From a National Geographic article on the Mayotte Mystery Wave:
"researchers around the world attempted to suss out the source of the waves. Was it a meteor strike? A submarine volcano eruption? An ancient sea monster rising from the deep?"
“I don't think I've seen anything like it,” says Göran Ekström, a seismologist at Columbia University who specializes in unusual earthquakes.
"many features of the waves are remarkably weird—from their surprisingly monotone, low-frequency “ring” to their global spread. And researchers are still chasing down the geologic conundrum."
"Adding to the weirdness, Mayotte's mystery waves are what scientists call monochromatic. Most earthquakes send out waves with a slew of different frequencies, but Mayotte's signal was a clean zigzag dominated by one type of wave that took a steady 17 seconds to repeat."
Mar 6th 2018, Q mentions a 'parade that will never be forgotten': #856
11-11-18
A parade that will never be forgotten.
Ask yourself, why?
God bless our brave men & women in uniform.
We will never forget.
Q
Q again in #1234:
AMERICA WILL BE UNIFIED AGAIN!
11.11.18.
Q
After 11/11/18 an anon politely asks Q about it and why nothing seemed to happen.
WHAT HAPPENED TO 11/11/18 UNIFIED AMERICA DAY YOU DISGUSTING LIAR FRAUD???
ANSWER FREDDY YOU FUCKING FAGGOT
Dec 2nd, #2527 Q's answer:
Think WAVES.
WW?
Define 'unified'
[17]
SAT knockout forced new CLAS tech [online] by who?
[Controlled] moment activated? [17]
Do you believe in coincidences?
Do you believe your efforts here persuade people to stop the pursuit of TRUTH [CA_J]?
There is a place for everyone.
Q
On 11/11/18 Q team took control of, or brought online, some kind of classified deep earth technology. The 17 second ringing intervals was a message to anons that patriots are in control. Enjoy the show!
I'm not talking about excusing behavior, I'm talking about assuming you or I or any person has the right to make all encompassing moral judgements.
We have the obligation to take care of society, but we have no right to determine a persons goodness or evilness of soul. We can choose for ourselves what we BELIEVE about their condition of good or evil, but we have no right to do so in some complete, or definitive way. God reserves that right alone.
As for the awful things that are being taught to our children, we fight that with argument, not by calling it evil or attempting to censor it. Freedom of speech is essential to prevent evil from ever taking hold. We determine what is best for our society through listening to each others ideas and providing logical counterpoints. That is the only possible path towards a better society.
Logic is a poor tool to determine right and wrong. Case in point, the NY Court case where a parent is suing for the right to marry their biological child. Their argument is that they cannot procreate (the assumption being that the parent and child are the same sex), they are in love and both are consenting adults. Given that I assume you find this as reprehensible as I do, what would be your logical case for preventing it?
Reasonable discourse is the only tool we can or should use to determine what is "right or wrong" aka the best course for our society. Any other course of action is a removal of the inalienable rights of all people (censorship, forced action, etc.).
That's a good question. I'm not sure I can come up with a good answer. That doesn't mean someone else can't. But in truth, if no one can come up with a good response, do we really have the right to prevent people from living their own lives?
There are many actions that others do that I find less than tasteful. But I have no right to make that judgement for someone else. As long as an individuals actions do not infringe on the rights of others, they must be free to make their own decisions. Any other action leads to exactly what our overlords have planned for us.
Inalienable rights are the rights that the constitution protects for a very good reason. Any action that does not infringe upon the inalienable rights of another must be protected, even if the majority disagree with those choices.
First, forgive me for the delay in responding. I am at work.
Reasonable discourse is a fine thing. But it must be undergirded by an unassailable objective moral standard or the important conversations about the direction of our society will devolve into semantics.
Inalienable rights are also a fine thing. Necessary for a moral society to function in my view. But they too are subject to semantic arguments such as who receives them. Does an unborn child? Does a mental patient? Do animals? Etc.
Your question of do we have the right to infringe on the rights of another my answer is yes, of course we do. Part of living in a society is the requirement for us to surrender to certain limitations on our rights. The balancing act between the rights of different people is a difficult one and 'Inalienable Rights' as an absolute standard of right and wrong is insufficient. For examples of this see the last few hundred years of American jurisprudence.
Lastly, allow me to simply say that 'as long as it's not hurting anyone else' as a moral standard only ever ends in one place: at the bottom of the slippery slope.
There is no such thing as an "objective" moral standard. There can be a consensus moral standard, but that can exist for any moral standard. Objective means something outside of all human standards, which is then something that for a human is unknowable.
This is always the fear and cry of those that wish to avoid the difficult topics. It never plays out that way in actual debate, at least not for long.
Whose morality? Objective? I don't think that exists within the human purview. Consensus? That could literally be anything.
The constitution allows for ANY pursuit if life, liberty and happiness that does not infringe upon the rights of others. Why would you suggest we go against that standard?
That is not semantics...
That is boundaries. That would be subject to debate and is potentially mutable as science or reasoning bring new information to light.
Wrong. The only right we must give up to exist within a society is the right to infringe on another's rights. It is trivial to forgo prejudice and allow all pursuance by others as long as they are not infringing upon another's rights. (Trivial for a non-prejudiced society, i.e. not racist, bigoted, etc.).
I insist it is as straight forward as a thing can possibly be. Are you interfering with another's pursuits in some direct manner? If not, then proceed.
The problems come in when we begin to worry about sensibilities. Is an act offensive to someone else. That is up to every individual. There can be no consensus there. Therefore sensibilities must be given up in a society that does not infringe on others rights.
Sensibilities are an ever changing contrivance designed to keep us offended, and thus looking at each other. I don't think they are natural, but a construct of the Luciferians. It is a part of controlled opposition.
I consider this to be a horrible argument for anything at all, good or bad. I consider it to be a travesty of nature and society (even if it is better than anything that has gone on before in the primary cultures of the world).
Provide a single example to justify this statement.