Anyone see Postal? I love that movie. Aside from that Uwe Bol shouldnt be allowed to touch any video game movie.

Is Euthanasia moral? I find this one works very well. If a person is in horrible pain, and will die, is it moral to kill them? If they want you too? if they are unable to answer if they want you to?

Doctors(i am a fan of House): if a patient is sick and refuses a treatment that will save them, is it moral to give them the treatment without their knowledge if they wouldn't find out? Then it is moral to let someone you could save die, if they say dont save them? If u give it to them, it is moral to force your decisions on someone about something that has nothing to do with you.
Is it moral to eat meat? To butcher animals for food? Some say yes some say no. if morality is objective one is wrong.
Romans 14:2-23 ESV
One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind....

No. No, it's not.

Yes. Yes it is. A simple look at the differences of what has been considered "moral" through out history makes it very obvious. Shoot at one time it was moral to burn people at the stake. In Rome morality was completely different than now. People died for entertainment. In the Bible, it was not only moral if u conquered a kingdom to slaughter the women and children, but absolutely required by God. Certain sects of Islam, it is completely moral to kill any infidels. Others it is a terrible sin. and that's in a single religion. This wasn't one or two people being "amoral". It is the entire morality of cultures being fundamentally different.
People i have encountered who push objective morality often are just using their morality as the "true morality". Often this is based on incorrect knowledge(whether being led astray by a smart corrupt individual or just lack of knowledge) of their chosen religion. Funny thing is, no religion i have encountered has maintained a single standard of morality.
If morality is objective, what is moral exactly? I bet you answer with your morals. and anyone who doesn't have your morals, is "amoral" right?

Since in reality, we are still missing the key parts of the quantum world and how it operates, it seems very odd to me to assume we can have good evidence quantum computing wont reach the level we one day hope. I am not saying we will, but the possibility is there(and therefor the research into it should continue). We simply dont know enough to say one way or the other but the research may give us that answer.

And the flying machine comment seems rather appropriate. They didnt have the knowledge of aerodynamics to say it couldn't be done but they did.
One more thing, if u look at it in large enough timescales, it is possible to pigs to eventually fly, with evolution and all.

i have to agree here. HBgary seems black hat to me.
The way i have always understood it: Black hat: exploits security flaws.
                                                                                                              White hat: offers tips on improvement through request
                                                                                                              Grey hat: Offers tips on improvement without any request.
also i dont think walking through the door later is a CYA only, i think there are people who do the hacking then alert who they hack for the simple excitement of it without wanting to cause harm, i dont feel right calling these people black hats.
side note: when u do that tho, u are at the mercy of the company u just confessed to.

no i said thats when it got popular and started flooding the internet.
did u even read?
"4chan is were Anonymous got popular(with the habo raids in 05 or 06) but that doesn't mean it started there" the part after the but makes your comment worthless.
I done with argueing with someone who
A. is probably never been close to being involved and got their info from somewhere like fox news.(or possibly a /b fanboy creeper)
B. Doesn't have the basic reading comprehension of a 5th grader.

U want to think Anon is nothing more than teens looking at porn, u have fun. U will just look like a idiot to people who know.

Wow do u have no reasoning ability?
1.Anon is a movement/idea. It is in no way restricted to 4chan members/users. and u are correct leadership has changed pretty regularly. But when we are talking about the mastercard issues and we discuss Anon, when mean the current functioning body that has been coordinating these attacks, that Anon group has a leadership group.. um buddy... Its like say we caught the rebel leaders....does it mean we caught every rebellions leaders? no it would be stupid to even think that. It means we caught whatever rebellions leaders we are talking about
(context clues)the difference is Anon doesnt use different names, the name we use is the name of our movement. The problem u have is disassociating the Group activities of a Anonymous group(there are many) and the Anonymous movement. The groups have leaders. the movement doesnt. Groups have opinions, goals, motivations. The movement doesn't. Anon could technically fight itself.
2. 4chan is were Anonymous got popular(with the habo raids in 05 or 06) but that doesn't mean it started there or was just there(other raid boards for instance were doing it around the same time as 4chan infact those raids were organized on 7chan, ebaums, and 4chan at the same time and that was the first big one). U read your history and im sryn i only lived it.
3. Anon isnt a defined group, hence all the intelligent people calling it a movement. There isnt a real group identity, thats the point of the movement, we are everyone, every side of every argument. The movement is passive, the groups are not.
4."It used to just be a name for people who looked at porn on 4chan." that is incorrect in every way. and it was never "Just" a name for 4chan people. It was never a name for 4chan people at all. there was never a Anon=4chan for anyone involved. That was how it was sold to the outside because thats where it got the spotlight. Also what better way to soil an image than say it is directly related to the filth on that site.
so i fail to see how i am grasping straws or making straw man argument. Your comment is outright wrong. Not everyone who was on 4chan was a member of anon and not all members of anon were 4chan users this i KNOW. Because i was one of them.(and i mean back in 05 before the meme spread)
some came from ebaum's some from 7chan others from other places.

i think i see the problem here. Some of us are discussing Anon as this Anon group. The one that hit mastercard and the others.
The rest of u are discussing The idea of Anon. U could almost think of it like rebels. If i start a rebellion group and was the one that organized it together but everything was voted on(think sons of anarchy style.) I would still more than likely be called the rebel leader because most of the work was on me.
Now that doesnt mean i am every rebel groups leader.

No the idea of Anon has no leader, no members, no stances. It is a title any group can take on and use, that's why it is so awesome.

Now when we are refering to a story(like the one we are currently posting in) and it says Anon we are refering to this anon and we know that when this one is gone there will be another and another and another, but for the sake of coherence, assume we mean the group currently being discussed and not the millions of other anon initiatives.

"No, really, you're just showing you don't know what you're talking about here. "Anonymous" isn't some "small group of people", and never was. It's a name for posters on 4chan. That's pretty much it. Some of these people do things, sometimes. They use the name "Anonymous" when doing so, sometimes. Sometimes people who don't even post on 4chan use the name. There is no organization, and there is no membership."
Outright wrong, I have been involved with several Anon initiatives that had nothing at all to do with 4chan.(i dislike 4chan personally and dont visit but i am very much part of the anon movement.)

"The name existed long before anyone was actually trying to use it for direct actions. It used to just be a name for people who looked at porn on 4chan. This group of people was not "small". There was no "founder", other than moot and his helpers, and he has absolutely nothing at all to do with what people do under the name "Anonymous" nowadays."
this made me laugh, as if the word anonymous was spawn when 4chan appeared, no buddy it was here before 4chan, the internet, and many other things. go back to creeping /b.
from wikipedia
Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a term used in two senses. As an Internet meme it represents the concept of many on-line community users, or the on-line community itself, acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal. It is also a label adopted by hacktivists who undertake protests and other actions under the notional title "Anonymous," which derives from the same meme. It is generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures(notice how it doesn't restrict to 4chan)
dictionary=anonymous : of unknown name; whose name is withheld
so no it wasnt used to describe 4chaners(infact 98% of the retards on 4chan are nowhere near anon, with their IP easily accessable.)

In EVERY anon event i have been a part of there has always been a small group at the top(which i admittably have never been a part of) the organized and pretty much ran things. Did they have absolute power? NO would the initiatives fall apart without them? yes.

A large number of Anon's involved in this have Never been involved in 4chan's crappy raids and whatnot. Infact a large number dont even visit 4chan. This ANON isnt the same as the one from 4chan.

And Visiting 4chan doesn't make u a ANON. You canhave never visited 4chan or hate everything about it.

while the leadership does change frequently and the members fluctuate there are certainly Key people who organize and send the commands to LoiC in anon. Also remember the Anon of this doesn't equal the anon of /b on 4chan. 2 very seperate entities(4chan's userbase leaning more towards IHM than the Current political endeavors of Anon).

And for you newblet, a few words of wisdom, It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove any doubt. I made that up btw.

even when the class system was in full swing, u had a commoner raise up(very) occasionally. Just because it isnt directly enforced by law doesnt mean we dont have a very defined class system.

i lold when i read this. Stupid people are funny.

It was the confederate army.

No to lay some civil war history on you.

The Confederate states LEGALLY seceded(the constitution allows it).

The South fought a defensive war, there were many more atrocities attributed to the north and their generals(who were the aggressors btw) than the south. So yea.
Many of the Attrocities of the south(such as the starving and exposure at andersonville and other places) were things the southern souldiers had to deal with to but that is rarely mentioned when discussing those subjects. However the north had the same kind of prisons with many of the same issues but theirs where the option of the prison admins, not a lack of supplies.

but the point was that the second amendment was intended to protect people from thier government and quotes of people involved with the writing of said document saying this blantly do prove a point. And shit hasnt changed as much as u think. Governments still lie, steal, and oppress so it is not only as neccissary as in the 1700s but more so and trying to drag this confederates into this is nothing more than misdirection because u have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims where as the "gun nuts" have plenty.

First the parent of yours: RETARD u cant go around shooting people because you disagree. Its counterproductive.
second to u:Wow u clearly have no clue about the second amendment. It was to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and the people having no way to defend themselves. The Creators of the constitution had just dealt with such a government and saw the need of the people to be able to defend themselves against it. In District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. Now a militia is the purpose to protect yourselves from external threat. so if the amendment doesnt deal with a militia(which is any military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense) they cant be refering to only external threats or it would just be for militia's. It actually carried over from england.

I can see where your confusion comes in with the Pennsylvania Constitution's version. "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".

from wikipedia: In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

        * deterring undemocratic government;(please read this one carefully)
        * repelling invasion;
        * suppressing insurrection;
        * facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
        * participating in law enforcement;
        * enabling the people to organize a militia system,

now to toss that more guns=more crime(or gun control will lead to less crime which honestly makes me lol) out the window.
read about KENNESAW, Ga. There is a law stating all legal adults must carry a concealed weapon at all times. Now if the world works how the Anti-gun nuts say there should be murder and chaos in the streets, yet not only did this not happen, Crime has plummeted. Now i have a good idea why the crime dropped. Do you?