Whilst not the oldest of people [and certainly not the youngest], I sometimes make references to things well beyond the ken of people outwith my era [like Bits [a TV programme google it], etcetera], and the WhiteHat v BlackHat debate always reminds me of Spy v Spy.
What I have to say here is different: there is a lot of muck slung at 'so called' Black-Hat SEOs, and for what?
Buying Links - Well what is advertising then?
Cloaking - Who actually does that?
Getting Opponents Delisted - hhrrrmmmm, well this might happen, and google seems to be making it easier.
The fact is that in my knowledge, the BlackHats are about the most honest in what they do, they come to an agreement with webmasters over a link and it is done. On the other hand we WhiteHats look everywhere for the sneakiest of links, exploiting every loophole of the rules when it comes to links, we pretend to be concerned citizens to get our sites into government & university websites. We have social bookmarking accounts that are beyond the realm of the honest people who want to keep track of their favourite websites. We write blogs which are purportedly about an issue, but are just exercises in linkbuilding.
I ask you which is the most honest, the onsite side of SEO is the both for both sides. SEO has to try to look natural, but the simple fact is that it is all bending the rules that somebody else came up with, and if you have to make something 'look natural' then it clearly is not, and if clients made really good websites with good content that people wanted to link to then it would be natural, and need very little SEO [White, Black, Grey or No Hat]
LinkMünki has Spoketh