Having years of debate experience, I know there are many different moral theories. Some are rather interesting to discuss. For instance, basic utilitarianism says that whatever action generates the most happiness (where happiness is defined as pleasure minus pain) is the correct one. This is fairly similar to consequentialism, which is the greatest good for the greatest number. There's a fun argument against both of these. A scenario, really:

There's a doctor with three patients. Two of them are in critical condition and both will not live without an organ transplant (of different organs). The third patient is in good health. Both utilitarianism and consequentialism would say that the best action is to kill the healthy patient and use his organs to save the other two. Since two survived and only one died, that's the greatest good for the greatest number. While it's terrible that one person died in the process, it's a great deal more terrible to have two deaths.

I love moral theory. There's never a perfect moral theory, but without morals, society becomes pointless, and anarchy would probably reign supreme.

Unless pitchblack, your heart (in combination with your mind) should be able to tell the right path.

Last I checked, your heart's function was to pump blood, not to know what's right and what's not.

Of course, Steven, the flaw in your argument is that the particular scenario you have would never happen. Organ transplants have a high rate of failure, esp. when you don't bother to check tissue types.

Then again, the point of the two mindsets you're debunking isn't that shallow. Think of the people the doctor could save. If one was a stock broker that never gave anything to society other than moving other peoples' money to and fro, it would be less to society than saving the life of someone that regularly volunteers in disaster reliefs (we speak of worth only in terms of saving people's live in this instance. There are too many dimensions to consider in this).

I digress.

But if adam_0 is right, I can't win this debate. I don't even know what morals are.

Anarchy has nothing to do with having no morals.

The thought of anarchy reigning provides endless amusement to me.

Anarchy is a delusion. There is always structure.
At best, the state of anarchy is vastly temporal and transitional for the passing of the reigns between orginized orders.

I will rehash what I have previously said, granted I have stopped using, mainly due to the fact you get arrested but that does not mean I am going to cease combatting lies.

"You know it is wrong" Why is it wrong? It is clearly wrong to become intoxicated and drive, or to pressure friends into using but why is it wrong to use marijuana?

"You know you do not require it" You know you don't require dessert yet you eat it. You don't require entertaining media such as TV\Video\Computer Games. We do many things for pleasure that aren't particularly good for us.


"You are aware that, in the end, it is more trouble and harm than its worth." That really depends the main reason I would say it's trouble is due to the legal reprecussions. So if you have a solid contact you know won't narq, and you use at home then harm is really a non-issue.

"Why do you consciously abuse yourself?" Tar from cannabis contains more aromatichydrocarbons (carcinogens) than tar from cigarettes, however it is not radioactive unlike tar from cigarettes. Radioactivity is a large contributor to cancer caused by cigarettes. Also cannabis users smoke less overall smoke than cigarrette users. Smoking every day has a small effect on your respritory system about 3% as demonstrated by the film Super High Me. I don't abuse myself, I take care of myself, honestly unless you're in insanely awesome shape, I'm most likely healthier than you. I eat right, I don't drink much, I didn't smoke much, and I get a solid (30-40 minutes) cardio work out 3-4 times a week and I lift weights three to four times a week.

Balls in your court buddy.

Again, serious anarchists are not actually advocating total lack of structure or government.
Geez guys, educate yourselves before you go around hating. Oh wait, that's not gonna happen, this is the Internet.

Those "serious anarchists" are a subjective group and one could as much refer to Catholics and Protestants to define Christianity "objectively" by their perspectives.

I refer to the term simply defined as chaos, the antonym of order.
It cannot exist because humans have a natural tendancy to either usurp power and become leaders or find leaders to follow.
And once you have a leader then you have a hierarchy, a structure. And someone is calling the shots, someone is orginizing; order.

It's the same problem with Utopia. No place. It cannot exist because once you insert a human onto the equasion heaven collapse.

Anarchy from Latin means without Archons, basically its a varation on melee games of Starcraft because Dark Archons and Archons are overpowered and that the Protoss don't need them anyways since they already have carriers and everyone knows that carrier rush is like playing God power in Rock Papers scissors and that the Protoss are like ZOMG overpowered cause their zealots can totally rape zerglings if they get behind them. So Anarchy is actually a Starcraft term like the game would be called Top Vs Bottom BattleGrounds -Anarchy To say that Archons are not allowed in that game. the way people affix -Apem in DotA.

I have a three-word rebuttal to you, Gwanky:

Nuclear Launch Detected.

-- Griffinhart

Photon Cannons are detectors. I also have several observers patrolling my base. I was able to kill your Ghost making you lose your nuke and then it was all like ZOMG Carrier Rush!

Exactly.

Pfft. Like I'd solo my Ghosts in?

-- Griffinhart

Well theres no archon's so I have mad templars and I used Psi storm on your ass.