<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 12:16 PM 11/15/2013, R. Micha wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at
02:23:05PM -0800, Michael Orr wrote:<br>
:
Compromise of one's self interest often good, but would we<br>
: say that we must compromise our principles? The story of RSZA
suggests<br>
: otherwise, and emphaisizes that we must often be willing to
compromise<br>
: our "entitlements" in order to do this.<br><br>
Kol hamaavir al midosav<br>
maarivin lo al kol chatosav.<br><br>
Although I wonder how I'm supposed to weigh my "rights" against
their<br>
offense. It's nice to spend time and money to avoid offending a
woman,<br>
even in a context where I feel she's in the wrong but couldnt' know
any<br>
better. (Doesn't that describe RSZA's stance vis-a-vis this woman
sitting<br>
on his bench on the bus in non-tzanuah attire?) But how much loss is<br>
mandatory, how much is laudible, and when does it become bal
tashchis?<br><br>
To put it another way:<br>
1- Kol hamaariv al midosav, vs<br>
2- Ours is not a religion that lauds willing victimhood.<br>
How do I make peace with both?<br>
</blockquote><br>
Compromise is possible and works when people are not heavily emotionally
invested in an issue. In other words, if they can approach a
situation primarily from an intellectual standpoint. Emotionally
charged situations do not lend themselves to compromise. <br><br>
YL</font></body>
<br>
</html>