Is silence a "form" of consent?

NewLIFEstyle4ME

I was taught by my parents, when I was growing up that "silence is a form of consent". When they taught me this, it was ALWAYS in regard to some serious matter. I was thinking about that today and was really wondering what you all think about that...IS "silence is a form of consent?

AND

If silence truly IS a form of consent...what are "we" (you and me) consenting to, by being silent during serious matters?

If not (if silence is NOT a form of consent...why not?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

amtyrell

No. Consent means someone actively and with awareness agreed.
If you are taking silence as consent you are assaulting or taking advantage and should be ashamed of yourself.

TarryTaffyTwo

Can you elaborate or give a specific example? Your q is vague & a reply would depend on circumstances.

It's like asking a fave color. My reply would be, for what? A pair of shoes, a dress, paint for a wall, a car... all different answers.

Thx.

ythannah

Silence is not consent. Silence is silence, period.

I've never hear that expression. I'm guessing whoever coined it wanted to make the assumption that a lack of response (or lack of protest) meant agreement.

At a vote you have those in favour, those opposed and possibly abstainers. Abstention is not a vote one way or the other, it is a lack of vote. Same with silence.

TarryTaffyTwo

ythannah wrote: »

Silence is not consent. Silence is silence, period.

I've never hear that expression. I'm guessing whoever coined it wanted to make the assumption that a lack of response (or lack of protest) meant agreement.

At a vote you have those in favour, those opposed and possibly abstainers. Abstention is not a vote one way or the other, it is a lack of vote. Same with silence.

Nicely said. I agree... still wondering which subject the OP in mind?

cowsfan12

Usually at the end of conference calls you will hear the phrase “silence is golden” basically saying if you don’t speak up you agreee and in essence consent to what was just proposed - at least in corporate America - The op didn’t elaborate on what they were referring to, so there Are various context In which this can be applied. -it’s not black and white as some disagree’ers May think - if you gone disagree at least offer a counter point yo - this would be a classic example where silence is not golden. - state your case or don’t disagree just my 2 cents but - what do I know ?? 🤷‍♂️ -

TwitchyMacGee

I see the difficulty here.

No, in the case of a passed out drunk girl, her silence is not consent. Eta: but if you’re a bystander not intervening on her behalf, guess what. You consented to her assault

if you allow abuses to happen to other people you share culpability.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

A lot of people want black & white. Soundbites. Life is more complicated than that.

mattig89ch

TwitchyMacGee wrote: »

I see the difficulty here.

No, in the case of a passed out drunk girl, her silence is not consent. Eta: but if you’re a bystander not intervening on her behalf, guess what. You consented to her assault

if you allow abuses to happen to other people you share culpability.

^This is what I've always understood that phrase to mean. If you simply stay silent while something you know is wrong happens, you allowed it to happen.

I've mostly heard it in the form of government over reach. Not contacting your law makers to support/oppose a law for example.

iMago

you find out your boss is embezzling.
your boss's boss is also part of it.

you have a family. you can't lose the job. especially right now.

so you say nothing. you don't report it for fear of losing your job and/or the business being shut down

does that mean you're just as culpable as them in the end?

TwitchyMacGee

iMago wrote: »

you find out your boss is embezzling.
your boss's boss is also part of it.

you have a family. you can't lose the job. especially right now.

so you say nothing. you don't report it for fear of losing your job and/or the business being shut down

does that mean you're just as culpable as them in the end?

Yeah see? Not black & white.

amorfati601070

No

Motorsheen

iMago wrote: »

you find out your boss is embezzling.
your boss's boss is also part of it.

you have a family. you can't lose the job. especially right now.

so you say nothing. you don't report it for fear of losing your job and/or the business being shut down

does that mean you're just as culpable as them in the end?

I think you're asking the wrong question.

If your boss is embezzling and you, alone, are aware of it.

The better question is: How much can I extort from the boss to keep quiet ??

It's also smart to develop a strategy of plausible deniability and position yourself to take over the the role of 'boss' once he is found out and indicted.


Obviously, I'm clowning.



.... I would never want to be 'the boss', there's too much responsibility.

GettinLean19

I’ve dealt with a form of this, specifically the question: are you responsible for what your friends do and should you hold them publicly accountable for those actions? Is there a responsibility to end a friendship because of an unpleasant altercation they have with someone else? My answer is and always has been a resounding no. People are responsible for their own actions. I will never feel that I have the responsibility or even the right to make people do what I think is the ‘right’ thing. I will definitely disagree with my friends at some point. That doesn’t make them less worthy to be my friend; hell, I don’t even want to be surrounded only by people who agree with me and/or do what I want.

I have had acquaintances in the past that have taken issue with my desire to be Switzerland during an altercation, and unsurprisingly they have ultimately chosen to sever contact with me over it. Ehh. You can’t please everyone. I am always surprised at how controlling people try to be in those situations, but my feeling will always be to live and let live.

Does that mean that if I find out my friend has committed a crime that I automatically wouldn’t report it because it’s ‘not my business’? No. Would I struggle with the moral dilemma? Probably, although it depends on the crime I suppose. But I won’t tolerate people trying to emotionally blackmail me into handling something the way they want me to. If you don’t trust my judgment, you likely never knew me well in the first place anyway.

XxFunctionalStrengthxX

amtyrell wrote: »

No. Consent means someone actively and with awareness agreed.

Not exactly true. There are multiple types of consent.

Expressed consent is them actively giving consent
Informed consent is given once the person has been informed and aware of all possible outcomes
Implied consent is usually done in a situation where a reasonable person, in sound state of mind, would give consent.
Substituted is consent given for another from someone such as a parent, legal guardian, caregiver, power of attorney, etc.

Implied consent is most often done under medical situations. Such as if you find someone unconscious needing medical attention such as CPR, attending to life threatening injuries, etc. However, this also extends to where if someone is conscious and has impaired judgement from drugs/alcohol, lack of oxygen, or mental health issues, implied consent is given. Though, usually in impaired judgement cases, if a person needs to be transported, it's usually called in for approval from medical director or legal hold.

As a first responder, it was imperative that we had some type of consent to treat or assist someone. If consent was not given, we would request them to sign a "no treatment" or non-consensual document stating they refused treatment or assistance. If they denied that, we had to make sure that we noted the time, date, and by whom consent was denied for legal reasons.

If you are taking silence as consent you are assaulting or taking advantage and should be ashamed of yourself.

If someone is seeing an assault occurring and doesn't take some kind of action (attempting to stop it, call police, etc), then they would generally be seen as allowing it to happen. However, even in this case it can vary. If the person witnessing it cannot call for help, and attempting to stop it would put them at great risk of it happening to them, then their silence is not consent. However, they should either seek help as soon as possible and attempt to provide aid to the victim once the scene is safe.

cowsfan12

Nice dialog folks - nothing is black and white. There are a slew of different ways this can viewed as you’ve all pointed out. There is no blanket right or wrong answer here

that_night_in_paris

I learned about this once in my humanities class

Basically if you don't stand up and fight for human rights on behalf of those who are being oppressed, then you my friend are complicit

And therefore you must be banned from having ice cream