goingon_consequences.md 1.9 KB
They go on about their days as though there's no material difference to what they've done - and what could be more apt? As surely, none of them will be able to know just what a difference it made for themselves. It could have been a placebo, for all they are concerned, and they would have still participated. They spent as little time as they needed to, as all do, and made their decision. The whole world supported them, and they couldn't be happier than they are to believe that their world is being delivered back to them, with no strings attached, except for those who dare to cause trouble.
Why not play along with the rest of us? After all, it's for the common good! Who would be against the common good? Surely there is no good reason to deny the common good, no excusable reason, except, perhaps, if you were to come forward and admit that you have lost your strength of mind, and no longer trust your own thoughts. If you admit as such, you will be forgiven, but of course, the weight of your words will diminish and have no hope of raising even the mildst of enquiring eyebrows!
No you, again, are to be relegated to a silenced, muted, half-peasant.
There is no dialogue but what has been presented for you. No thought, except, that which ha been thought for you. The world is too complex to understand, but not because of your participation, but precisely because you don't participate. You see, it is by your very silence that the world is made better! Everything would be perfect, but for your existance.
Can that realy be? Does anyone truly feel that way? Well, the best test, the highest standard we can devise to ask all the questions of whether things rae better wtihout someone's intervening, would be to see if those would also agree that the world would be better if they themelves did not exist:
- You can find those who agree, yet here hey are. So what of standards?