This is for all of the people who claim: "Wait, if Q is real, they are letting all of this happen and people are dying as a result!"
-
Let's stay you've got the chance to stop a hijacked semi-truck heading toward a nuclear plant and could save millions of lives. And somehow improve the entire World shortly thereafter.
-
But to do this you need to allow the truck to head on its original path, mowing down thousands of people who would have inevitably passed away anyway.
-
Do you leap out of the truck in advance to drive ahead and save a few hundred people? Knowing that by allowing it to move forward, you will ultimately destroy millions in the near future?
Q is not some miracle that instantly saves us with no casualties. We are in a WAR.
This is not a game.
People die. People get hurt. It can be difficult. But people are waking up. And this is all that matters at the moment. This is why the censorship is so fierce.
They aren't scared of us communicating with each other. They are terrified of us because we can catalyze their biggest weakness. We are capable of initiating critical thinking skills across the globe. Via Q.
The semi-truck can only be stopped if the people it is mowing down are able to wake up and push back to stop it.
Out of context analogies like this can be confusing when debating ethics.
The most common one being the old "tied to the train tracks" problem. Where a loved one is tied to one train track, and a group of five strangers is tied to another. You as an observer have the ability to pull a lever and switch the oncoming train to either track - choosing who lives and dies. Who do you choose what is the moral choice?
The collectivists say "do whatever is best for the majority" and they save the group of five. But what if those 5 people are evil and killing them benefits the world? People proceed to go back and forth for hours in debate.
Logically, however, the choice is amoral. It has no moral implications. The person(s) who are morally accountable are the ones that tied them to the tracks in the first place. They are who we should cast blame upon. However because the analogy has none of this context the debate doesn't lead anywhere.
TL;DR: The DS put the semi truck there in the first place and are therefore morally responsible for the outcome. The choices Q makes is just a matter of expedience.
This entire situation is confusing for 95% of the populous.
5% have a good idea of what's happening at a high level. Informing and helping and waking up 60, 70, 80%+
10-20% will remain asleep until the D5. And 3-4% "lost forever".
Using multiple anecdotes is not a bad thing.
Also, this isn't a debate about ethics IMO. It's an explanation of what MUST happen. Ethics is removed from the equation if there is no choice to be made.