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!
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.
I am not sure how to quote a post as you do, (perhaps it is not possible on a cell phone?) so please forgive me for not responding to you in like manner.
There is an objective moral standard. It is not knowable with logic or observation as you point out which is why divine revelation is so important.
Whose mortality is the Creator's. There is no other morality.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence. That document was to declare the intent of a people to determine their own destiny, it does not provide a standard for doing so.
I stand by my statement that using logic as a means of determining right and wrong will devolve into meaningless semantics long before anything strong enough to build a society around will emerge.
Do you honestly believe that your rights and another's rights will never be in genuine conflict without one of you infringing on the other? That happens so frequently the mind boggles. Honest question: would you consider taxation to be evil given your standard?
I agree with your point on sensibilities and they are mutable. Truth is not. Good and evil are not.
I think the disgust I feel for the parent in my original example is quite natural. I am not sure how it would have been constructed.
I was just giving an example of the struggle to allow for individual rights while maintaining a functional society. The tug-of-war documented there is very enlightening as to the complexity of the problem.
I already have provided one in my original post. The argument in their lawsuit is identical to the one you are making. If we are both consenting adults and we are not hurting anyone than what we are doing is just fine. And I say no, sir. NO.