I heard part of this program last night. It was about the storage of nuclear waste in Germany. A reporter was touring a nuclear waste storage site with two advocates.
What was fascinating (to me), was that despite the fact the two advocates had never met before, they were discussing this contentious issue. (And the discussion became heated - again, complete strangers before this conversation). Each advocate (for the opposing side) understood and anticipated the other person's argument.
It reminded me of the sword fight scene in "The Princess Bride" - where Inigo Montoya and "the Dread Pirate Roberts" talk about the fighting moves they're using.
I realized - I've seen this before. I see it all the time when people discuss mormonism on the internet (or elsewhere). I've read it in discussions between former and current mormons. Two people who may or may not have access to the same sources - who may or may not be aware of all the sources. Who (probably) disagree on the meanings of basic terms (like feminism).
At one point in the nuclear waste story, someone said "Your side has never admitted that they're wrong. Name one thing that your side has admitted was wrong".
Are all controversial subjects like this? When two side of people feel passionately about an issue? Does it always devolve into always and never - rife with assumptions on both sides?
In the mormon/former mormon world, particularly on the internets - the answer is yes.