Quote:
Originally posted by Xugumad
Why do you automatically assume people are only telling the half-truth if their statements are at odds with your own emotional response?
|
Because there are two sides to every story. I make it a personal rule that whenever I hear one side of the story, I never, never, <I>never</I> make a judgment on it until I hear the other side.
So to answer your question, I assume people are telling the half-truth because most people have a position on an issue and only tell their half of the story. Your links to legitgov.org, an organization that, as they state on their front page, is an "activist group established to expose the Bush coup d'etat, and to oppose the Bush occupation in all of its manifestations" isn't exactly hearing the other side of the story.
Now UT's link was different. It was an objective report that showed the other side of the story. And while there was "more to the story" than what the /. poster said or what legitgov.org posted, I wholeheartedly agree that the police were pretty much all washed up here. So yes, I agree this is a case of trampling the first amendment, but I didn't come to that conclusion until I heard both sides.
Why is it that you chide me in one thread for what you consider as my blythely accepting the president's PR as truth, but expect me to do the exact same thing when I hear it from somewhere else? Why should I expect that people are telling the whole story when there is obviously an agenda to their one-sided representation? And why do you assume my response is "emotional"?