Do you take sides?..Or do you compromise?

Answer 1

I'm definitely one to take sides. I tend to look at things objectively, not subjectively, which some say is unusual, but nevertheless, I believe that a true right and wrong exist for everything. Of course, this applies to certain situations, and sometimes (most of the time) there's no way we can truly know what the right choice is, but I believe it always exists, and improvement comes from getting closer to that "right".

As far as compromising, I find it naive sometimes. There are certain situations where compromising might work, but often, a plan relies on other components of the same plan.

Let me think of an example. Let's say you need to keep rabbits out of your garden. You have $50, which can buy a fence to completely encircle the garden, and you can also buy (I don't know if it exists, but let's just go with it) rabbit repellent. $50 would be enough to cover the whole garden. Now, say you are arguing, maybe you want to fence the garden, and whoever else owns it argues that you should use repellent. If you do half and half, you can cover half the garden with repellent, and fence off half of it. That would just be foolish, but that's what a lot of situations are like when you try to compromise, and if you get into the mathematics, half the perimeter of fence won't surround half of the area, so you inevitably have to expose part of the garden. Basically what I mean is, it's one plan or the other, compromising weakens it.

That probably wasn't the best example, but it's 3 in the morning, and I'm tired.

Answer 2

I usually take the good side and not the bad side. However, i allow both sides to have the opportunity to be heard. This is a basic right for every individual - the right to be heard. Given the fact that both parties would not give way. Then compromise enters. This is an adjustment for sttlement by arbitration and mutual concession in order to set aside their principles. Otherwise there will be no opportunity for two parties to be settled or enter into a mutual agreement. Compromise is still the best option to do. This i think will prevent law suits from both parties.

Thanks to your question. Have a great day!

Answer 3

Let's say that--if I'm dealing with a broad ranged, serious issue & I'm sufficiently informed to have confidence in my logic, & moral compass, yet some agree & some disagree--I would maintain my position, but NEVER argue it as to right or wrong, nor would I compromise. This wouldn't be taking "sides," right?
However, in personal transactions where friends are in dispute, I tend to put myself in everyone's shoes & by staying in "neutral," not imposing my views, try to lead them (on their own) to some sort of harmony in their differences.
I must say, however, that "arguing" is NEVER a solution to anything, & that when appropriate, compromise is best. As in--a friend & I are going to dinner; they prefer French & I prefer Asian. I'll defer to them. It isn't any great sacrifice! It would be different if they ALWAYS WANTED their way. This would have to be mutual.
Also, obviously, compromises that aren't at all pragmatic, as in Give me a best answer's analogy, would never apply.

Answer 4

Issues where I have firm views, I take the side based on my view and where I don't have any firm views, I compromise..... well it is not so much compromise as it is having a flexible approach.

I rarely take sides based on personalities involved.... that approach actually makes me less efficient and endearing in so far as 'relationships' go..... however, those who are really close to me, do know me and accept me that way.

Answer 5

i never take sides. i don't compromise. i argue. taking sides is unfair and biased. making a compromise seem a temporary solution. if you argue, you get to know the real score. and if you argue correctly, both sides should wave the white flag, because an argument determines whether one is right and the other is wrong. when an argument is finished, don't take sides too. it's like presupposing that you took his side early on. =) i'm neutrally inclined to form my own opinion independent from theirs so there is an outsider perspective. and i don't judge who is right and wrong too. they must know for themselves if they were right, or wrong all along. i'm just the spectator, nothing more. and if it gets ugly, then i get to be the referee. =)

Answer 6

When there is concrete basis such as ethical issues or the good of many involved then I’ll take side otherwise I’ll just observe detached from the comings and goings.
I’m able to go with the flow or swim against the ‘river’ depending on the case.

Answer 7

"Compromise, if now not the spice of existence, is its solidity. It is what makes international locations best and marriages glad" Sometimes we must compromise anything for persons practically our center.....if its real love we wont consider that as compromise or sacrifice...... May be within the starting, we can consider like we misplaced anything...however we will be able to and we can effortlessly arise, absolutely no lack of wish coz we did that just for our family :-) "The happiness of our family will end up main for us" All your questions are very well :-) Have a best weekend candy sis :-)

Answer 8

I only takes sides if it is a clear-cut decision dealing with matters of principle. I won't compromise my priniciples; however, I am very flexible, a good listener, and very rational when it comes to making decisions.

Answer 9

Rather than take my own side I compromise.

Answer 10

Neither.

I make a logical deduction on who is correct based on given information and circumstances... and then take sides. I take the side of the person whom I think is correct (and that person does not necessarily have to be a friend to you to be correct).