How would you know, having only experienced comfortability? You have no frame of reference. You can look to what people in Russia and similar countries do, which is migrate en masse to the West and not the other way around. Clearly the predominant evaluation in the world is to prefer security from physical threats more than any moral risk Western society might pose, probably because the latter is more manageable.
You've missed my point that you're the only one turning this into an either/or-argument. "Moral degeneracy is undesirable in society" is a valid premise. You're the only one hitching it to a binary comparison between the risk the degeneracy poses and other societal ones, which is unnecessary and self-defeating. By pressing people on this, you're forcing them to evaluate between those risks, and the natural conclusion is that the moral risk is the lesser of the two evils because it's not an immediate physical threat and is more manageable. It's not a comparison that needed to be made, because the two risks aren't mutually exclusive, but by the way your argument is structured you've presented them that way.
You've backed yourself into a corner where you're now arguing against people who essentially agree with you and you now have to double down on a black-or-white point that you value moral virtue above all other considerations, which is not only unnecessary and irrelevant to the point at hand, it's also pompous and dishonest and makes you look like a sheltered obsessive by insisting that Dragqueen Story Time being performed in the country is on the same level as living in a crime-ridden shantytown filled with prostitution and vice, or that the only choice is between the two. It's a stupid point based on bad logic.
I don't seem to think that at all nor can it be reasonably inferred from anything I've said. This is a weak cope because someone called you out on the fact that you're parroting something you didn't come up with yourself or really understand, so now you're pretending that person's making someone else's arguments that you do feel comfortable tackling.
I hate to steal
@quasi101's bit but you're a prime example of how the Internet can rot people's brains. I've explicitly laid out that I agree with the premise that degeneracy is bad, but that the argumentation you're using here is inherently flawed and actually harms the point you're trying to make and we both value. It's a criticism of the procedure rather than the content. Instead of even acknowledging that that's my position, you move on attacking strawmen to keep a tirade going against arguments that are not being made. I pointed out that you're arguing with phantoms and your response is to argue with a couple more.