There is a thin line between compromise and stupidity. Do you agree?

Question

Sometimes we compromise things so that there wouldnt be any conflict. but it gets to the point where it is already stupid doing that when others think it's not even worth it. Do you agree?

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that you are asking
two questions.
The first question reads is there a thin line between
compromise and stupidity.
The second questions reads what are the preconditions
for validating a compromise scenario.

Proper definition of the second question should answer the
first question.

Regarding the second question as I read it asks what is
the level of significance at which the process of compromise
becomes relevant. In other words, why compromise over
petty or trivial content. If my interpretation is correct then
I would state that content is the culprit. What might be trivial
to you might not be trivial to your correspondant. Considering
a communication between friends it is arguable that
if one friend is not certain that content is trivial to another
friend then the friend should consider their friendship
for triviality. If the friend decides that the friendship is
not trivial then the friend might ask if compromise is
necessary. In other words, if significance determines
compromise relevance then deeming content to be
insignificant raises the question is it worth compromising
my friendship for such an insignificant content.
If in doubt then offer compromise.

In my opinion, there is not a thin line between compromise
and stupidity. Compromise is a procedure for interaction.
Stupidity is an adjective which describes an individual's
opinion about the object of the interaction. Therefore, an
individual can proceed to compromise with care for the
significant people involved with the insignificant "stupid"
content. Furthermore, drawing a line between a procedural
action and an adjective state raises a question of
comparability between the two.

Answer 3

To me, compromise is an agreement between two or more people when the cards or expectations are all out on the table and an agreement can be made, stupidity is letting one more person die at the hands of this psychiatric system and these drugs especially without doing all that we can to educate each other and others and finding a way to stop it!

Answer 4

If you were the only person on earth, you would still be making compromises in the sense you are using the word 'compromise', in the negative sense. 'Compromise' means 'together promise'. Honor is a civil concept and comes of promise honored. Barbarity disregards or has no concept for honor. So, if it comes to the 'not even worth it' condition you are hinting at, then perhaps agreeing to the conditions that engagement in physical and political combat is to become honorable. In that way honor is retained, but I continue to be vacant of your meaning in your 'not worth it' hypothesis.

Answer 5

compromise is for use by people without the resolve or ability to impose their will on the situation. i wouldnt say there is a thin line between compromise and stupidity, but there is a thin line between compromise and weakness

Answer 6

A compromise should not require sacrifice for either party. Sacrifice is defined as trading away a greater value for a lesser one. If you're making a compromise it needs to be worthwhile for both parties. If either side has to accommodate to the other and ends up making a sacrifice, then it's truly not a compromise any longer.

Answer 7

(Psa 40:4) Blessed [is] that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies
(Psa 56:11) In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto me.
(Phl 3:1) ¶ Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed [is] not grievous, but for you [it is] safe.
( Phl 3:2) Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
( Phl 3:3) For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
( Phl 3:4) Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
( Phl 3:5) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
( Phl 3:6) Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
( Phl 3:7) But what things were gain to me, those I counted
loss for Christ.
There is a thin line between compromise and stupidity! OH YES! THERE IS And We Cross It Each and Every Day.

Answer 8

No, they are two different things.To me compromise is two sides of an issue meeting somewhere in the middle , maybe, but stupid is one mind making unitelligent decisions.

Answer 9

sure, there certainly is. there is an exceedingly superb line between genius and stupidity- and you'd know which you have needless to say handed the stupidity barriers in case you finally end up listening to Miley Cyrus' music.

Answer 10

Compromise is usually a recognition of the limits of ambition.

It is only stupid when it's unimformed.

Answer 11

Well compromise can change daily whereas stupidity can become a trait! donalore