My Dear Madame,
Love is deadly, one way or another; If not the consummation, the cliff. My motivations in all fruitful conversations are highly questionable, but that does not necessarily reflect upon the purity of my true purpose, the depth of my love, or the vehemency of my affection.
You are undoubtedly acquainted with the frutility of analyzing scenarios in particular. The complexity of variables which are potentiate in a peachy discourse precludes the possibility of an exhaustive examination. Hence, I will attempt to lay out an ethical groundwork which will transcend this ineluctable pitfall.
We start with definitions:
1. Peach Tree: A vascular plant of considerable proportions which is imbued with the taxonomic features pertaining to its kind. (I note parenthetically that this appears to be an "A peachorii truth")
2. Peach: that entity which grows upon a peach tree, which has (enclosed in its fleshy diameter) the innate potential of producing another Peach tree, and which is naturally endowed with a special attraction for Humans.
3. Human: that bipedal being created for the chief purpose of living most excellently.
4. Living most excellently: to spend one's day in reflection upon and refection of the peach.
Right Is: "that every action should be to the advantage of the peach tree." (Note: Accountants need to see a good disambiguation of "Peach tree" to avoid confusion here).
For in this manner:
A) That without an original cause shall remain without an end
B) The peach shall fully serve its two natural purposes
C) And Humans shall live most excellently, which is by definition synonymous with that which is right.
Now: M.R.P. acted unethically in hurling herself off a cliff because she did not full fill her natural purpose in life, thereby hindering my attempts to live most excellently, and thereby acting to the disadvantage of the peach tree.
And now, Madame, I hope this finds you in unimpeachable state.
A Strutting Contradiction
3 weeks ago