St Thomas More has a great argument about "silence betokens consent" with his repulsive accusers in "A man for all seasons". At most meetings and conferences, secular and religious, which I have attended silence does mean consent. If you had any strong coherent objections, you should have spoken up. Unfortunately, the scrupulous debater …
St Thomas More has a great argument about "silence betokens consent" with his repulsive accusers in "A man for all seasons". At most meetings and conferences, secular and religious, which I have attended silence does mean consent. If you had any strong coherent objections, you should have spoken up. Unfortunately, the scrupulous debater usually needs time to think out a good response and assemble evidence. The unscrupulous are happy with emotion and bluster.
It's very hard to counter a well-put bad idea coming from a good orator. It's not at all fair to say "if you can't express an objection eloquently, logically, calmly, orally, without consultation with others, and without reading from notes, within the next two hours, you've bought in ". I don't care how universal that practice is, it's manipulative.
At my workplace, when someone wants to ensure people buy in, he names each person and requires him to state an opinion explicitly, and if that opinion is negative he is not allowed to respond or object except to ask legitimately clarifying questions. That doesn't mean we require unanimity on everything but it does give everyone a legitimate opportunity to be heard. Sometimes, and these are my favorite, everyone is required to voice an objection or suggestion for improvement. I would almost go as far as to say that if you haven't done that, you don't have any reason to claim group consensus.
But, I did speak up at that meeting. I’m the one asking the question about the process that should have been made clear at the beginning……viz. “You students in formation (in simple vows taken annually) whom we the senior community (in professed vows) votes on you every May on whether you continue with us or not, you students please go ahead and speak up.” BTW, I left them before taking Solemn Vows.
St Thomas More has a great argument about "silence betokens consent" with his repulsive accusers in "A man for all seasons". At most meetings and conferences, secular and religious, which I have attended silence does mean consent. If you had any strong coherent objections, you should have spoken up. Unfortunately, the scrupulous debater usually needs time to think out a good response and assemble evidence. The unscrupulous are happy with emotion and bluster.
It's very hard to counter a well-put bad idea coming from a good orator. It's not at all fair to say "if you can't express an objection eloquently, logically, calmly, orally, without consultation with others, and without reading from notes, within the next two hours, you've bought in ". I don't care how universal that practice is, it's manipulative.
At my workplace, when someone wants to ensure people buy in, he names each person and requires him to state an opinion explicitly, and if that opinion is negative he is not allowed to respond or object except to ask legitimately clarifying questions. That doesn't mean we require unanimity on everything but it does give everyone a legitimate opportunity to be heard. Sometimes, and these are my favorite, everyone is required to voice an objection or suggestion for improvement. I would almost go as far as to say that if you haven't done that, you don't have any reason to claim group consensus.
But, I did speak up at that meeting. I’m the one asking the question about the process that should have been made clear at the beginning……viz. “You students in formation (in simple vows taken annually) whom we the senior community (in professed vows) votes on you every May on whether you continue with us or not, you students please go ahead and speak up.” BTW, I left them before taking Solemn Vows.