Most are familiar with the old saying, “There are three sides to every story: Yours, theirs, and the truth”. I believe this is wrong and I’ll tell you why.
First, let me start be acknowledging that when people use that expression as a defense for the attackers I immediately realize they have nothing real to offer. You know what type of people I believe rely on this? Liars. It’s their attempt to deflect the truth by casting doubt on me. That’s okay, I don’t mind. In fact I’m more-than-fine with anyone who wants to know the truth. Seriously, that side of the story will work perfectly.
The Third Side to a Story
For the sake of discussion, let’s just assume no one is a bald-faced liar when telling their side of a story. Otherwise we could simplify this and just say there are only two sides: The truth and a lie. So to me, what this means is the correct way to express this is : There are three sides to every story: What you believe occurred, what they believed occurred, and what actually occurred (i.e., the truth).
Am I making sense so far?
Okay, good. Let’s use a three car crash as an example. Here’s the set-up:
- Car #1 hits Car #2, rendering it incapacitated.
- Car #3 then hits incapacitated Car #2.
- Therefore, Car #2 was hit by two other cars.
- Both the drivers from Car #1 and Car #3 admit they hit Car #2.
- Bystanders collaborate what occurred.
- Specifically, while Car #2 was disabled from Car #1, Car #3 slammed into it. The net effect from both impacts is Car #2 is totaled.
Here’s the beauty of this. Not only is this the truth of what occurred, but since all agree it occurred, it is the undisputed truth.
Proving Undisputed Truth 
Two things must happen: (1) All premises are true, and (2) the logic is valid.
- Premise 1: Actual Truth (A) = Your Belief of the Truth (B); or A=B
- Premise 2: Actual Truth (A) = Their Belief of the Truth (C); or A=C
Since both premises (arguments) are true and the logic is valid, the principle of equivalence may be applied; expressed as A=B=C, hence the undisputed truth is proven.
Note: Did you notice that B=C (Your Belief of the Truth = Their Belief of the Truth) is not a premise? This is because the only valid logical absolute is A, the Actual Truth. Even though both (B and C) agree on their belief of the truth, it still might not be the actual truth. [Footnote 1]
Now, let me make this personally applicable:
- Jonathan May punched Ryan, rendering him incapacitated.
- Austin Vantrease kicked Ryan while incapacitated.
- Therefore, Ryan was battered/assaulted by Jonathan May and Austin Vantrease.
- Both Jonathan May and Austin Vantrease admitted they attacked Ryan.
- Witnesses collaborate what occurred.
- Specifically, while Ryan was lying unconscious and prone from the Jonathan May sucker-punch, Austin Vantrease kicked him in the head with such force that it was described as “he punted his head like a football”. The net effect from both attacks is Ryan suffered traumatic brain injury.
Do you see how nicely everything lines up between the car crash example and a real life crime? There shouldn’t be any disagreement from anyone in the facts as I listed them in bullet form above. If so, this is where we would invoke “there’s two sides to every story” that I explained earlier. Barring that, then there you have it… the undisputed truth.
Here’s where I’m going with all of this. Although I am confident my belief of the truth is not one iota different from the actual truth, I’m fine if you discount it. Hell, it is a website I personally developed where I share my thoughts and opinions openly. And yes, I style my writings from my belief of the truth. All I want is for you to listen to me. Let me tell my side of the story.
want need everyone to know the actual truth! I rely on it to support my efforts. It is my ally.
[Footnote 1] This is my original work as an attempt to postulate “Undisputed Truth”. I hereby expressly claim all intellectual and content rights, to include copyright.