Most likely to be published later this summer of 2022, my 12th book entitled appropriately; Propositions, Problems & Poems on the Peculiar Human ABILITY to REASON, Singular Human RIGHT to CONSENT & Other Neglected Matters. The following will probably be included upon further editing, and front cover a slightly modified yet appropriate version of the 10th and 11th books...
Again, commonly accepted the notion and phrase silence implies consent or better known in Latin qui tacet consentire videtur, however it is covetous, presumptuous, arrogant therefore unethical to make such a broad conclusion. For to appropriately contrast and rightfully contend, so must state the logical, consistent, ethical alternative, dissent implied by silence, or to appropriately translate in Latin qui tacet dissentire videtur until explicitly consented.
Consequently to propose and define logically, consistently hence ethically; violence is one’s action directed towards then against another’s dissent explicit or dissent implicit per consent unexpressed. It matters not the former person’s intent, objective, benefit, nor office if politically empowered, else station or status if socially, financially endowed, neither the latter person’s error in judgment or resulting detriment in so dissenting; violation thus violence nonetheless! The point of course Dissent should always be one's assumption of another's posture, until the latter individually, explicitly consents. This is observably, logically, consistently, ethically so for all matters!
For those who argue in favor of various politics, governmental systems as well social contracts, to contend that silence implies consent or silent/noncontentious participation implies consent as often argued conveniently so to support the aforesaid, then unavoidable, inescapable the covetousness and presumption preceding as well arrogance and violence proceeding.
And so, what are both considerations if harmful or injurious but actions or activities against explicit even implicit dissent therefore perceived as harmed or injured the individual’s person, propensity, prerogative, preference, purpose as well profession, purse, possession and property. To simplify, only the individual’s conclusion on the matter thus dissent versus consent, determines the harm or injury versus no harm nor injury. To reiterate, only presumption and arrogance well rooted in covetousness would object to such a method of determination regarding social contracts even constitutions, governmental systems, political isms and more save one; Individualism!
---
Ergo subtle nuances, so it goes, snakes in pile, calm
or riled
Good portends, while Evil pretends, as sanity slips
into exile
To Patmos isle, upon insanity’s bile, to flirt in
foolish mirth
Misanthropes de trop or not, tho’ hoping of one
logical firth
Logic insofar Boolean thus seen, it seems, in forms
algebraic
Rhymes of recent times while archaic and Aramaic upon
mosaic
Gates, tables, expressions as codes scribed, inked
then finessed
Till hammered and chiseled Romanesque, white as marble
tress
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment