ofd

That's the scholastic definition, which cant be found in the Bible.

He has the oil part pinned down, the Chinese part not so much.

This is one explanation. The other one is that you are confused and that your method of delivering your message is poor.

Indeed, I read the book too. But as far as I am aware doesn't claim that the higher meaning has to be supernatural.

Let me take you to a trip to a children's cancer station.

Historically, situations of anarchy lead to feudal systems. These may be permanent or be overthrown for other political systems.

- The Korean War - The relocation of big industrisal companies from Eastern Germany / Prussia to Western Germany - Unions and big companies working together - The industrial capacity itself wasn't as effected as the residential destricts - The US industry had a major advantage when it came to productivity. The rapid growth is largely the catching up process to American standards.

The same as for most other biological phenomena: passing your genes on to the next generation. The mental representation of the world and our understanding of it has to be good enough to achieve that. Anything more than that is an icing on the cake, to be frank.

Only if the money created reaches consumers. If it doesn't, printing money can have deflationary effects, if it is used to support zombie banks that would implode if not for the additional money.

Ask Midwestern people about that That'a big if. Furthermore, drug gangs don't care that much about employments or sponsorship.

To put this in other words: why didnt't the massive 'money printing' in Japan during the lost decade lead to a hyperinflation? Why did it have deflationary aspects?

How does that follow? The average IQ of Somalis is about 68, close to retardation. Why is it rational to check a group of 100 people, only to find out that 2 or 3 can function in a modern western society?

How is that related to tresspassing?

There are two kinds of investments you can make with money: a) in tangible products or b) in speculation. Every bubble that burst was because some bubble burst, be it in the stock market, housing, tulips or god knows what else. Speculation starts with hedge finance, becomes speculative and turns into a Ponzi. By then, the system has become so unstable that essentially any small negative change may let it implode.

They tresspassed public land without the consent of the government.

Tresspassing is both illegal and immoral. Nope. There are four sorts of actions: illegal moral, illegal immoral, legal moral, and legal immoral. No need to worry.

What is the argument?

Tit for tat with the benefit of doubt is considered to be the best game theoretical strategy.

What else was different 50 years ago?

Illegal immigration is an immoral action in itself. Realistically, there are four options: a) A heterogeneous society with an heterogeneous ideology (Brazil, current state of the US) b) A heterogeneous society with an homogeneous ideology (the civ nat conception) c) A homogeneous society with an heterogeneous ideology (the West before immigration) d) A homogeneous society with an homogeneous ideology (the Nazbol ideology) a) is what we have right now. Doesn't work, can be discarded. d) requires massive amounts of state force and causes untold number of deaths The real question is if b) or c) are to preferred and which is easier to achieve. At a first glance, b) seems to be real attractive. You have a mix of people, united under a common narrative (American Dream). However, if you take biology into account, you will notice that this can't work, unless you use force to make sure everyone follows the ideology and the people that live in your country are able to understand abstract principles and that they are willing to adher to them. Given the United States' large number of African Americans and Hispanics this is nearly impossible. This leaves c) as the only viable option for the West.

The first modern Western Conception of Natural Law was formulated by Hugo Grotius.

Drive them to a barrio and ask them if the whole country should look like that.

Y'all should read some Jonathan Haidt. He shows that moral judgments come intellectual argumens for the judgment are post hoc rationalisations.

Another year, another sponsored colored Revolution, after the one in '08 failed. A short glimpse at Iran's interactions with the West should tell you that the West should keep the fuck out. Iranians haven't forgotten that the West supported Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War against the Iran which lead to hundreds of Thousands of deaths on the Iranian side.

You can reformulate it to match real life events. It is moral to export food when the country you live in suffers from a bad famine? Is it moral to make booze out of wheat when there is famine going on?