Mendel:I was calculating how many of the people whohave had premarital sex are "hypocrites."

You have calculated how many of the people whodisapproveof premarital sex are (or are not) "hypocrites."

Sorry, the quote link has disappeared.

Here is a -though not necessarily the- problem: finding a thing that one has done "morally unacceptable" is not proof of hypocrisy.

People learn and stuff.

Mendel deserves some slack for the scare quotes.

But Larry, if you actually believe that it is inherently hypocritical for a man to occasionally declare than any given thing he has ever done in his life is morally unacceptable... it's about time for you to move out of your parents' basement.

Though Larry does get at an interesting issue in comment #40:

For the 40% who believe that giving birth outside of marriage is morally unacceptable, is the morally acceptable alternative to giving birth (a) shotgun weddings or (b) abortions?

I suspect (but have no proof, this is an intuitive claim) that a relatively significant percentage of those who found no moral fault with out-of-wedlock births were pro-lifers who rationalized it along the following lines:

Better that than an abortion.

Indeed. Using "dishonest" as opposed to "erroneous" can frustrate a useful critique and/or attempts at meaningful dialogue.

Yes. Pope Francis is wrong. The incomes of the poor globally are not "crumbling." Yet I see little-to-no reason to attribute disingenuous motives to the man. Furthermore, I find it entirely reasonable that a relatively learned man would believe such a thing to be true in the context of the last five years.

To that point, on Ricochet, I routinely see erroneous economic/fiscal/political statistics posted by much more knowledgeable members in these fields than myself.

Is that because they are all liars? Or is it possible that some people are attuned to numbers, while others prefer narratives?

Foxfier makes an excellent point: the call for "sexual liberty" routinely results in socialized costs, and is seemingly designed to do so.

Joseph (rightly) rejects the notion that sexual exploits subsidized by third parties constitute "sexual liberty."

Does "sexual liberty" (as Joseph might define it, i.e. handle your own bidness, Lothario) inherently distract from other liberties? I'm not certain it does, though I'm inclined to think so.

Regardless, I do think that expanding one liberty can be used to justify removing/circumscribing another. The Civil War (slavery, property rights, states rights) being an obvious example.

 Seems only fair that the Russkies benefited from the Little Ice Age against the original Napster. (No. Not Seth Green.)

More seriously, and leaving aside the merits of fibril elasticity, I do think Montesquieu has a point. Though I don't think it's a cold vs. warm climate thing, at least not anymore. I think it is (and was) a hardscrabble vs. pampered thing.

Put another way:

Mickey: Because you can't win, Rock! This guy will kill you to death inside of three rounds!

Rocky Balboa: You're crazy.

Mickey: What else is new?

Rocky Balboa: He's just another fighter.

Mickey: No, he ain't just another fighter! This guy is a wrecking machine! And he's hungry! Hell, you ain't been hungry since you won that belt.

Edie Brickell, The Breeders (Cannonball, Schmannonball, that is a great album) Living Colour...

I'm dating myself again, aren't I?

Elton John is to Lynard Skynard as bi-levels are to McMansions.

I like their music... but enough already. I'm pretty sure that I heard a request for Freebird at a stand-up comedy routine.

How many times do I have to say it?

Mr. President, I'm sorry I laughed when you pronounced the "p" and "s" in corpsman.

I didn't care for the speech (or rather, the excerpts I've read in this thread) but... really?

Jay Carney?

Joseph is a staunch advocate for Catholicism, who understandably illumines his arguments in their most favorable light. To my recollection he has never, ever, engaged in press sec talking-point hackery.

No, of course not. Is this really disputable?

The company has no right, for example, to dump some of its oil into my imaginary swimming pool.

Leaving aside ridiculous extremes, while I don't much care for governments dictating to whom companies may sell, I'm not morally opposed to embargoes aimed at hostile powers.

Against.

I'm still dubious that there is an upside to letting citizen NYC residents vote.

 It says the new bulbs are more efficient than incandescents, like "a text message is more efficient than a carrier pigeon."

That's some pretty tough talk from an administration dedicated to powering a $15 Trillion economy with oversized pinwheels and burnt corn.

Stupid families.

Who do they think they are? How dare they impede the know-nothing Utopianism of historically illiterate quipsters?

Hey, Bryan Caplan (he's an economist!) wrote stuff on a blog. Get with the times already.

C'mon Mike, surely you can do better than this.

If your objective is to start a useless fist-fight, then you're off to a fine start and I wish you luck. If you are attempting to make a meaningful argument and develop an actual conversation, then I respectfully suggest that you both flesh it out and tone it down a bit.

Exactly.

When the practical difficulties of implementing new policies in the context of current policies are noted, far too often the response is something like:

Wave your magic wand and get rid of X.

Which is useless.

We're gonna kill welfare?

Fine. How? What will the weaning period be? To whom will it apply? Who runs the bill? How do we get the Senate votes and avoid Barry's veto?

Yeah. This.

My kids (particularly my daughter, who is older) really dig the rents' birthdays.

Last year for mine, she picked the theme and menu. This year she picked out all my gifts (little things, a bottle of horseradish mustard, a hot sopressatta, a block of Wisconsin pepper jack since I'm originally from WI) and noted with glee roughly every half-hour that next year I'll be forty.

I felt more than a little silly as a middle-aged man coming home to Star Wars balloons inside and out, but I expect to remember it as long as I live.

Besides, it's an almost decent excuse to cut out of work an hour or two early.

That is just awesome.

Bobby Flay did a bourbon & root beer float on one of his shows a few years ago. I dig that.

That is true, but the risk in that profession isn't to become a professional liar, is it? There aren't too many lawyers with late term abortion "practices" last time I checked.

Look, there are many excellent doctors, my kid sister is married to one. I just think that if we're going to go casting aspersions at entire professions it's worth remembering that pristine trades are few and far between. Retailing (which is what I do) has enough crooks for any five professions.