Are you inclined to step between two friends who are arguing?

Question

or do you prefer to leave things alone and let them work it out?

Answer 1

most arguments, especially those between friends are silly.

sometimes you what to get them together, quickly, with just a slight push to the back of their heads.

mostly i see the humor in it and start laughing.

for some reason they stop to see what I was laughing about.

Answer 2

Intervening in a verbal argument is morally wrong because their issue is not of our affair. An exception to this ( it could be argued, itself) would be the case whereby a third party had a positive solution to offer the 'oral' combatants, which would resolve the issue, leaving all parties contented.

If the clash is of a physical nature, where life or limb may be at risk of losing, it becomes the moral imperative to intervene!

If one witnesses the gargantuan neighbour pummeling his little wife, I believe it would be criminal to ignore the situation, cravenly writing it all off: " It's their business. Let them work it out."

Of course, in this scenario, the prudent course of action would be to phone the cops. But, sometimes, one has to engage the warring parties in a courageous, peacekeeping (making) fashion.

And so humans will fight. From one-on-one, regiment against regiment, cruise missile versus cruise missile, fighting is inherent in our nature unfortunately. However, when the bully smacks around the little defenseless grade 1er, when the innocent are oppressed and when genocide is committed, it is the good in mankind that compels the brave to protect, and battle evil.

Answer 3

If I can mediate without hurting either person then I will but more often than not I tend to let people work things out. So much can get lost in translation or miscommunicated that you could end up losing two friends. Best to leave things alone when it comes to friends.

Answer 4

I hope I have learned that lesson. The last time I spoke to my sister, many years ago now, I made the major mistake of getting involved in a disagreement between her and her husband. As any cop who has to answer domestic disturbance calls can tell you, they usually turn on whoever interferes. So my husband pointed out that probably the best thing I could do for them was to provide them with a common enemy. They could thus agree on one thing, at least: That I am a rhymes-with-rich.

I wrote my sister a long letter recently, now that my husband is dead, trying to re-establish communications. No answer.

Answer 5

I usually like to let them work things out. However, if it keeps going on, I will step in and try to get them to work out the problem.

Answer 6

I will only become an arbitrator if it gets the point when what they disagree upon may permanently break their friendship. Otherwise, I let them work it out themselves and since most people can do that, I don't generally step into it.

Answer 7

My sisters puts it beautifully,
Some people turn over the apple cart, others kick the apples around, still others throw them, but then there are people like me, who feel the necessity to pick up all the apples and put them back.
So, yes, I'll stand between them.

Answer 8

Depends on the subject and whether you are involved in the conflict in the beginning. It's better to state facts than to take sides though, and if you have to facts to give then its better to shut your mouth and leave it alone.

Answer 9

i don't like when friends fight...however, quite often, two people can 'argue' and work things out to a civil conclusion without any intervention...i'd keep an eye on things-i know my friends well enough to know when things are about to get out of hand-and i'd definitely intervene before it came to lost tempers and a chance of violence

Answer 10

I tend to try to difuse the situation. I truly want everyone to get along. Kind of an oxymoron for a soldier!