Why take the bad with the good, rather than just avoid the bad? Of course there's a logical and obvious answer to this, as nothing's perfect and there has to come some downs with all the ups... but how do you know or decide when the potential downs just aren't worth the ups?
Why bother debating, if just doing so causes rifts and doubts in what's already established? Does it matter who's right, when one is subjugated even before the discussion begins? Does avoiding the discussion or possibilities serve to reinforce the acceptance of subjugation, since opening up the possibilities seems to destabilize it and call everything into question?
If there's no win and everyone's going to lose something, wouldn't it be better just to not show up for the game and, instead, go occupy yourself with something else? Hell, there's always more housekeeping that needs to be done.
13 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment