You don't like that person.
You don't even like how that person reacts.
You don't even like how that person's idea is far better than you.
But you're both the same part of the team, and everyone else on the team is split on doing your thing or their thing.
What will you do?
There's a thing in this modern day of age, and it's called picking sides. You do it every day. You choose which type of food you get, which type of clothes you get to wear, who to support, who to join, who follow. Yes or no. Agree or disagree. You like, you don't like.
Usually, people who just confine themselves to these two sides aren't able to see the wider world and the choices that happen due to picking sides. They always pick the side that they always wanted to stay with, and from that side, they will learn more.
In every argument, there are always consequences. If you acknowledge them, it might be too late.
Let's give ourselves some examples on when to back down and agree to each other's motives, excluding our introductory scenario. One of the real-life applications of this action can be seen with debates. Specifically, debates where there is a clear side who wins and someone still believes in their sides. The best way to keep a friendly relation with the enemy is to agree and know more about their side and be able to show faults to each others' logic that you both agree on things.
Here's also another example that might work in favor, but it's a comedic skit that I had just remembered.
After you watched it, you'll see the confused guy go on that steel is heavier than feathers despite everyone around him saying it's both a kilogram.
If the guy persists, then just let it be and accept they can't accept it.
The fact that the motion of agreeing to disagreeing exists meant that we always had a want for a compromise. However, this wanting of compromises may also cause the argument to fall apart, as some parts of the argument may simply be unethical or not acceptable to both parties.
For a modern example, we have BUIP166. In a nutshell, it's a Bitcoin Unlimited Improvement Proposal that wants Bitcoin Unlimited to create a new coin. However, one can say it's a conflict of interest, and another might say it is useful for Bitcoin Cash itself.
You'll see the argument might be more leaning to the fact that Bitcoin Unlimited is a purely-BCH node client, despite their business model. What that business model depends on who you ask.
This was an unfinished article I had before and with the thing of BUIP166 over Bitcoin Unlimited's side of things, this is simply my reaction to it. You can see the shift in tone as I wrote this article.
I agree to disagree that they need a new coin just to develop for Bitcoin Cash.
Others may not, however.
Anyhow, I wanted to write this out but my muse hasn't really returned. I tried.
This is Rowan, signing off.
