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 [1]
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.
I 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.
Also I hope your son maintains the strength he has, and will continue to have the support of those around him; the previous post was only a debate of logical, however I do hope that differences come from this tragedy; you and your family are strong.
Not sure if you’re attempting to say that this quote is entirely incorrect or only partially..
If you’re stating this quote is entirely wrong all the time then you’ve not delved into the realms of philosophy or psychology, as knowledge in either of these areas tells you that infallible truth is a logical fallacy.
Lets take the example of people who have missing limbs yet still feel pain where that limb used to be; the pain is 100% real in their individual reality yet there is no limb therefore how can there be pain? This is the perfect example of how your subjective senses are the basis for your world and your perception of it. Because our senses are fallible and therefore unreliable there is absolutely no way one can argue with 100% certainty that the entire truth is that of someone’s view. This is known as Pyrrhonism; the position within philosophy which holds that nothing can be known for certain as senses and logic are both fallible in their own respects therefore attaining unequivocal truth is literally impossible.
This ultimately proves that because everyone’s reality is subjective and relies upon fallible senses and that rationality that is never entirely objective that the quote “three sides” in fact more accurate than having two sides. No matter how much someone will agree on a topic or event, the very individualistic nature of perceiving reality means that the story will be different on the basis of eyesight alone; let alone their own personal biases.
If you are arguing that this quote is partially incorrect I’ll let you have that; because while there may be three sides to every story, that doesn’t mean the stories won’t be very similar. However to totally disregard the notion of subjective realities altering “truths” is illogical.
However if Pyrrhonism is correct then perhaps this little debate doesn’t even exist for that within my mind and I am only debating another aspect of my brain. Who knows.
In the law of torts, a causal connection exists between a particular act and an injury when the injury would not have arisen but for the act. This is known as the but for rule or sine qua non rule.
I just want to apologize again for any inference that this was in any way behavior that someone should not step up and take accountability for their actions. I only disagree with the idea that there is not more sides to a story and that people can understand different sides but still support one due to their beliefs and emotions.
It was never my intention to excuse or blame the situation on alcohol. I apologize if it came off that way. It was just why I saw people saying that there were other sides. I personally know people that alcohol has effected their behavior which may have gotten carried over here but was not my point.
You’re simple equation just doesn’t add up to me. It’d be like saying people who cheat on a test are dishonest. Person A cheated on a test. Person A is dishonest. End result.
Does that simple truth make them a dishonest person? Or just one action?
As for test taking example, they are a cheater. They are, in fact, dishonest. They demonstrated they are capable of it. Also, you already defined them as dishonest too.
I’ll leave the last word with you.
Lisa, How many people who have been out drinking with their friends for the night do you know that have kicked an unconscious person in the head while on the ground. Ryan said something that the May/Vantrease clan did not like, that is why he was attacked. Ryan was not attacked because he was drinking. May/Vantrease attacked and their friends allowed/watched this happen to Ryan because of evil. I don’t know anyone who has kicked someone in the head, drunk or sober.
Have you sucker punched or kicked someone in the head because they said something you disagree with? This is not normal behavior, it is learned and imitated.
Hey Ken,
I’m curious as to your viewpoint on alcohol and whether that affects the ‘truth’ of what happened as far as intent, reaction, or purpose. Let me begin by saying that in no way am I defending any attack and that this question is coming purely from the respect I have of the way you logically break down your thoughts and beliefs. .
Lets say car 2 switched lanes without using its blinker… Does that change the ‘truth’ of the situation? What if he was switching lanes illegal and car 1 was properly following all rules? Now what if car 1 was speeding? Or car 1 was under the influence of alcohol.
I also don’t like the saying that there’s 3 sides to every story but I don’t think there’s only 1 either. I believe the ‘truth’ encompasses so much more than a simple equation like that. The end result of course unfortunately still the same but its the intent and situations beforehand that people view in the ‘truth’ to the age old “3 sides to every story”
Could copious amounts of alcohol caused impaired judgement that at least escalated bad decisions and violence? Could you truely believe that evil was inherent in these attackers hearts?
When dealing with human emotions no simple equation will ever fit every side of the story.
Lisa, the answer is “no” to all the hypothetical questions as the whether it affects the actual truth. They don’t.
However, they are excellent examples of how people try to pass off phony and unrelated events (or both, now that I think about it) as the truth.
Do you see the flaw? (Hint: Non Sequitur, or the fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection). To use your example, we would incorrectly conclude Car #2/Ryan is totaled because Car #1/Jonathan May was intoxicated. Actually, there are at least two more flaws (Post Hoc and Red Herring) but I guess the one that first came to mind is enough to make my point.
My equation — which I think is brilliant — was to postulate undisputed actual truth, not human emotion. What you did was another fallacy, called False Analogy (incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion). Specifically, here’s what you said… “Just like you cannot make emotion a simple formula, the truth is never easy to figure out”. Emotion and truth are unrelated in this argument, so it doesn’t make logical sense.
Any more questions?
Found this article on Yahoo, not sure if it can help or not.
Vegetative man tells doctors ‘I’m not in pain’ via MRI communication
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/vegetative-man-tells-doctors-m-not-pain-via-020801923.html;_ylt=AlBSfM_Lh_vQ4axuJOkh526s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNpYnAxc2l0BG1pdAMEcGtnAzFkNzNmN2QxLTc2NTktMzFhNy1iNTk0LTE3NzlkODE4YmExZARwb3MDMTAEc2VjA2xuX1lhaG9vTmV3c19nYWwEdmVyAzYzOThjNzMyLTJlMDctMTFlMi05MDAyLTNjZDkyYmZmMjAxNg–;_ylv=3
Yes. We did see it, but please keep letting us know if you come across anything else!
I’ll simplify your premise Ken since I doubt anyone opposing Team Diviney can understand your well-founded Logic or have any “Principles”** They can’t possibly understand validity, truth or rules of inference. 1. Because they don’t follow rules or laws. 2. They think perception is reality which it’s not. 3. They are dumb, mean and hateful. (sorry, let’s call a spade a spade)
Bottom line: Solely looking at the night of the attack–RYAN WOULD NOT HAVE A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY & CONSTANT LIFE THREATENING MEDICAL CHALLENGES had they NOT TOUCHED HIM!!!! —-There is no rationale, excuse or meditation that would change this truth!!
**Ken, your wonderful logic and truthful writing will continue to garner even more support. More will help fight the oppressor AND SIGN THE PETITION! and continue to keep Ryan relevant:0)
God bless you dear Ken. We ‘get it’ — but still a good thing to express it exactly as you have….just for those who might not have understood it fully. Prayers, thoughts and love to you all, Annie
Hi Ken, if I know nothing else about you, I know this:
1. You are a brutally honest person and
2. You are a champion of what is just and fair
ANYONE who knows you knows this is true.
Sending you my love and prayers always
Paula
Ken, We believe as you and always have or wouldn’t be here. How some can think differently is beyond me. A defenseless young man,Ryan, was viciously kicked in the head ..Thats the side I see,there is no other!
I just pray for justice in all ways
I am so very sorry you and your family have to go through all this s&*#t
Always here and will help in any way I can.
Love Gail
It’s ridiculous that you even have to try and explain this to anyone. My. Gosh. Any honest, upstanding, moral and empathetic normal person gets it. Any rationale thinker wouldn’t dream of trying to get around it. Team Diviney just gets stronger <3