Louis Cypher/Louisa Ferra/Lucifer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
firstofthefallen) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
animus_network2012-08-19 05:55 pm
firstofthefallen) wrote in animus_network2012-08-19 05:55 pm
2nd Candelabram - Text
A question.
Let us humor our captors and say that they are telling us the truth that our worlds are destroyed. Let us then assume we have only two places we can be: we might stay here, in this Tower for however long that may last or we might attempt to break out.
The Tower, while a cage, offers a sense of security. There are constant meals and general protection from what lies outside it's walls. We are, however, at the beck and call of the people who run the Tower and their whims. Yet with them you could say it's the devil you know, and know that their torment and cruelty would be as consistent as the stability they offer.
So assume a means of leaving this is found and we might venture out, and that what is outside is in fact inhabitable. But what we venture out into is a vast unknown and the only information we do have is that creatures like the ones who invaded here - and many more of them - roam the outside world. It would be a harsh, dangerous world. But also one with possibilities that could not be explored here. With freedom not to be found between these walls.
So given the choice if the chance of going home is out of the question, what do you choose: stability or freedom?
Let us humor our captors and say that they are telling us the truth that our worlds are destroyed. Let us then assume we have only two places we can be: we might stay here, in this Tower for however long that may last or we might attempt to break out.
The Tower, while a cage, offers a sense of security. There are constant meals and general protection from what lies outside it's walls. We are, however, at the beck and call of the people who run the Tower and their whims. Yet with them you could say it's the devil you know, and know that their torment and cruelty would be as consistent as the stability they offer.
So assume a means of leaving this is found and we might venture out, and that what is outside is in fact inhabitable. But what we venture out into is a vast unknown and the only information we do have is that creatures like the ones who invaded here - and many more of them - roam the outside world. It would be a harsh, dangerous world. But also one with possibilities that could not be explored here. With freedom not to be found between these walls.
So given the choice if the chance of going home is out of the question, what do you choose: stability or freedom?
[Text]
And then you say, freedom can only come from the rejection of what one already has? If they reject the lies and hopes they are given? Do you even realize your words? Look around you in this tower and see for yourself. Reality is nothing like the chimera you are describing to me. Certainly a few fairy tales of old feature humans such as you describe them. Reality? I have yet to see it. Anyone in this tower has to seen.
Albeit I have to say, this tower at least served us to demonstrate that no human is unique. They are, unlike what you claim, very similar to ant. Even if one man happens to become exemplar and bring purpose, this man may exist in countless exemplary beyond the dimension. Not to mention, the simple fact that the specie needs defintion and purpose makes it a moot point.
I will not discuss your claim that you gained freedom and have seen them cast down their gods. those are your claims, your life, and as long as you do not bring me the shred of a proof, I will not believe you more than I believe those in charge.
And to end this- Allow me to give you an advise, for future times you shall debate. I am sure it will come in handy then. You should focus solely on your opponent's argument, and not on your opponent's person. In politics this is something I would advise, and even encourage you to do. In such a situation, the purpose of the debate is not the truth, the purpose of the debate is to make a greater image for yourself and destroy that of your opponent.
Alas, this is not such a situation and when you send a remark on my way, instead of destroying my image of confidence, it simply displays that that truth is not on your side. You do not want your opponent to think you cannot win a debate simply out of intelligence. Furthermore, assumptions as larges as you make them, based on a few textual replies, make an even bigger fool of yourself. And this is not what you want to happen in a debate.
[Text]
And you drown in it without even knowing it.
[Text]
Unless I am not the one drowning, in which case I hope you'll use it well.