Your argument makes no sense.  Is the NO perfect?  
Can the Church give us an imperfect liturgy?
If it is perfect, why do I not have to attend/accept it?
If it’s imperfect, does one not have a MORAL DUTY to attend one that is perfect (ie True Mass)?
If they don’t have a duty to attend the most perfect mass, why not?
If the laity are educated on why the NO is imperfect, THEN do they have a duty to leave it?
Or are the laity allowed to childishly hide behind the “I didn’t do it” excuse forever?
Why does it matter who created the NO, when the effects (ie Protestant theology) are wrong?
Do the effects not matter?  

No liturgy is absolutely perfect, as it has changed and developed over the years prior to VII
We attend the liturgy because it is the crucifixion of Christ in an unbloody manner, which gives praise to God and spiritual food to man.
The Church vouches for the efficacy of the Mass, as it does not stand alone without Her. 
Everyone has the duty to attend a good Mass, not profaned by novelties, yet culpability can be low for those unknowing (at first)
Those who are educated should seek the best Mass possible because they are judged on their knowing.  
The laity are not allowed to childishly hide behind anything, but to come to a more perfect union with God.  
It matters who created the NO because if the Church provided a Mass for the ignorant like the king in scripture who called in the dregs of society because His own wouldn't come, who are we to deny Him that?
The effects do matter.  I attended the NO for years, raised a huge family, who also raised Catholic kids and all love Mary, Jesus in the Eucharist, etc.  Not to say we didn't benefit far greater from the TLM but the grace needed for that wasn't provided early on.  Or, we didn't respond to the grace.  I consider the NO a low income housing for the very poor (in spirit), designed to keep them fed until they get on their feet.  <----It seems.  I admit, I'm only guessing, but I can't see that the Church failed so miserably, but that in being generous to men, God permitted them to do only what was technically possible within the Church.  True, they took it further than permitted to the loss of Faith of many, promoting all manner of novelties.  Perhaps the difference between the two liturgies opened the eyes of many who might otherwise not bothered to know more.  I don't know.  I just can't blame the Church.   

I say athesists should pay double.  
The thing is that businesses should not have to cave in to pseudo atheists. 

Just more proof that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Will the Society be begging back in Rome next week? While +Fellay was the face of “we love Rome” Schmidberger was in the background advancing the cause. Plus +Galarreta was the first to jump back to +Fellay after the three bishops letter to +Fellay, and Bouchacourt is just a judaizied liberal. Pagliarani is just the “conservative” face so that it all looks well and good. The Society has truly played it hand, it’s clearly written on the wall and adding +Fellay and Fr Schmidberger to the “Argentine trio” shows CLEARLY and EXACTLY what we all knew the purpose of this Chapter was. Well played, Menzingen, now you’re all set, cap in hand to ask Francis to oh please, recognize us, we are all Catholics after all!

If the SSPX was trying to portray Pagliarani as a "conservative face," it was a failed attempt from the beginning:

His 2012 intervention at the General Chapter, as well as his past statements regarding an openness to a practical accord with unconverted Rome, made that impossible, except for those who wanted to be lied to about his advent representing a possible change of direction (meaning, those who only wanted to notice Bishop Fellay was gone, but not consider the qualities of the man who replaced him).

The SSPX did not create and assign two new counselors, just so Pagliarani could ignore them (but as they are on the same page anyway, there is little risk of that).

Now we only await the General Chapter Declaration for the whole mosaic to become a coherent picture.