Moral Licentiousness

1) Moral licentiousness and decay weakens a society
2) The left champions moral licentiousness and decay
3) Therefore, the left champions policies that weaken society

If you want to deny the conclusion you must deny one or more of the premises. Which premise(s) do you wish to deny?

I deny both premises. As to #1, and speaking as a father of two teenagers, I think exposure to moral licentiousness and decay are not unmitigatedly bad as it exposes them to the real world and thus innoculates them for the real world. Of course, exposure to such is not the same as consent to such. I take a quasi-Nietschean, social-Darwinian view that a world without evil is a world without struggle and a world without the potential for good.

As to #2, I see that as neither a premise or a fact. To the contrary, who do you suppose it is that owns and manages the vast and effectives engines of moral corruption but rightist business people, most of whom are conservative Christians? Why? Because it is in their financial self-interest to do so. Fox is a stirling example. O'Reilly, who I admire for his tough-minded (albeit wrong-minded) independence of thought (in contrast to Beck who is a lunatic and Hannity whom is a GOP apparatchik) nevertheless almost always has a needlessly salacious segment on his show. But drill down a bit more. Who do you suppose are the people who are having abortions, the people who are getting divorced, the mobsters, the pediophiles, the murderers? They are not just generally Christians but conservative Christians, and repeated statistical studies support this. The denial of this ("No true conservative Christians are morally depraved") is of course the No True Scottsman fallacy, which takes this form:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The problem with this argument is that it derives an unproved predicate ("puts sugar on porridge") from the subject ("Scotsman"). The move is from a synthetic-contingent proposition (one that can be falsified by facts) to an analytic-necessary assertion (one that is true by definition but has no relationship to the facts). Now, sometimes the argument is valid as when the predicate derives from the subject, as in "no true vegetarians eat beef".

Okay, so you deny both (1) and (2). Then at least we are clear on where we disagree.

As for the rest, you've simply slipped back into your confusion of description about what people do with what is really at issue here--what people OUGHT to do (or not do, as the case may be). Ethics is a prescriptive enterprise, not descriptive. I'm a moral philosopher, not a sociologist. You're never going to get at how people ought to behave by cataloguing how they do behave.

No. I'm using facts and logic to buttress what all people ought to do, with such implicit rules as:

1. Thou shalt not bare false witness against liberals or consderatives, democrats or republicans.
2. Thou shalt strive for truth in all things though the heavens fall.
3. Think and feel what thou wilt, but above all act and do ethically in all things.
4. Thou shalt embrace reason and live.
5. Tell the truth without fear or favor and let the chips fall where they may.
6. Thinking is hard work, but it is the hard work we must do.

There may be a few others, but the moral rules are mainifestly there.