, and they give viewers the impression that these two positions are the only valid ones. So, when a regular joe says he'd like to see tighter restrictions on guns, even if that means they need formal training before they're allowed access to one, anyone who identifies as pro-gun will tar and feather them, and those who identify as anti-gun will scream about how that just isn't enough, and he ought to join the NRA.

I know a lot of the above is hyperbole, but I've observed this pattern among a lot of people who are glued to cable news. To a lot of these types of people, every issue has exactly two sides with a fine line between them, and you have to make a choice between one or the other.

[mjr]

Reasonable and well thought-out, Huckster.

Cognitive Dissonance and language I think play a role as well.

Consider: When a woman has a sonogram for the first time, the person doing the sonogram doesn't say "there's your fetus". It's almost always "there's your baby".

Hold up a "first" sonogram to most people and ask them what they see. Most of them won't say "a fetus". Most, I would guess, would probably say "a baby".

Are they "wrong", or is it a matter of perspective?

Regarding the compromise argument that you made, I don't know that one can be reached, even amongst most reasonable, rational people.

Unfortunately, I also think a lot of personal perspective and mis-information lead to possible conflicts as well. Like the story (I think I commented on it here) of the guy who wrote the article about how "terrifying" it was to fire an AR-15, then a video came out of a guy who put the butt of one right up against his nose, and fired five rounds. Were both of those a matter of perspective? If neither of them are right, can they both be wrong? Is there a middle ground there, as well?

Or people who are fed the mis-information that the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle. It doesn't. A quick internet search can tell someone exactly what it stands for. It stands for ArmaLite Rifle. ArmaLite is the manufacturer.

We can even go so far as to witnesses to a crime. If person A sees events X, Y, and Z, and person B sees events 1, 2, and 3, but the events differ, is one right and one wrong? Is it a matter of perspective? Are they both right/wrong?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

That's not really cognitive dissonance though.

Cognative dissonance is information/facts running contrary to ones beliefs. So a Trump supporter blithely disregarding facts in favor of alternate facts or a gun control advocate who disregards a study suggesting gun ownership improves overall safety (not sure many of those actually exist, but for the sake o this).

The problem with the sonogram example is context. In order for you to receive one, either you are monitoring the health of a fetus you are intending to actually carry to term (or you're in one o those states requiring one as an abortion restriciton) and in that context, the doctor or nurse or tech is NOT going to use impersonal jargon dually because in that context it makes no sense to, and it would actually raise the hackles of a prospective parent.

That doesn't change the fact that a scientist, doctor, and yes a woman having an abortion is going to call it a fetus because it's not viable outside the womb, it's developing, scientifically you can prove a lack of cognitive development, and we know what stage most of the development is at prior to it being viable.

For me, the debate itself has always been a bit absurd. A woman who miscarries is not charged with involuntary homicide. Even biblically, if somone punched a woman and she miscarried, Exodus 21:22 exists (which I've seen some modified versions now at this point.) I've always found it interesting how often that is underplayed by the religious when it's their freakin' text.

[mjr]

For me, the debate itself has always been a bit absurd. A woman who miscarries is not charged with involuntary homicide. Even biblically, if somone punched a woman and she miscarried, Exodus 21:22 exists (which I've seen some modified versions now at this point.) I've always found it interesting how often that is underplayed by the religious when it's their freakin' text.

Exodus 21:22-25 reads:

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and vhe shall pay as the wjudges determine. 23 But if there is harm,4 then you shall pay xlife for life, 24 yeye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Could that be interpreted to mean that since there is "harm" during a pregnancy termination, that the doctor should be in some sort of trouble?

Especially 23-25?

I know this is Old Testament, and in the New Testament Christ teaches us we should be loving and forgiving, but I think it's an interesting question to ask.

[s_stabeler]

I think the "harm" was essentially the loss of the benefit that a kid could bring ( for a son, another person to work the fields, for a girl, the possibility of benefiting from her marriage (it was the era when a woman choosing her husband freely was unheard of, remember)

But seriously, the way I see it, forcibly causing a miscarriage without the mother's consent should be a crime, because the harm- aside from potentially rendering the woman unable to carry a foetus to term (because you can damage the womb)- is in depriving the parents of having a very much wanted child- it's to reflect the fact that there's a different intent behind the crime.

[HYHYBT]

Imprecise or hopeful language isn't cognitive dissonance, nor is it contradicting the more technically precise way the same person might speak under different circumstances, nor is it hypocritical, nor anything else along those lines.

Suppose I'm making a cake. I mix together eggs, sugar, whatever in a bowl. At this point, I believe everyone seeing this post (if anyone does) would agree that the bowl does not contain a cake, but only batter. Immediately after I pour it into a cake pan and put it into the oven, it is still just batter. I may REFER to it as "my cake," because I intend and hope that it will become one in due course, and it is progressing in that direction in the expected way. If, while it is cooking (and is in an in-between state I don't know the name for, if it has one, something more cake-like than raw batter, but more batter-like than a finished cake) you slam the door and it falls, I may say "my cake is ruined," referring both to the half-baked mess that *would have been* a good cake had its baking not been interfered with.

Now, if I insisted on putting "batter" in scare quotes whenever referring to the goop in the bowl and insisted it really is a real cake, the same thing and of the same value as one that has finished baking, you'd think I was nuts, right? But if I just showed it to you and said "the cake's only this far along," you'd think nothing of it. Certainly you wouldn't accuse me of anything nefarious by my using the word "cake" instead of "batter."

[mjr]

I think we're getting slightly askew here. The question, I suppose, is one of interpretation. Again, I go back to the first two Amendments to the Constitution. We Americans can't even actually agree on who's "right" regarding them.

To wit, what does "Congress shall pass no law" mean?

WRT the 2nd Amendment: What does

"A well regulated Militia", "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and "shall not be infringed" mean?

People have different interpretations, and again, to quote the song "nobody's right, if everybody's wrong."